Advice on lens to photograph my new twins...

splproductions · Dec 14, 2011

My wife just gave birth to a cute little boy and girl yesterday, and I'm thinking about possibly upgrading the lens on my Canon Rebel T1i since I have two very interesting subjects to shoot now.

The lens I currently have is just the stock lens that came with the body (EF-S 18-55mm).

To set up my question... I have run a recording studio for over 10 years and consider my skills, knowledge, and equipment top-notch. I'm always having friends wanting to set up home studios ask me for advice on what gear to get. They don't always understand that high-quality gear only gets you so far, and in many cases I could make a far better recording on their home equipment than they could make on my pro equipment.

Now in relation to photography, I'm that friend who wishes he could buy a lens that will make his photos look awesome without needing years of photography experience. Anyone looking at my photos can see I have an "eye" for composition, but I've never had the time to really learn what I'm doing. Most of the time I end up just using the point-and-shoot mode, even though I have a rudimentary knowledge of how to use aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.

My question is this: If I buy a nicer lens, in the $200-500 price range, will I end up with photos that look any better than my stock lens? Or will my lack of experience result in me getting photos that look exactly like the photos I'm already taking?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
(ETA: I had my eye on the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8)

thierry · Dec 14, 2011

What I will say may be just a drop in the bucket with what others will have, but you should not invest in lens if you "never had the time to really learn what I'm doing." Take the time out to go through your camera manual and learn about your camera. Then I would suggest working on compostion and understanding lighting and the basic concepts of photography. Try and pick up some info from around here. I would suggest you read a book also that is called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It would be well worth your time and a good place to start. Anyone here will tell you the same.

Amazon.com: Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera (9780817439392): Bryan Peterson: Books

MTVision · Dec 14, 2011

splproductions said:
My wife just gave birth to a cute little boy and girl yesterday, and I'm thinking about possibly upgrading the lens on my Canon Rebel T1i since I have two very interesting subjects to shoot now.

The lens I currently have is just the stock lens that came with the body (EF-S 18-55mm).

To set up my question... I have run a recording studio for over 10 years and consider my skills, knowledge, and equipment top-notch. I'm always having friends wanting to set up home studios ask me for advice on what gear to get. They don't always understand that high-quality gear only gets you so far, and in many cases I could make a far better recording on their home equipment than they could make on my pro equipment.

Now in relation to photography, I'm that friend who wishes he could buy a lens that will make his photos look awesome without needing years of photography experience. Anyone looking at my photos can see I have an "eye" for composition, but I've never had the time to really learn what I'm doing. Most of the time I end up just using the point-and-shoot mode, even though I have a rudimentary knowledge of how to use aperture, shutter speed, and ISO.

My question is this: If I buy a nicer lens, in the $200-500 price range, will I end up with photos that look any better than my stock lens? Or will my lack of experience result in me getting photos that look exactly like the photos I'm already taking?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!
(ETA: I had my eye on the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8)

A new lens isn't going to make your photos any better. You can take AMAZING pictures with your kit lens if you know what you're doing.

splproductions · Dec 14, 2011

thierry said:
What I will say may be just a drop in the bucket with what others will have, but you should not invest in lens if you "never had the time to really learn what I'm doing." Take the time out to go through your camera manual and learn about your camera. Then I would suggest working on compostion and understanding lighting and the basic concepts of photography. Try and pick up some info from around here. I would suggest you read a book also that is called Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It would be well worth your time and a good place to start. Anyone here will tell you the same.

I've been through the camera manual a few times, and I do own that "Understanding Exposure" and have read about half of it. So I guess I'm not a total newbie. But I wouldn't consider myself a "photographer"... I have a long way to go before I'd call myself that.

petto · Dec 14, 2011

I also am new to photography and purchased the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as we had had family pics done a few months ago and that is what the lady used and the pics came out great. I am just now starting to play around with it but it seems like a decent lens.

MTVision · Dec 14, 2011

splproductions said:
I've been through the camera manual a few times, and I do own that "Understanding Exposure" and have read about half of it. So I guess I'm not a total newbie. But I wouldn't consider myself a "photographer"... I have a long way to go before I'd call myself that.

I would stay with the kit for now and learn how to use the camera. That way you will also have a better understanding of what you want.

On another forum this person wrote about how she was at a basketball game and this lady had a 70-200mmf/2.8 lens which is like 2400.00. She was complaining because it was so highly recommended yet the pictures weren't any better. She was using auto. A better lens isn't going to do anything except give you more pictures like you already get using auto. Honestly, save your money until you actually outgrow that lens. Better equipment does not necessarily equal better photos. The photographer is what makes amazing photos.

Sammie_Lou · Dec 14, 2011

I would take the time to learn your camera with the kit lens while your children are still pretty much staying in one place and sleeping all the time. By the time they're old enough that you need something faster, maybe you'll be able to really put it to use and get your moneys worth out if it.

DiskoJoe · Dec 15, 2011

get the tamron 17-50mm f2.8. Its just like the 28-75 you want but the wide angle will come in very handy with children.

radiorickm · Dec 15, 2011

OMG........ The OBVIOUS answer here

A TWIN lens camera..........LOL

Sorry......just had to do it.....a photography joke....

analog.universe · Dec 15, 2011

I'm going to be the odd one out here. You already know that you need the knowledge to get the best from your equipment, so lets not go there. The kit lens has lots of limitations. Even wide open, the aperture doesn't open that wide, so it's terrible in low light and gives you very few options concerning depth of field. Sure you can get good pictures with it. But you can also mix good tracks on a Behringer, doesn't mean you're not strongly limited by the equipment. Instead of another zoom lens that covers roughly the same range as the lens you have... maybe consider a really fast prime? Primes are much sharper for the money, and the better ones are more than just "accurate". Just like a nice tube mic preamp, they add a little bit, they don't just reproduce, and you have more creative options. (Not to mention excellent sharpness and accuracy when you need it). Consider maybe a 50mm 1.4? They're quite affordable, and shot wide open, you won't be able to mistake the photos as having come from a kit lens. The shallow depth of field at 1.4 is a compositional tool in itself. A 1.4 also eats so much light, you'll be able to shoot in most conditions without a flash.

Railphotog · Dec 15, 2011

Instead of a new lens I'd suggest a Canon 430EX II flash unit with a diffuser. I use mine all the time taking photos of our grandkids. With the flash pointed up the diffuser spreads light all around, making look like a flash was not used. Stops action too. Got my Sto-Fen clone diffuser on eBay for around $5.00, shipped. One of my most appreciated camera accesories.

Robin Usagani · Dec 15, 2011

Welcome! I have these 3 girls. BigMike the moderator has twins as well.

Big Mike · Dec 15, 2011

Welcome to the forum.

Congrats on the twins, mine are 8 months old today. . . . . . . . .sorry, I dozed off for a minute there. :er:

On one hand, I agree with those that say to learn what you can, with the gear that you have. The 'kit' lenses aren't that bad really, but they do have their limitations. The best time to buy new gear, is when you clearly understand the limitations of your current gear and you're buying something to overcome that limitation.

But on the other hand, I'll have to agree with Mr. universe....we already know that the major limitation of the kit lens, is that it's maximum aperture is only F3.5-5.6. That doesn't let in much light, so it forces you to use a slower shutter speed, which makes it harder to get sharp photos. By getting a 'faster' lens (larger max aperture), you give yourself the option to let in more light, which can mean faster shutter speeds, which means sharper photos. Also, a larger aperture gives you a shallower Depth of Field, which opens up new creative possibilities that you just don't have with the kit lens.

Another option for you, might be to buy an accessory flash (if you don't have one already). The ability to bounce light off of walls or the ceiling, can make for great photos. If you got a flash, you may not need a faster lens, as the flash can help to get sharper photos. But if you want the option to shoot without flash, in many situations, then that's where a faster lens comes in.

I currently have the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 and I used to have the 17-50mm F2.8. For your camera, I'd suggest the 17-50mm, but that's up to you.
The 50mm F1.8 is a decent lens for a great price. The optics are great, but the build quality is rather cheap. The 50mm F1.4 is a much better lens, a little more expensive but still a good value of quality for your dollar. Although, some think that 50mm may be a bit too long on a camera like yours. You might prefer something like the Sigma 30mm F1.4.

KmH · Dec 15, 2011

analog.universe said:
Consider maybe a 50mm 1.4? They're quite affordable, and shot wide open, you won't be able to mistake the photos as having come from a kit lens. The shallow depth of field at 1.4 is a compositional tool in itself. A 1.4 also eats so much light, you'll be able to shoot in most conditions without a flash.

Many that lack a good understanding of how to do photography using wide aperture 50 mm lenses often post here because they are having focusing difficlties.

The issue has to do with the ultra shallow depth-of-field these lenses can produce which really requires more than point and shoot skills to use well.

splproductions · Dec 15, 2011

What about the Sigma 50mm 1.4? DPReview seems to think it is slightly superior to the Canon 50mm 1.4, especially in regards to sharpness at lower F-stops.