Photos of babies

[private]

Do you think the pictures are better when you use your 50mm lens? I guess what I am asking is for baby photos is it almost expected to have the DoF thing going on?

[KathrynWilson]

1.8 adds some nice softness to baby photos. But then there are times you don't want your DOF that shallow, like the shots with the baby in the parents hands etc. I think your settings should still vary just like with anything else. A lot of children's photogs have a macro lens JUST for getting baby details.

[KagoGrl]

I agree. A 1.8 would be sweet for a lot of the work but there are situations where a greater dof might work better. But really until you know it's something you're going to do a lot of just make due with your current kit.

I'd love a 50mm 1.8 but survived a baby shoot using primarily my 28-135:

[DigitalCamerasAustralia]

Why do you think 50 is better?

[KagoGrl]

I think the consensus right now is that a 50mm 1.8 provided the widest aperture, therefor softest look. Also allows you to work in low/window light which is often the case with babies. Yes, if you're lucky you'll have studio lights and such, but if not then a 1.8 can come in very handy! Babies are squirmy - gotta keep that shutter speed up!

[private]

I do have the 1.8, I was just hoping to not bring my whole arsenal of products.. But, I guess I will - I need to check out the pics on flickr and look at EXIF to help me - the close up shots, I was going to use wider Aperture, not as much as 1.8 - well, I can experiment I guess...

[shutterbug_wannabe]

For my baby shoot I used my 50 1.8 and I stayed around f4. Still a nice DOF but good focus on the baby as well. You could even go up to 2.8 for a little less DOF.

[private]

THANKS Lori!