Newborn Lens for Canon 80D

[alex_ethridge]

Hello fellow photographers!

I am in desperate search of a portrait lens for my newborn shoots that aren't so zoomed in (fixed). I have a 50mm as my go-to portrait lens, however, I find it extremely difficult to shoot newborns with this lens. I have to stand over them and I can't get the full picture. Standing on a ladder over them is just too unsafe so it's time to purchase a better lens for the job. I would like to say I need a wider lens but I'm not sure if that is the correct term for what I'm looking for. I have been researching the 85mm, ofcourse for sharper quality than the 50 but I'm scared it will be zoomed in as well being it's a fixed lens. Apologies for the lack of knowledge. I just know I need a lens that I can stand over a baby and get the full picture with all my props and background, not just a close up of the face. Being 5'2 doesn't help either. HaHa. Any and all advice would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you in advance!!

 

[john.margetts]

if 50 mm is too 'zoomed in' then 85 mm will be much worse. You need to go for a lower number of millimetres. If you have the usual kit lens that came with the 80D (18-135 mm) that would be ideal towards to 18 mm end of the zoom.

 

[zulu42]

You might be looking at a 35mm prime. As the prior poster stated, if you have that kit zoom lens, you can put it on and note what focal length gives you the field of view needed for your shots.

 

[ronlane]

With the crop of the 80D, you probably will need the 35mm prime. That will give you and effective field of view of a 56mm, or close to a 50mm on a full frame.

 

[Cortian]

Piggybacking on the OP's thread (hopefully resulting in useful information for her)...

With the crop of the 80D, you probably will need the 35mm prime. That will give you and effective field of view of a 56mm, or close to a 50mm on a full frame.

I keep forgetting that.

I've been researching lenses for my camera, just in case this hobby "takes" and I decide I need more. I've a "nifty fifty" on "The List," but, like the OP, what I probably want for my 20D is a fixed 35mm for that role?

Interestingly enough: It looks like Canon's fixed 35mm lenses are more expensive than their EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. The latter appears to be available for about $115 new, while the least expensive of the former, a Canon EF 35mm f/2, goes for around $250 used.

 

[ronlane]

Yeah that nifty fifty is cheap and in most cases sharp. But actually $250 for a good used lens isn't that bad.

 

[zulu42]

It also should be mentioned that many photographers prefer 50mm and longer focal length for portraits to reduce distortion. (as I understand it)

 

[ronlane]

It also should be mentioned that many photographers prefer 50mm and longer focal length for portraits to reduce distortion. (as I understand it)

It should be, yes. However the OP is having trouble with a 50mm being too tight.

 

[alex_ethridge]

You might be looking at a 35mm prime. As the prior poster stated, if you have that kit zoom lens, you can put it on and note what focal length gives you the field of view needed for your shots.

Awesome!! Thank you SO much! I will look into that lens ASAP.

 

[alex_ethridge]

if 50 mm is too 'zoomed in' then 85 mm will be much worse. You need to go for a lower number of millimetres. If you have the usual kit lens that came with the 80D (18-135 mm) that would be ideal towards to 18 mm end of the zoom.

So the higher the mm, the closer the field of view. Got it. That is very helpful, thank you so much!
And..I do have the kit lens...just not as sharp as I would like.

 

[Cortian]

if 50 mm is too 'zoomed in' then 85 mm will be much worse. You need to go for a lower number of millimetres. If you have the usual kit lens that came with the 80D (18-135 mm) that would be ideal towards to 18 mm end of the zoom.

So the higher the mm, the closer the field of view.

Not quite. Those millimeter numbers are the lens' focal lengths. Explained: Focal length .

TL;DR: In practical terms: The longer the focal length, the further away for the same field of view. So if you wish to capture a larger field of view nearby, you need a shorter focal length.

 

[CherylL]

When I had the 70D I used the 28mm 1.8 for tight shots. However, be aware of the lens distortion. Depending on the angle, the heads will look bigger than the body if you are shooting down with the child sitting. Whatever is closest to the lens will appear larger.

 

[Cortian]

When I had the 70D I used the 28mm 1.8 for tight shots.

If that'd suit her needs, I note somebody's got one of them listed in buy & sell. Looks like a good price for what appears to be a NIB lens. (N.B.: Cursory research only.)

 

[TCampbell]

In lenses... there's such a thing as a "normal angle of view" ... that's the view that provides roughly what your eyeball expects for "1x" magnification (no magnification at all).

Anything "wider" or "narrower" will change the perspective. An undesirable thing about "wide" angle lenses is that it isn't just that the view is "wider", it's also that it stretches the sense of depth. Things seem farther away than they really are... and it's all proportional... some moderately far things seem a little farther away... and slightly more distant subjects seem even farther way. You can thinking it as "stretching" your scene.

The reason this matters in portrait photography is because if you imagine someone's face staring directly at the camera, their nose closer to the camera than their eyes... or their ears. So when you "stretch" the sense of depth in the image, you actually "stretch" the look of their face. Their eyes and ears seem farther away from their nose than they really area. This makes the nose seem bigger (relative to eyes and ears) and it's not a flattering look.

For this reason, photographers like to choose lenses that are moderately narrow for portraits because they have the opposite effect... "compression". Their eyes and ears seem to be not as far from their nose... it's a more flattering look.

So if we've got "wide" and "narrow"... what's just "normal"?

It turns out anytime (for any camera) that the focal length of the lens is EQUAL to the diagonal size of your imaging sensor, you've got a "normal" angle of view.

The diagonal measurement of your camera is just fractionally over 27mm.

It turns out nobody actually makes a 27mm lens... there are 28mm lenses. Even 35mm lenses is pretty close (on the fractionally narrower angle). This would give you an angle of view which is not as tight as your 50mm... but still technically not a "wide" angle of view because it hasn't dropped below that 27mm magic value of the "normal" focal length.

That's possibly a bit more than you wanted to know... but now you know.

Use anything 28mm or up and you'll get good looking images. If you start to drop below 27mm then you start to get the wide-angle distortions that are unflattering for portraits (although you probably wont notice until you drop down enough.)

 

[Cortian]

I certainly can't speak for Alex, but I sure found that explanation enlightening, Tim. Thanks!

I would only request a clarification.

When we speak of lens' focal length and APS-C cameras we always have to keep in mind the "1.6 multiplier." Thus a 28mm lens is really nearly 45mm on my 20D or Alex' 80D. When you talk about the sensor's diagonal measurement and focal length, this is "real" as opposed to "equivalent" focal length?

E.g.: When you suggest a 28mm FL would likely be "ideal" for portraits (on Alex' APS-C camera), you really mean a 28mm lens, not an 18mm lens?