Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #8 · If you could have the nikkor 50mm f1.4 or the 85 f1.8 .... |
Well, portraits and kids running around in the yard are pretty different subjects!
Little kids run all over the place, and they are more likely to want you to be involved in their game(s). In that case, a wider angle of view would be preferable--a 50 may be OK but a 35 or 28 would (IMO) be better (and the 35 f/2 is a good, cheap option). An even better option, as one poster suggested above, is a zoom (but not the 24-70 behemoth; this is where my old, lightweight Tamron 28-75 really shines). If you have the $$$, the Nikon 35 f/1.4 G is a corker of a lens for little kids' portraits (whole body, not head-and-shoulder; for our most recent additions to the family, I'd practically need a macro lens for those! ).
Bigger kids are less likely to want you to play with them, in which case you'll be shooting from a distance. The 85mm may be too short a lens for this; again, I'd suggest zooms like the 80-200 f/2.8 (cheap and plentiful on the used market). The 80-200 can also serve as a portrait lens, head-only or head-and-shoulders.