In my former life I was a wedding photographer, so I invested in the gamut of lenses and cameras from a basic credit card sized digital camera, to a compact camera with a sensor the size of a crop sensor DSLR, a crop sensor DSLR, and a full frame DSLR. The only thing I don’t have is an iphone or smartphone, which I think in many ways is better than all my cameras combined, because the best camera is the one you have with you.

I firmly believe a good camera does not take good pictures; a good photographer can take good pictures with any camera. I shot for 10 years on a plastic Russian camera and a 1980’s Minolta SLR film camera. However, what I value most about SLRs is that when your finger hits the shutter, the photo is taken. Instantly. There is no delay like with the smaller digital cameras and smartphones. With a child this can mean the difference between capturing my child looking at the camera, or turning her head away in a blur.

A lot of people have entry-level DSLRs — you can get a camera and two zoom lenses for $800 at Costco. I don’t think you need a better DSLR to take better photos. All you need to take your pictures to the next level is a great lens, and kit lenses that come in the box with your camera are not ideal, especially for indoor use.

If you’re in the market for a DSLR because you don’t have one, I would encourage you to buy the body only and use the rest of the money you would have paid for a bundle toward one or two great lenses, as you can get a Canon DSLR body for as low as $250. You’ll find my Canon lens recommendations below!

ADVERTISEMENT

Many of the bundles come with two lenses – usually an 18-55mm and a 55-250mm. If you can, buy the body only and then buy an 18-200mm. It’s so versatile – it can shoot wide angle and zoom in up close without having to interchange two low-end lenses. It’s my ultimate travel lens and I can get stunning photos with it outside. If you pair that lens with a prime lens, you’re set. It isn’t inexpensive however; for Canon it runs $699.

If you can only afford one lens, buy a prime (a lens that doesn’t zoom). I only have primes on my cameras, and when someone takes a picture of me with it, they always try and fiddle with the lens to zoom in or out. I tell them they need to zoom in or out by physically moving their legs. Prime lenses are a great way to force you to compose better photos because you have to be very deliberate about where you stand – it will force you to physically “zoom in and out” with your feet, which will make squatting on your haunches, lying on your belly, and standing on top of a chair seem like a totally normal practice. Primes also stop down lower – zoom lenses typically have an aperture of 3.5-5.6, meaning at the widest setting, it will stop down to f/3.5 but at its longest (most zoomed in) setting it will only shoot as low as f/5.6. The lower the f-stop, the easier it is to shoot in low light conditions, and the more bokeh you can produce, because everyone seems to want photos with those blurry circles of light in the background.

So which prime to choose?

One of my top picks would be the Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM, which is $191. It’s a “pancake lens,” meaning it is super slim and super lightweight, which makes lugging around a DSLR in your diaper bag less bulky and impractical. It’s also a relatively new lens that came out in the summer of 2012. The downside to this is that it only stops down to f/2.8, and while its negligible weight allows you to shoot slower even handheld, like 1/30th of a second, photographing a moving child usually requires a faster shutter speed. Otherwise I would go for Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 at $449, or the cheaper alternative, the Canon 35mm f/2.0 at $319.

Most people save up for a 50mm prime. And for $110 for a prime lens, it’s hard to argue. But to be honest, I would much rather have a wider lens for a crop sensor camera, because in tight spaces the 50mm can be too “long” (aka magnifying) and there’s only so far you can back up in a house before you hit a piece of furniture or a wall. In this sense I feel like the 28mm or 35mm is a much more versatile lens for everyday use.

On an old school film camera or a new school DSLR “full frame” camera, a 35mm lens will produce an image in the camera just how you see it outside the camera. It won’t look zoomed in or zoomed out, the photo will look exactly how it looks with the naked eye. If you have a DSLR that is less than $1700 for the body, it’s probably a “crop sensor” camera. This means that it magnifies the image approximately 1.6 times – so even if you use a standard 35mm lens, it will actually look “zoomed in” or magnified like a 56mm lens. So a 50mm lens actually outputs an image like an 80mm lens. However, a 50mm lens will generate larger blurry circle bokeh, softer out-of-focus backgrounds, and it is pretty great for portraits in general.

Two good options are the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for $110, which will be lightweight albeit somewhat plasticky, or the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM for $339, which will have a more solid feeling build quality. There are brothers and sisters to all of these focal lengths that run in the thousands of dollars – generally if you pay more money, the more sharp and crisp the focused image should be, but I’m sure you’d be hard pressed to notice if any of these lenses produce an image that isn’t razor sharp.

taken with a 35mm lens on my full frame camera – the image looks just like it looked standing there in real life

I get most of my camera gear at Amazon or Adorama because they are usually the cheapest. You also don’t have to pay tax with Adorama if you live outside the state of New York. They are always my go-to camera shop when I need something new.

So that’s my Canon roundup. If there are any Nikon shooters out there I can do a Nikon roundup, too.

I bought a new lens especially for the baby, an 85mm f/1.2, which on my full frame camera, is most similar to a 50mm lens on a crop sensor camera, but most of the time my husband and I use the 35mm f/1.4 with her.

What are your favorite lenses you own, or what are you saving to buy?