Good job Mike!

 

 

Mike, for those portraits the 50mm would be pretty good.  Might be a touch zoomy in some situations but its a good length for those types of pics.

 

When the little monster is running around....... Well, make sure you have plenty of practice and its ok to only like 1/150 shots until you get it down.

:-)

 

I find camera work and shooting to be extremely similar.  Equipment limits you massively, but only once youre good enough for it to even matter.

 

My bag of equipment is WAY better than I am.  But i justified it by making some side $$$ and I keep growing into those lenses.  I can also say I could not have taken some of those shots without that level of equipment.

Mike I want to clarify, the 50mm is good for portraits like that on a crop.

 

50mm on a full frame can be interesting for portraits.  I get some bangers with the 50mm f1.2, but it's more the f1.2, the great color pick up, and the full frame.  It makes for some dreamscapes even in low light.

 

If I am posing people for portraits i use the 70-200 if possible.  It's a beast and so incredibly flattering.  Turns those 6s into solid 7.5s.  Don't trust a girls profile pick if it has my water mark on it.

Going to put my financials together and see what I can afford.

It looks like in the DSLR a 60d, 50 1.4, and something a little wider. I want to just get the 50 1.8 but I feel like that's more buying the camera then lens and I may hit its limits quickly.

Anything comparable in the mirrorless market for the same dough?

How much is the 60D vs the 6D?

 

 

2.5x to 4x more.

Yeah then you are 125% going the right direction.

 

 

22 hours ago, dem beats said:

Un fair. Find primes at the same F stop.  It will be less with primes.

That would defeat the purpose.  I did say "I could".

I want the 2.8 to be faster and generally don't mind cropping to get the zoom to 200 for most of the shooting I do with it.  Of course it may make me get a new body if I did that too...

The zoom for sporting events however is critical.  I need big whitey for at least another year before I could decide if I could really make that trade.

 

Here is my shooting in a nut shell:

-single people in my family friends -> portrait lens

-groups of people at gatherings or the fam -> wide 

-buildings and things -> ultra wide

-basketball & soccer games -> telephoto and portrait

ie, I basically shoot at 80 portrait, 20 wide, 10 ultra, & 200 tele

Out of the times I use them I only need to change at gatherings.  Then it is 80 & 20 mostly with a little 150-200 I could get away with shooting at 80.

 

You will all notice I left out my fastest piece of glass, the 50mm 1.4.  That is because there is a major problem with the 50mm lens...but it is NOT a problem for you now Mike.  To shoot a headshot of a child playing you can't be 8' away.  Stepping back here helps a ton.  Just shot my kids Christmas parties and got some great portraits that I'll share with the parents.  The earnest thank you's are golden.

For that 85mm would be ideal.  Big Whitey fucking scares people.

50mm for babies is better however, because getting close gets a reaction versus killing it.  Plus 1.4 lets you shoot at fucking night.

Tripod and sleeping help.

Forgot to add I did some tests on the Sirui tripod.  No drift at 30sec exposures or 1/4 second.  Sharp all the way.  Abused it on some legos, lol.  Even with the extension it was tight.  Obviously worse in the wind, but some mass that you can hang from it helps that.

22 hours ago, dem beats said:

Sean is spoon feeding this well.

 

I shoot a lot differently and I would tell you to go a different route.  However we probably have much different goals.

I suck at photography, but have shot at least 1000 pictures this December.

Mike the shot of your wife in a smaller house with a 50mm is about all you can capture.  Should give you some perspective of what you'll end up with.  If it helps to have me shoot some examples of FOV and distance I can.  

13 hours ago, dem beats said:

50mm on a full frame can be interesting for portraits.  I get some bangers with the 50mm f1.2, but it's more the f1.2, the great color pick up, and the full frame.  It makes for some dreamscapes even in low light.

The 50mm 1.2 on the full frame will gather WAY more light than the 1.4 on a crop...but the raw out of focus portion of the bokeh won't be any different.  I am sure that the pictures are significantly easier to get in focus, to limit iso noise (or even be able to get the shot), but otherwise is rather comparable.  For some reason the focus on the L glass even on the same model seems more accurate to me.  What I mean by accurate is actually focusing on what I am shooting.  Generally I center focus only and then compose a shot, but with fast moving kids you CAN'T.  Have to rely on the autofocus of the camera.  With non-L glass I find that the camera finds something else on the frame to focus on instead of what I was trying to compose.  Of course I can say the same about lenses that are slower (higher F stop minimum).

8 hours ago, MKader17 said:

Anything comparable in the mirrorless market for the same dough?

How long will you keep it before you upgrade something?

Reason I ask is that the buying price now isn't the only portion of this you should think about.  Very possible to buy something now that is killer for shooting the baby and the 2/3 of you and upgrade later as your needs change.  They will...

The next question of course has two realities.  What you want and what you will do.  How big will you print/display the pictures you shoot?  I for one have never printed anything larger than an 8.5"x11" and the largest my 70" TV.

Currently I am a bit sloppy and end up cropping quite a bit on kids.  Buildings and such I have nailed okay although regularly there I just wanted something a little wider.

Forgot 2 important points in the lens layout above, sorry.  Enjoyed cooking/eating today which comes with lots of wine and champagne.

20 mm, Fstop shot usually 4 or 5.6 so that I get all the people in the shot in focus.  Here I'd like to learn to use a flash better to get the shutter speed down and keep the F stop high.

50mm, Fstop shot usually at 1.4.  For true headshots, you actually need to go up to 1.8 otherwise ears are out of focus.  Step back a foot and you are fine at 1.4 though.

85mm, Fstop I'd love would be 1.8....but damnit I want vibration reduction too because always shooting at shutter speeds of higher than 1/150th is really hard lightwise.  I do hate having to use shutter speeds slower than 1/200th for any moving target, but when it is dark you have to start to compensate

200mm, fstop 2.8.  Is really fine.  Sure You could use a little more without ruining the picture, but I would surely spend dough making other ranges faster first.

I have a 17-55 2.8.  It is supposed to be the wide to get.  I don't like it.  55 and 2.8 is pointless.  It does nothing unless your target is WAY away from something in the background.  I am never in a situation like that.  At 17mm 2.8 is actually nice since really even at 2.8 everyone in a group will be in focus.  Going faster in this range or wider is stupid.

I do own a 11-16 2.8.  It is almost always shot at f11

There just wasn't a good prime in that range....amusingly where it makes the most sense IMO.  Pretty easy to get closer to your target when you are outside.

60d & 50mm 1.4 is around $650-700 used?

Btw, if you don't like the 50mm only you can always find an old kit lens for nearly free everywhere.  Will tell you exactly what their true value is....but it is hard to understand any of this shit until you actually go and shoot some pictures with different settings.