# Best Nikon Lens for shooting Families with small children???



## mzeutenh (Nov 13, 2011)

Can anyone tell me what the best Nikon lens would be for shooting a small family (two parents and two kids ages 4 and 6 months) I'd like something that is good with shooting a kid who moves around a TON ( the four year old) and also something that is good for family portraits and some close up individual shots of kids. Also something that will be good with indoor lighting. 

Price doesn't matter much because I'll be renting it. 

1) family shots
2) kids, one who moves constantly
3) indoor shots

Any suggestions??


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 13, 2011)

I like the 24-70 F2.8


----------



## rpm (Nov 14, 2011)

whats the body? DX or FX? if you got DX consider the 17-55mm 2.8


----------



## mzeutenh (Nov 14, 2011)

The body is a Nikon D90


----------



## ph0enix (Nov 14, 2011)

mzeutenh said:


> The body is a Nikon D90



I'm in love with this lens as far as portraits go:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens | Nikon Wide-Angle Lenses

..and it's very inexpensive.  I use it on a D90 even though it's FX format.


----------



## mrpink (Nov 14, 2011)

17-55 2.8 and a SB-600 (or above) should get the job done nicely.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 14, 2011)

It depends on your style. For a prime the 35mm seems to be well loved. The 17-50 f/2.8 range is nice, but you can tend to get into lens distortion trouble on the wide end of it. I'd prefer the 24-70 f/2.8. Both with a good speedlight.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 14, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> It depends on your style. For a prime the 35mm seems to be well loved. The 17-50 f/2.8 range is nice, but you can tend to get into lens distortion trouble on the wide end of it. *I'd prefer the 24-70 f/2.8. Both with a good speedlight*.



+1, and even on my DX body I found i used the 50-70 end much more than the 24 end.


----------



## MReid (Nov 14, 2011)

Yeah pick up a 50 1.8 they are like $100. 
You don't have to spend a bunch of money....unless you want to of course.
If you are shooting DX pick up a 35 1.8, also a great lens...also not a lot of money about $200 I think. I use mine on full frame also, does a good job.


----------



## mrpink (Nov 14, 2011)

MReid said:


> Yeah pick up a 50 1.8 they are like $100.
> You don't have to spend a bunch of money....unless you want to of course.
> If you are shooting DX pick up a 35 1.8, also a great lens...also not a lot of money about $200 I think. I use mine on full frame also, does a good job.



You use your 35mm 1.8 on a FX body?  Why not just use the 50mm?






p!nK


----------



## KmH (Nov 14, 2011)

The best Nikon lens to do what you want to do, if you can afford it, would be the $4900 Nikon 200 mm f/2- Nikon AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2.0 G AF-S IF-ED Lens 2150 B&H

If that's more than your budget can handle, then next less best would be the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras 

Next in the budget war and longer lens lineup would be very nearly as good Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II AF-S Nikkor Zoom Lens For Nikon Digital SLR Cameras 

Someone recommended the $1900 Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens 

But you could save $1300 or so by instead getting the Nikon 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D IF AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras 

So, how deep is your wallet, and how much do you have budgeted for lighting?


----------



## mzeutenh (Nov 15, 2011)

I actually already have the 50mm f 1.8, Do you really use that one for family photos? I dunno, I guess I've never tried but I feel like you have to always back up so far just to get a close up shot of one person with that thing. Is that a good lens to use for getting four people in a shot? 

And then on the opposite side of that, do you really use a 70-200mm to do a small family and portraits of kids? I guess I get that it would be nice to be able to be sort of far away to get good candid shots and not be up in their faces, but at the same time, if you are indoors with that one, wouldn't it be kind of hard to have to shoot from so far back?? 

Maybe I just don't know enough about how to use these things. 

I've tried the 17-55 before for a wedding, I liked it, I'm wondering if I should give the 24-70 a shot or just stick with the 17-55? Is one better than the other in any area?


----------



## MReid (Nov 15, 2011)

Of course if you want to spend 1200 to 2000 on a lens go for it.
You don't need to.
Yes people really use the lenses we are advising you to get. For indoors the 70-200 is overkill. The 35 or 50 on DX work great if you want to save a lot of money, which one depends on how much room you have, plus you can get more shutter speed using natural light than using a 2.8 zoom.
The 35 and 50 are obviously much sharper at 1.8 and 2 than the 2.8 zooms....even more so at 2.8. To get a truly sharp 2.8 zoom you have to spend the big money.
Try the 50.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 15, 2011)

If it's a small family, I guess the kids are even smaller.

I guess you need a telephoto, then. Just so you can spot them


----------



## mzeutenh (Nov 15, 2011)

Alright. I don't even get that post. But I like your Picasso quote =)


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 15, 2011)

If you like my Picasso quote, you are doing amazingly good. Don't worry about what joke I was trying to tell...


----------



## Derrel (Nov 15, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> If it's a small family, I guess the kids are even smaller.
> 
> I guess you need a telephoto, then. Just so you can spot them



I would go the opposite way of what c.cloudwalker is suggesting, and use a MACRO lens instead, at close distance, rather that the telephoto approach he is suggesting. So, my vote for photographing a small family would be a macro lens, to make them look much,much bigger than they do in real-life. Last summer I had occasion to photograph a small family, well, more like a colony, of ants. I used a 36-72mm Series E Nikon lens, reverse-mounted using a BR-2A lens reversing ring, and got some fab-o close-up shots!


----------



## mzeutenh (Nov 15, 2011)

Oh I missed the first line somehow. I get it now. Absolutely hilarious.


----------



## KmH (Nov 15, 2011)

mzeutenh said:


> Maybe I just don't know enough about how to use these things.


Bingo. 

For groups I often used a 12-24 or 24-85 mm zoom lens. Short focal length lenses can distort people's features if you get to close. Like giving them *BIG HONKING NOSES*.


----------



## Destin (Nov 16, 2011)

The ideal focal length for portraits is considered by most to be between 85 and 135mm in 35mm terms. That means roughly 56-90mm on a crop body. Granted that rule of thumb is more for single person portraits, but if the shoot is outdoors or you have room, I'd use it for group shots too. You have people who shoot at both extremes also, I've seen great portraits done with ultra wide angle lenses, and I've seen some simply amazing portraits done with the sigma 800mm prime. It all depends on your style and what you are trying to achieve. 

For me, 95% of my portraits are taken with my 70-200. The rest, are my 50 1.8. Granted my only other lens is a 28 2.8, but I haven't found a need for anything else for portrait work, although, an 85 1.8 is on my wish list.


----------



## Familyphotog (Nov 16, 2011)

I have the D90 and the 17-55..great combo.  I also have the 50mm 1.8 and use it quite often for when I need to let in a little more light..


----------

