Indoors / Low Light Shooting

[cmosdos]

<Cliff Notes At Bottom>

I've spent hours searching the forums and the web trying to figure out which lense I should buy. I've finally decided that the more I search and read, the less I know what to do! I will be using the lense mainly for indoor shots of the new baby coming soon as well as the cat and other outdoors landscape shooting. I've tried to compile a list of lenses I've looked at and my thoughts about it. Sorry if this is a bit long, but I appreciate your coments greatly.

1. 16-35L f2.8: I think this would be my ideal lense. It has a wide enough aperature to give me low light shooting, but my budget just can't allow for such a purchase. Doesn't seem to be many people with a bad comment towards the lense. If I was making money off the shots, I would reconsider, but just can't afford it.

2. 17-40L f4: Talk about hit and miss. It seems that 50% love this lense and the rest say its too soft. I'm also worried that the f4 might not be enough for indoors handheld. The lense would also replace my 18-55, so I could sell that (if i'm lucky!). I'm also drawn to it because of the 'L' fever and hey, it looks cool! If I could be sure that the lense was sharp wide open and could handle indoors, I would buy it right away. Of course, then I wouldn't be making this post either!

3. Sigma 18-50 f2.8: I've hear good things about the lense. It seems to compare well to the 17-40L when at f4. That sort of defeats my purpose of having it wide open though, 'eh?

4. Tamron 17-35 f2.8: No idea... I can't seem to find a consensus on this lense. Again, I'd be buying a lense for a focal range I already have. If its not going to be much sharper or provide well wide open, I don't see the point.

5. Primes. And now we're back at my origional thought. Get a wide angle prime at f2.8 or wider and probably have enough money left over for a 100mm macro to play with. I can't seem to come to a conclusion on any wide angle prime's. There's the 20/24/28 f2.8 Canon's... but I don't feel their wide enough. Maybe they are? With the 1.6 crop, I'd be worried. It's my understanding that a prime will always be sharper than a zoom will be. So I assume I wouldn't have problems with it being wide open and sharp. I'm sure this varies with the lense of course.

Cliffs:
1. I need a wide angle lense to shoot indoors and low light conditions with. I will also use it for landscape outdoor shots.
2. I want the lense to be sharp wide open. If this means going with a prime, that's fine. If its a zoom that replaces my 18-55 range, the lense better be far supperior in sharpness and aperature.
3. I have to consider the 1.6 crop, so wide angle needs to end up being wide angle.
4. My budget is around $700, so the 16-35L is out of range :(
5. Thanks!

[SHOWSP]

On the Tamron 17-35 f2.8, you can check reviews from 23 people on FREDMIRANDA.COM

[Tom W]

Sigma 20 mm f/1.8. Test it thoroughly though as there is some variance from copy to copy.

[formula4speed]

Why not use your 50mm 1.8 for your baby shots? It has good sharpness and good speed for indoor shots. If I wanted something for landscapes I'd get a super wide, I actually just orderd a tokina 12-24mm f/4 lens for a bit under $500 for outdoor shooting.

[lkorell]

If your primary objective is shooting baby pictures and you need a fast and sharp lens, I recommend the 50 1.4. It's a nice portrait lens and will do the job in low light.
If you want more light, use a flash with a diffuser and just bounce the light rather than directly at the baby. That's what I'd do.
For your outdoor and landscape shots, the 17-40 is great. I use that lens quite often and even used it for most of my shots at a recent wedding. The light was dim and I added a diffused flash (580ex) which did the job.
congratulations BTW!

Lou

[cmosdos]

On the Tamron 17-35 f2.8, you can check reviews from 23 people on FREDMIRANDA.COM

I've read all of them and it seems to be a great contendor to the 17-40L. At the price of $500 though, would it produce as good a photo as a prime 20mm at the same f-stop?

Tom W, I read quite a bit about the Sigma 20mm f1.8, but like you said, there seems to be a lot of problems with quality control. Also, even on good ones, at f1.8 it doesn't seem to be very good. f2.8 and up is pretty good (if you can get a good one in the first place). I just don't like having to ping pong back and forth with companies to get a decent lense.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the Tamron 17-35 unless someone can talk me out of it.

[cmosdos]

About the 50mm lense... It just seems a bit too long. On my 350D, we're talking about 80mm. What makes me caution against this is a very good example from last night. My wife was sittin on the couch with her head resting against a pillow. Our cat was also sitting up (like a human being) and resting her tiny head next to my wife's. I was sitting just a couple feet away on an adjoining couch. Using a 50mm lense, I would have had GREAT pictures of my wife's nose. Sometimes with animals and babies you just can't recreate the moment again and if you miss it, you just have to wait for the next one. I can always crop a picture if I go too short, but its very difficult to put more photo back into a long picture. :lol:

[lkorell]

Sitting just a couple of feet away isn't really the best position to do a portrait anyway. If you are going to do a "snapshot" the kit lens has a better advantage, but low light is your main issue at that point.

Lots of folks love the 50 for all kinds of portraiture. I agree but use the 85 more.

I was thinking more of the baby shots. You don't need to get too close to shoot those and the 50 should be enough. Try setting your 18-55 at about 50 and see where you have to position yourself in order to get a shot you like. Pick an object or cat/dog that will be similar in size to a baby. Try different angles and move around a bit. Don't be afraid to try standing on a chair and shooting from above either. There's lots of ways to do baby photography.

Play a bit with light too. If you can get enough light at f4 then the 17-40 might be very nice for you. Think about depth of field though. If you are doing baby pics you probably want to get rid of busy backgrounds with a shallow DOF. That's why I suggested the 50 1.4. It's the more affordable of Canon's 1.4 lenses.

Yes you can buy the 1.8 lenses from any company for less, but you won't have that creamier background that flatters the baby shots so much.

You're gonna have a good time and lots of baby pics to show. I can tell. :)


Lou

[LightRules]

The Sigmas 20 f1.8 and 18-50 f2.8 are good choices. The zoom is very useable wide open; it's your best bet in terms of zoom in this range. OTOH, f2.8 still isn't all that fast for low light, so maybe primes would suit you better. If you'll be using an external flash, then the 17-40L might be your best bet as some of the 3rd party zooms sometimes have issues with focusing. My 18-50 is fine though. See my sig for test shots of various lenses. I have a 17-40 v 18-50 gallery too.

[whchan]

I also have the kit lens, 50/1.8 and a Tamron 28-75/2.8. I have a new born (she is now 7 months old) and almost exclusively use the 50/1.8 to shoot her indoor. I also have a 350D with 1.6 crop factor. I never find that too long for my little baby, a lot of my shots are close up anyway. In order to get the very shadow DOF like those in baby magazines, I have to use f/2.2 (avoiding use 1.8 since it is not as sharp). As she is getter older now (moving all the time when awake), I also using an external flash indoor even during the day indoor. Just remember to use bouncing technique.

[cmosdos]

Hrm... interesting posts. I will give it a try tonight using my 50 f1.8 and see how I feel with it indoors.

[blue_max]

When I first got my dslr, moving up from a G5, I was devastated to find that my first lens, an 85mm prime, wouldn't shoot in dim light. This was one of the things that I believed that SLR's would help with. However, I then discovered the ISO button and realised I could 'cheat' the exposure a good few stops. That makes a big difference when the light is not great.

I have the 85 and 135 primes and use them to grab pics of the kids (7 and 3.5yrs now) on the climbing frame outside and they are great. If you only have one lens, you find a way to shoot things. I find I do try and use the 135 'cos it's an L!

For everyone who tells you something can't be done, there are as many that are doing just that. It's easy to think that another lens would be just what is required, but some of the best shots come from 'incorrect' use of a lens, if I can call it that.

I am getting the 50 1.4 as we speak and hope that will fill a gap between the 17-40 (great lens) and the 70-200f4 (legendary lens). I can honestly say that the zooms seem to be very close to the primes in terms of quality. Here is the 70-200f4 at 135mm up against the 135mmL prime@f4. They are different, but neither is vastly superior.

Good luck with the 50 and hope it works for you (and congratulations!).

Graham

[ryan_kalani]

About the 50mm lense... It just seems a bit too long. On my 350D, we're talking about 80mm. What makes me caution against this is a very good example from last night. My wife was sittin on the couch with her head resting against a pillow. Our cat was also sitting up (like a human being) and resting her tiny head next to my wife's. I was sitting just a couple feet away on an adjoining couch. Using a 50mm lense, I would have had GREAT pictures of my wife's nose. Sometimes with animals and babies you just can't recreate the moment again and if you miss it, you just have to wait for the next one. I can always crop a picture if I go too short, but its very difficult to put more photo back into a long picture. :lol:
get the canon ef 28mm F/1.8 USM that i just got. with the 350d, that i also have, it comes out to about 45mm after the 1.6 crop factor. should arrive at my house today.

[cmosdos]

get the canon ef 28mm F/1.8 USM that i just got. with the 350d, that i also have, it comes out to about 45mm after the 1.6 crop factor. should arrive at my house today.

Let me know how that does. That was what I orgionally planned to buy. I just got home, but wifey is yelling for me to get off the computer and take her out to get some mexican food. Never make a pregnant lady wait! :lol:

[crc_408]

get the canon ef 28mm F/1.8 USM that i just got. with the 350d, that i also have, it comes out to about 45mm after the 1.6 crop factor. should arrive at my house today.

Got mine yesterday. Great lens for the shots I took around the house. Wanted something a bit wider than my 50/1.8. Will use it at a graduation tomorrow, so we'll see how that goes.

I'd say just take your camera to a camera shop, try out the lens you're looking at, take some pics, and look at them at home.

[Sean-Mcr]

The 50 is great for low light portrait shots, it's not too long. To show that, here's a shot i took with the 85mm F1.8. Jessica was at the end of the sofa i was no more then 4 to 5 feet away.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12556&stc=1

[cmosdos]

Well, I had a chance to play around with the 50 f1.8 indoors last night. Thanks to everyone that recommended this. I was surprised how how close I could be and still compose a decent shot. As long as I'm more than 3ft away I can frame what I need.

Well, now that I don't need to purchase a wider angle lense to shoot indoors, I can splurge for the 100mm f2.8 macro!

Sean-Mcr, that is a beautiful picture! I can't wait to take some of my daughter. Feels so odd saying that right now... 'my daughter'. Hehehe.