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.