Low light lens Recommendation

[SheriG]

Hello,

I am looking to purchase a new lens which will be good for shooting stage and portraits in low light situations.

I posted once before, but I was traveling and lost the info I saved on my computer.

I currently have a 28-135 f5.6 which I love, but is not adequate for low light with no tripod.

Love my digital, but I am former push film to the limit photographer, so this has been a little frustrating.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Sheri

[Andy_T]

Hi Sheri,

the most obvious recommendations would be either the 1.8/50 (USD 90?) or the 1.4/50 (USD 350?).

The 1.8 can't be beat for value for money. The 1.4 has a more solid build and the extra .4 f-stop. Sharpness is great on both.

Regards,
Andy

[vvizard]

I got the 50mm f/1.4, and it's great for low-light. According to EXIF, it equals 77mm on fullframe. That's ok for portraits I think.

[toddb]

For the money (think I only paid around $50 for it on B&H), the 50mm 1.8 is quite the deal. I also have the 28-135mm. I took a trip up to my local mountain and the lighting was much dimmer in the forest. I couldn't get fast enough frame rates handheld on the 28-135, but had no problem with the 50mm. Hate not having the zoom, but better then nothing.

It's either the $50 50mm or the $1600 70-200L IS. There's got to be an in between, I'd like to know as well.

As far as digital goes, there are ways to push it. Under expose a couple stops on purpose and then just bring the exposure up in software (got to shoot raw). Also, there is a program called Neat Image that does a really good job of removing noise if you have to crank your ISO up 800 or above.

[SheriG]

Hi,

Thank you to those who responded. I also went searching and reading some other posts. I think I am pretty sold on the 50 1.8 especially for the price.

I am also struggling with shutter priority and wonder if it's because of the lens I have. It seems so different in that respect than my trusty A-1. I think it's the learning curve too. 25 years vs. 6 months...hmmmm...

Any hints?

Sheri

[GenEOS]

Without going outside Canon for a low f-stop zoom, none of the canon f2.8 zooms are for the budget minded. I have a 50/1.8 II and it is great for low light. I however, wish I would have gotten the USM version for a little more. It's worth it. The Series II lens, although optically great, is not a really smooth lens.

You never really said in your original post that you were looking for an inexpensive option. So I would alsways sugest a 24-80 (70?) f2.8L or 16-35 f2.8L, I really like my 70-200f2.8L IS. All nice options for lower light.

I have not had the problems you are telling me about with shutter priority, but I bet they have to do with the low light you are shooting in. I hear the 10D beats the pants off the D60 in just these types of situations, but like me, I bet a new body is out of the question, right now....

my 2 cents...

[SheriG]

Daniel...USM....Do you mean the US made version. Excuse my ignorance....

As for shutter issues, it has been strange, when I want to overide it only let's me get to a certain point. That is why I think it's the apeture issue. 5.6 is it. Kind of weird, as film let's you go where you want despite the quality. Does that make sense?

Yes, no new bodies for me anytime soon. I bought this thinking I would have it for awhile.

Sheri

[CyberDyneSystems]

USM = UltraSonic Motor.. Canons very fast and very silent autofocus technology.

[GenEOS]

If you are in Shutter priority and trying to get a faster shutter speed than the meter thinks you need, it will adjust the f-stop down accordingly. Your lens maxes out at 5.6, so more than likely your 5.6 is flashing in the viewfinder, meaning you don't have the light for the settings and equipment. If you are maxed out on the ASA setting (1000 on the D60) and you have the f-stop opened up to 5.6, than the only option is to slow the shutter spped down or get a better lens..i.e 1.4/1.8/or 2.8...

does this make any sense at all?

[SheriG]

Hi Daniel,

Yes, it makes perfect sense and it seems like what I suspected. The digital is a bit smarter then the film Canon, so I think there is less over ride ability.

Thank you for the explanation on the USM.

Sheri

[EXA1a]

SheriG wrote:
Love my digital, but I am former push film to the limit photographer...
Sheri
If you want to go for the limits of light you should go for the 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 100/2.0. I use the 50mm and 100mm lenses but as a single lens I'd recommend the 85mm. It has an excellent reputation. If you want to spend a fortune, the 85/1.2 would be a good choice.

--Jens--

[SheriG]

Jens,
I have never shot with an 85. What do you like about it. Definately inbetween the 50 and portrait 100. Which of all of these would you say you use the most?

Sheri

[EXA1a]

SheriG wrote:
Jens,
I have never shot with an 85. What do you like about it. Definately inbetween the 50 and portrait 100. Which of all of these would you say you use the most?

Sheri
I'm shooting lots of portraits, mainly baby photos. Most of the times I use my 50/1.4 and in some cases the 100mm. For me the 100mm is a bit too tight for portraits and the 50mm a bit too wide. I wished I got the 85.
BTW: the 85 creates the same perspective as a 135mm lens on a film camera body and thats the classic "long" portrait lens, whereas the 50mm is a bit shorter than the classical "short" portrait lens.

--Jens--

[SheriG]

Hi Jens,

Yes, I find the 100 a bit tight also. I might see if I can find an 85 locally to look through.

I also find getting used to the new lenses and how they frame tigheter an interesting thing after shooting so long in film. I still don't understand why that is, but I have never been much of a techno person. I am looking for a good book to look through that relates to digital SLR's. Do you have any suggestions?

Sheri

[GenEOS]

Easiest way to explain the "cropping factor" which some call a "zoom factor" or various other terminology is this.

The digital SLR is much like a 35mm film SLR in a lot of ways. It has a shutter, like it's film ancestors. The light travels through it just like a film camera. The only difference ( I say only, but that is being very simplistic)
is FILM.

Instead of film, in the exact place the film would be, there is a light sensor. This light sensor is not the same size as a 35mm frame. It is a bit smaller. Since it is smaller, it cannot capture the whole 35mm equivilent.
So, you are actually only using the center of all your lenses and not the edges.

Not all digitals are the same. It varies from manufaturer to manufacturer and model to model.

The Canon 1Ds has a full frame sensor, so it is the most like a 35mm film camera in that it's sensor is the same size as a 35mm frame. Which is why it shoots 10MP images and not 6.5MP images like the D60.

Does this help?

If you want to check out what an 85mm lens looks like just set you zoom to 85 by the index mark on the lens. That will give you an idea of what it will frame up at 85mm.

[EXA1a]

SheriG wrote:
Hi Jens,

Yes, I find the 100 a bit tight also. I might see if I can find an 85 locally to look through.

I also find getting used to the new lenses and how they frame tigheter an interesting thing after shooting so long in film. I still don't understand why that is, but I have never been much of a techno person. I am looking for a good book to look through that relates to digital SLR's. Do you have any suggestions?

Sheri
I also came from SLR photography (Canon A1, EOS 10, ...) and it took me a while to get used to the 1.6 factor. I find it a pity not being able to use real wide angle and I'm desparately awaiting the launch of a decently priced full frame sensor camera.

To be honest I'm looking for good books on landscape and portrait photography, too. However, you'll find many answers and lots of useful information on the web. The luminous-landscape site is a good one, see for instance the section on the DSLR magnification factor: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml
Take care (and pictures!)
--Jens--

[toddb]

I know there is also a metal or plastic mount point on that 50mm. I didn't know they had a UMS version, that would have been nice. The only thing I don't like about the 50mm 1.8 is that the focusinig ring is a bit hard to grab on to with my bigger hands (especially after using the 28-135 with that big grip ring).

Also, my 50mm I need to switch the AF to Manual focus in order for the focus ring to move smothly (as where the 28-135 I could make some adjustments easily when using AF). However, for the price, this is one of the best lens to see how much you really need that lens speed. I bought it so I can see if the 70-200L 2.8 would be worth the extra money over the smaller apature version (testing still in progress).

[SheriG]

Hi all,

What a great discussion! Thanks for all the information. Daniel your explanation was wonderful. Simplistic, easy to comprehend. Ever considered teaching ;)

Jens thanks for the site information. I wonder if anyone would be interested in conversing privately for ease of sending back and forth in the future. Let me know I will pass on my address.

Sheri

[SheriG]

PS: Can anyone tell me why I receive 6 email notifications for one posting everytime???? It's the only maddening thing about this!

[DaveG]

SheriG wrote:
Jens,
I have never shot with an 85. What do you like about it. Definately inbetween the 50 and portrait 100. Which of all of these would you say you use the most?

Sheri


In the 35 mm format I loved the 85 mm focal length. It was great for portraits and it's usually a stop faster than the 100/105 lens, for the same price.

The smaller CMOS of the 10D complicates things though. The 50 becomes an 80, the 85 a 136 and the 100 a 160. Although I think (hope?) that a 10D priced Canon with a full 24x36 CMOS can't be that far off, I'm putting off getting a 85. The 85 (135 in effect) is kind of a useless focal length - at least to me. As I've said before, it's too long for portraits and too short to be interesting.

The 50 on the other hand is very quick (1.4) and will let you compose portraits in small rooms. I use a 145 & a 150 for medium format weddings and those lenses translate into roughly what a 50 will do on a 10D. I can assure you that for 2/3 portraits of a bride in her living room this is the longest lens that you'll be able to get away with.

So I'd go with the 50 f1.4 for speed and also for the focal length. For a slightly longer lens, but with a f2.8 aperture, you might want to think about the 100 f2.8 macro. It's a stop slower than the 100 f2 but also adds a capablity to you lens line up that you don't have now.

[maderito]

SheriG wrote:
I am looking to purchase a new lens which will be good for shooting stage and portraits in low light situations.


I've followed this thread with some interest since I have both the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. I love them both and tend to choose one over the other depending on the context. I know there's always a big debate about 85 vs 105 vs 135 mm lenses for portraits. Perhaps this is a big decision for someone doing professional studio portraits. For me, the decision usually boils down to: (1) head vs. head+shoulder vs. full body "portraits" and (2) what is the working distance from camera to subject. Thus I find myself choosing one lens over the other for a given setting. Both lenses deliver oustanding quality. Remember, however, that you have to stop down to f5.6 or so do get adequate depth of field for a traditional portrait. For candids and available light shots, however, working at or near full aperture often returns truly great shots.

I don't think you would be disappointed with either lens, but one might serve your objectives better than the other depending on how, what and where you plan to shoot.

[GenEOS]

Sure Sheri...send to daniel@tunstall.cc

[SheriG]

What a great discussion! Oh those "real time" conversions. I guess like everything else it will become as natural in use as the A-1 and I won't have to think about it. I will just begin seeing the way I did in 35mm.

Everyones suggestions have been wonderful and incredibly helpful and informative. I think at this point I will be investing in the 50 1.4 or 8 and then begin dreaming about the next lens. I think in the end this might give me the most versatitlity (for portrait shoots).

Next up....those dreaded color shifts from low-available light! WOW! But sometimes VERY cool.

Talk to you soon, anyone at this thread can reach me at 2nomads@earthlink.net if your want.

Sheri

[Ballen Photo]

SheriG wrote:
Everyones suggestions have been wonderful and incredibly helpful and informative. I think at this point I will be investing in the 50 1.4 or 8 and then begin dreaming about the next lens. I think in the end this might give me the most versatitlity (for portrait shoots).

Sheri, You wont regret this lens in any way. Aside from being a very affordable low light lens, it's also very sharp. I do recommend getting the lens hood to go with it.
.......Bruce

[SheriG]

Nice quote Bruce...ain't that the truth! There goes mine...money that is.

[SheriG]

Jens thanks for the site tip. It looks fantastic and I have a feeling I will be a frequent visitor.

[SheriG]

Okay gang...here are the choices. I went to B&H...have dealt with them forever but open to other suggestions.

They have an
EF 50mm 1.8 II autofocus for $69.95

or the big ticket item...
EF 50mm 1.4 USM autofocus for @299.95

Going to take the plunge today or tomorrow so last words would be appreciated. You have been great!

Sheri

[maderito]

SheriG wrote:
Okay gang...here are the choices...

EF 50mm 1.8 II autofocus for $69.95

or the big ticket item...

EF 50mm 1.4 USM autofocus for @299.95

SheriG, although I own and love my 50/1.4, I can't honestly remember shooting at that aperture. The DOF is just too small. Perhaps 1.8 or 2.0 is the lowest I've gone. The only time I recall using f=1.4 was do a test to check for front/back autofocus problems (I found none). Save your money and join the crowd that raves about the 50mm 1.8 II. You'll be $230 closer to your next lens and constantly satisifed over the years about your wisdom in choosing a high quality lens that costs next to nothing.

Thanks for reminding me that I'm $230 poorer than I need to be :).

[SheriG]

You know the DOF thing really makes sense. Especially for portrait shots. I am so glad I asked. I was just so focused on the light issue as I am stuggling so much with color shifts and stuff now with digital that I had conquered in film.

Thanks for the suggestion. I put my $230.00 in the bank...:)

Sheri

[OmeRobbie]

May I add another suggestion: the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 or the Sigma 28-70 F2.8 both are around 300 USD. Especiallly the Tamron receives great reviews, in some tests it even outperformed the Canon 28-70L F2.8.

Okay it's less wide aperture and it's also less sharp as a prime would be, but you'll have less lenses and the fun of zooming. On parties or events this can be very convenient.

[SheriG]

Thanks, I got my 50 1.8 and shot my first low light images this weekend. It made a significant difference in shutter speed. I am still frustrated by the lack of a "true" wide angle, especially when I change over to my film camera and use my 24 dream lens. The 28-135 I have is just not wide enough. Oh well....pros and cons to everything.