No question at all. Ridiculously fast — you get the 2.8 option across the entire zoom range. Unbelievably sharp at 5 and up, but enough DOF to give you some great control.

Downside: cost. $1,050 to $1,400 or so.

Somewhat acceptable option: Tamron 28-75mm f:2.8

Also very sharp at 5+, also flexible 2.8 aperture available across the zoom range. Build is very good, but nothing beats an L series. Significant advantage is cost at $370 or so.

Most wedding photographers who shoot Canon use the L lens. Us mere mortals use the Tamron.

Hi Merlin,

I have the 30D with this lens for baby picture-taking. It’s not cheap, but that’s what you pay for quality. If you shoot at f2.8, at ISO 3200, you’re good in almost any light.

MBW isn’t the same without you.

Cheers, Weldon

don’t bother you have a lovely set of memories already, if you are comfy with what you are using do not interfere.

They are lovely pics too.

I remember I loved the ultra-wide 10-22mm EF-S lens, as well as the 17-85mm EF-S lenses. Both lenses are made for the smaller sensors only (they won’t work on your eventual 5D upgrade), but that makes them fairly cheap ($500-800 range). The whole EF-S line is pretty good and affordable compared to the L series.

Ever since I moved up to a 5D, I’ve now got the following: 17-40mm L lens for wide room shots 50mm 1.4 same as you got 28-105mm general outdoorsy lens

I find myself using the 17-40 the most, with 50mm being a close second. You might want to consider maybe buying an external flash you can bounce off the ceiling (a 430ex for $200 or so is good enough) to get better indoor shots that don’t have the deer in the headlights look but also are sharper than natural light.

I've been using the EF 28mm f1.8 for baby pictures and related matters and have been very happy with the results, it's fast and sharp and works well up close and further away.

The Canon 28-135 IS is a nice all purpose lens. My nephew is 10 months old - and my sister uses this lens on her Rebel Xti all the time for family photos. Cost is about $ 400.

It will give you more zoom capability than your current 18-55 - and is a much better lens

Merlin,

Aside from my 50mm, my favorite lens is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. It’s very expensive, but you need to think of these things as pieces of equipment you’ll use for 10-20 years or more. And it takes pictures like a dream.

Whatever you, let me recommend you check out http://www.the-digital-picture.com for reviews on the lens you are about to pick. He does a great job of reviewing every Canon lens (and body and many accessories).

There are a few things that you can add to your Canon setup that will pay-back over and over again.

1) An external flash, cord and flash holder. At least get your hands on the 580 EX or 580 EX Mk II. Bounce the flash off of ceilings or put a reflector on it. Makes indoor night / or low light shots so much better than the TERRIBLE built in flash. The world would be a better place if the 30D and Rebel’s simply did not have a flash.

That said, there are a few lenses to consider as your next lens.

You are on the right track with your 50/1.4. That is a fantastic lens , and on the 1.6x crop factor Rebel and 30D, it is the portrait lens of choice really. I used to shoot with an EF85/1.8 USM as my portrait lens of choice until I went digital. The conversion crop leaves the 50/1.4 as the only serious replacement for the 85. Both lenses are standard construction and produce amazing results. I routinely prefer images from the 50/1.4 to any of my L zooms.

With that out of the way, a versatile zoom would be the 28-70/2.8L (or whatever today’s equivalent is) or the ultra-wide L series zoom (17-40/2.8L). I would suggest that your money is better spent on the 28-70/2.8L since in the medium term i would expect the re-introduction of full-frame digital bodies that are affordable (around the same price as a 30D), and you will not want to have invested in EF-S lenses that prevent you from moving to the full-frame bodies. It is also largely for this reason that I would avoid the ultra-wide zoom, unless landscape and panoramas are your passion. For shooting people, you want to have the 28-200mm range well covered and the 28-70/2.8L zoom is a great lens in this range. It will remain just as useful with the full fram bodies.

Note that I realize you already have a 50/1.4 and that the 28-70/2.8 overlaps. HOWEVER. if you are travelling, the 28-70/2.8 is a nice one-stop lens and the 50/1.4 is really more about low-light performance and amazing Bokeh.

Enough said - I’d run out and get the 28-70/2.8L. If money is a concern, lots of people like the EF-S 18-80 IS USM (??) lens, but I have zero experience with it. Once you shoot primes and L lenses, it is VERY hard to go back to the prosumer zoom lenses.

I have a selection of image at http://flickr.com/photos/muonzoo/ mostly shot with a 70-200/2.8L and the 50/1.4. My next lens WILL be the 28-70/2.8L for the convenience ( I have 3 primes in that range ).

Best of luck

Alan

The 24-105mm L-series isn’t cheap - but it is a lens that rarely leaves my camera. Sure it’s not an f/2.8 - but it has image stabilization which is good for a stop or two.

If it had to be an f/2.8 I’d go for 28-70L.

For more reach - the 70-200mm range at Canon are all great - go for the most expensive one you can afford as they do improve as you go up the range.

I second the 24-70 2.8L pick from mcmetzger. I have a 40D with the 50mm 1.4, and the 24-70 2.8L. It’s an amazing lens. A longer zoom, like the 70-200, will be too long, especially with the crop factor the bodies you have give you. For shooting people, even small ones, the 24-70 on a 1.3 or 1.6 cropping body is the perfect range for shooting indoors up close, and still zooming in enough when they’re in the yard playing ball, or eating things they shouldn’t.

That’s the lens that LIVES on my camera.

If you are willing to buy a lens that’s not made by Canon, but works with Canon cameras, the Sigma 30mm is a great lens for indoor photography in low light.

It’s fast, quiet, well built and allows me to take shots of moving kids indoors without using a flash. A 30mm lens translates to 48mm on a 35 mm camera which is as close as you can get to a “normal” lens on a Canon (the sensor multiplies all focal lengths by 1.6).

Cons: it’s heavy (especially on an XT) and kind of expensive (about $350-400).

A few folks have suggested the f/4.0L series lenses with IS. I am not a fan. Having borrowed and rented the f/4.0 L mid range zoom lens, I was not impressed with the trade-off you have to make in order to give up the 2.8 speed. Yes, IS helps, but it doesn’t help when the subject is in motion. If you look in a professional photojournalist’s bag, you will find a fast 50, perhaps a fast wide and all three 2.8L zooms. They really cover the needs and produce fantastic images.

They will also last you a lifetime of shooting. I have had my 70-200/2.8L for over 12 years and it still delivers images as wonderful as the week after I purchased it (allowing for the week of ‘learn the lens pain’). :-)

Alan

Hey Merlin-

Our Eleanor looks great through a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom Lens, and I’m sure yours will too!

http://www.eleanormuldrow.com

Congratulations!

Kelly

I’m going to go the opposite direction here and recommend the fixed focal length 100mm f/2 USM. This is a nice fast lens that is a great focal length for shooting portraits. The f/1.8 85mm USM is a good choice, too, and would allow you to get a little closer to your subject.

OK .. first time caller!

As a professional photographer, I have two gems … you get what you pay for, and as my grandmother use to say, “You buy cheap, you buy twice!”

Go for the fastest lens you can afford … and if you can’t afford the fastest lens, wait a while and save the money.

I shoot with three lenses … 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.2 and a 135mm f/2.0. You can do anything short of covering the Superbowl with these three lenses, and since you are using Canon cameras, you don’t have to worry about digital noise and such. With a fast lens you can stay at 400 ISO or below for just about everything you do … if you practice … so your photos will pop and life will be good. Given what you have … a fast prime, even the new 85 f/1.2 would be nice, but I’m in love with my 50 f/1.2.

JI

www.justinide.com

Bouncing an external flash off a wall or ceiling makes even your standard 18-55mm make good things happen.

Bulky? Yes. But a must for the camera bag.

We bought with a Canon XT with the arrival of our second son. With the goal of pushing our learning, we started with the Sigma 30/1.4, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 85/1.8, and only used those for the first year. Turns out we ended up using the 50mm for probably 90+% of our shots — as you know it’s just a fabulous lens that was the most appropriate for most of our needs. The 85mm was too long, and we just rarely felt the need to go as wide as the 30. The 50 was just right for solo baby shots and close-up two shots of the boys. It also spoiled us with respect to image quality — the pictures generally looked fantastic.

Last Christmas we jumped on the Canon 17-55/2.8 and are happy with it. It has proven nice for covering the wide angles we previously couldn’t handle, as well as for being able to cover two fast-moving kids.

That said, I don’t know that I would have preferred the zoom to the 50 during that first year for more than 10% of our shots, especially the baby shots. If you do use it, it will likely be for other content for now.

I would seriously consider the 580EXII recommended above. We don’t have one yet, but when we’ve borrowed one it has done a fantastic job of lighting up the whole room instead of the on-camera deer-in-the-headlights flash. We tried to avoid using the flash unless absolutely required, but there are times when there just isn’t enough light otherwise.

Best of luck with your shopping.

-m

I had the same experience (Baby) this year and took the same decision in march. I decided for the 24-105 L. It is not as bulky as the 2.8 24-70 alternative and has a little more room on the longer side. It is a great allround zoom for people and kid´s photography. Together with the IS you can also work in lower light situations. I use it also on my 30D and I can only recommend it. Because a lot of people get the lens with the 5d and switch to 2.8 lenses, you can get it at a very attractive pricepoint as well.

For a baby … considered a macro lens? Say the 100mm?

Best all-around lens [period]:
Canon 24-104mm f/4L IS

Points:

• Ideal focal range for 90% of pictures most people take
• Professional Optics
• Image stabilization helps you take super sharp photos (really works)
• Very good price for spec (about $1,000)

Best medium range telephoto zoom:
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

Points:

• Absolutely fantastic for portraits and most walk around situations
• Basically top of line in every way
• Killer image stabilization as well
• Kinda spendy (about $1,700)

Personally, I think you should go with the 24-105. I don't know anyone who owns one that doesn't adore it and if you go out with only one lens it will cover almost any situation.

Don't let the f/2.8 vs f/4 aspect fool you. Maximum f-stop is just another spec and they don't fundamentally add up to a better lens by any means, just different intended applications. For example, personally, I spend most of my time at f/8 (esp. during the day). If you need a bright, fast lens for lower light situations... use your 50mm prime.

I shot for years with a Pentax (manual focus) with a very heavy 35-105 f3.5 lens hanging off if it. While it took some fantastic baby and child pics, I always had two points of dissatisfaction with it. 1. Too heavy, and 2. not wide enough. You tend to shoot your children at very close range, and while the baby may not be crawling yet, the child will soon be quite mobile. At that point, wider will definitely be better, and give you greater flexibility. So, IMO, 24mm on a reduced-frame camera is not enough. 19mm would be the minimum on the wide end.

The weight issue can also become a factor, walking around zoos or whatnot with the child, or even using in the backyard. L lenses are great quality (like my old Pentax), but they take it out of you. ;-) I’ve only ever once slung an L lens from my ancient D30, but I was amazed at its weight and bulk. I was comparing it, though, to my Tamron 19-35mm.

In fact, that’s the lens I would recommend, myself. It does have downsides—3.5-4.5 is its biggest weakness—only one, now that I think about it. Optically, at least on the cropped-frame, it is excellent. And build-wise, it is not so bad as you would think, considering its price. Unlike the cheaper Sigmas and Canon lenses, no plastic mount. It is light, but feels solid. And sheesh, you can buy probably half a dozen for the price of one L lens. ;-) And one advantage of it over an EF-S lens is that if you ever want to strap it onto a full-frame camera. I will work—can’t vouch for the image quality at full-frame, but it certainly won’t be the worst for distortion. ;-) (and, for the record, I’ve been surprised at the lack of lens flare on this lens).

Also, at its price, you can get two—one for each camera.

One other downside is that it’s not a long lens. It would be advantageous to have more length. Which you may want on one lens. Personally, I find that the vast bulk of my photography is with this lens, though, and I use my longer lens only on occasion.

Those are my thoughts—the thoughs of a nobody photographer, but in a similar situation, goal-wise. :-)

-Jon

The lighting fast AF of the Canon 85mm f/1.8 makes it a great lens for photographing kids. My only gripe about it is that its closest focusing distance is relatively far away (over 1 metre, IIRC). If your kids like to crawl over to the camera, then you end up playing a silly game of running away from them backwards whilst pointing the lens at them.

Ultimately, I adore the EF-S 10-22mm lens, but it’s not really a great portrait lens, unless you like your kids looking like the Mekon.

This is my almost always on walking around lens - it’s been great to take pictures of my new grandson, and the image stabilization works great.

You love the 50mm f/1.4. My assumption is that you like it because it wasn’t too expensive, it’s very fast at f/1.4, and it’s not too bulky or heavy. You want to be able to freeze motion because kids don’t sit still, and that’s only possible at shutter speeds speedier than 1/100. And you have to ask yourself, how much weight do you want hanging around your neck if you’re simply playing with your daughter at a friend’s house. Do you plan on expanding your arsenal even more when she starts crawling and walking? And do you ever plan to upgrade to a full-frame camera? If so, do you mind having lenses designed for cropped sensors?

If you want relatively inexpensive, small, light, but still very fast lens, I would say pick up another prime lens. f/2 or faster. I’m assuming that you find the 50mm too telephoto for your uses. The Canon 28mm f/1.8 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 will do just fine. The Canon 28mm f/1.8 is slower than the Sigma but the Canon 28mm will work on both EF and EF-S bodies. The Sigma will work only on EF-S bodies but is a full 2/3rds stop faster.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom is also a fine lens, but it will be bigger, bulkier, and more intrusive (due to the tube design), as well as very expensive. No zoom lens will ever be as fast as your 50mm f/1.4. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a great lens but giant and heavy. It costs an arm and a leg. I wouldn’t carry one around unless I had to. I’ve found that for indoor/low-light shots, I need that extra stop I can get on a prime lens.

The flash suggestion is good too, but only if you have the time and energy to learn how to use it. Would you keep the flash on your camera at all times, so you can capture something the second your darling does something cute? If not, then stick with a fast prime for available light shots for now and save your money for future gear expansion.

I shoot both Canon and Nikon and think both are great, but you have to take some care in purchasing your lenses. Canon L/Nikon Pro lenses are all great and very $$$. The consumer lenses for each co. are a mixed bag: some OK and some downright disappointing.

You already have a fast 50/1.4, so you understand the virtues of fast glass. Don’t settle for a f/3.5-f/5.6 zoom. Also don’t buy a lens designed for APS-C size sensors. The “sweet spot” of full-frame lenses on an APS-C sensor are one of the main benefits of having a less-than-full-frame sensor.

Here are two suggestions:

[1] If you have unlimited $, buy an adaptor to allow Canon camera bodies to mount Nikon lenses and buy the new Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom (21mm - 36mm equivalent). It’s that good.

[2] A more affordable (as low as $325 new), but still very good option is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro lens - a great portrait lens with the ability to focus very close - which makes it flexible. You can see sample baby photos shot with this lens here.

Happy shooting.

It is a truly wonderful lens.

http://search.pbase.com/search?q=EF+85mm&b=Search+Photos&c=sp

I’m new to the digital SLR world and bought the 17-55mm 2.8 ef-s lens along with a Canon 40d based on many reviews and some time spent with my friend’s 20d shooting with several different lenses. Every lens out there is a compromise in some respect.

The 17-55 isn’t cheap, (like 929 from b&h) but i’ve found it to be a fantastic general purpose lens, and I don’t see myself ever upgrading it. The f/2.8 lets me get that nice fuzzy bokeh, and the Image stabilization helps me keep my pictures (somewhat) sharp.

It’s very versatile. Wide enough for those times when you’re really close, but with enough zoom to perfectly compose just about anything in a room from where you stand.

good luck with your search.

But I am a grad student with a love of photography and little money. My standard walkaround kit is the good old 305D body, a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 zoom, and a 580EX I got second hand.

The Tamron is noisy and grindy and has a tendency to hunt for the focus a bit, but aside from that I am very happy with it. It’s solid and sharp and highly versatile. Before that I used the cheapo Canon f/1.8 50mm prime pretty much exclusively, and loved it because it was dirt cheap and great quality and I didn’t have to pay thousands for the extra bit of speed.

But, for reals, buy a proper flash. Bounce it off everything. Even off-camera flash isn’t all that fiddly once you get used to it.

Here is my Flickr if you’d like to see what I do with that kit.

Merlin,

If I were buying a lens right now instead of changing diapers on our newborn twins, I would go for a nice wide medium zoom lens like this one (or a good 28mm prime) for the excellent sharpness and wide apertures that make shooting indoors with natural light possible.

Since Eleanor is too young to race about the house, the yard, or anywhere else, I would hold off on the fast zoom and focus (pun intended) on taking really great shots with that 50mm f/1.4. In the meantime, you might consider renting a lens or two to test out some of the suggestions here. This place on the Peninsula lets you do that:

http://www.kspphoto.com/activepages/rental.html

Ron

Hi Merlin,

I’m a professional photographer and I get this question all the time. It’s really the wrong question. You shouldn’t buy a new gadget just because you have some money to spend. You start with a need to do something that you can’t currently do with the tools you have. For example, I don’t stand in the kitchen wishing I had a new appliance but not knowing what appliance to get. Instead, if I knew I wanted to make toast I’d have to buy a toaster. But if I wanted to make a margarita I would need a blender.

So the real question is— what kinds of photos do you want to take? Do you want to take very close up photos of your baby’s eyelashes? Do you want to see the feathers of the birds in the trees far away? Or do you like the effect of a wide angle, that squishes in everything in your peripheral vision? Spend a little more time looking at other people’s photos and think about what you like in them.

Having said that, the 24-10L is a good all around lens. It does go soft after heavy use, especially at the wide end.

Anna Kuperberg