Night life photography lenses

[Mastroz]

Originally Posted by TooManyShots

Kind of if the subject is very close. Shot may not be as sharp because the depth of view is very shallow. Still, night time ambient light is still very crappy. You maybe get a sharp shot. However, the color and lighting may not look as good as if using flash the correct way.

so what would u use then? night time shooting and club shooting?

[Stealthy Ninja]

Long story short. Sell some of your old lenses and get the Canon EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS.

Now here's my long thoughts:
Alternatively, you could mount a flash and turn it off, just use it for focus assist in the dark. Then use a fast prime to get the shutter speed (try something like a sigma 20mm 1.8 maybe? Should be interesting in crowds.).

Like others said, if you use flash, you shouldn't see a difference, depends on what you're going for.

As for your question, I'd go for the L after looking at your gear list. Consider selling some stuff and going for the 24-70 2.8 HSM (Sigma).

If I were you I'd sell this:
Canon 18-55mm kit lens
Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8-4

Replace with
Sigma 24-70 2.8 HSM (the HSM version is the one you should get) + Canon 17-40L (for wider stuff, especially if you go FF later). Or just the 24-70 2.8 HSM if money is tight. Alternatively, go for the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS if you don't plan to go FF. That lens is pretty good (I've owned it). This may actually be your best choice here.

It might be interesting to mount it on a tripod and get some purposely motion blurred shots... but that's OT.

If you're into portraits, the 17-40 won't be your best choice. I'd use the Sigma 70-300 or the 50 1.8 on a XXXD camera.

[Feudal1]

Originally Posted by superdat1

primes at that focal length won't be so friendly in crowded areas.

I've shot with both the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, and have had no issues shooting in crowded areas at night. Both lenses are small and unobtrusive, which I've found to be a good thing.

[Mastroz]

Originally Posted by Feudal1

I've shot with both the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, and have had no issues shooting in crowded areas at night. Both lenses are small and unobtrusive, which I've found to be a good thing.

can you take the pictures then without the flash?? i've looked at the 50mm 1.4 for a long time now... tring to find a good deal on it, plus it seems to take good pictures.

[TooManyShots]

Originally Posted by Mastroz

can you take the pictures then without the flash?? i've looked at the 50mm 1.4 for a long time now... tring to find a good deal on it, plus it seems to take good pictures.

Of course you could but without the flash, the possible motion freezing shutter speed may not be achievable given with the ambient light. If you flash the scene. you have far more flexibility. And the shot would come out far more better with color and contrast.

[Mastroz]

Originally Posted by TooManyShots

Of course you could but without the flash, the possible motion freezing shutter speed may not be achievable given with the ambient light. If you flash the scene. you have far more flexibility. And the shot would come out far more better with color and contrast.

ok, well u can just take a flast picture with the lense then and all should be good then?

[Feudal1]

Originally Posted by Mastroz

can you take the pictures then without the flash?? i've looked at the 50mm 1.4 for a long time now... tring to find a good deal on it, plus it seems to take good pictures.

It really depends on the situation. Even with an f/1.2 lens, if lighting is bad, chances are you'll still need to use a flash. TooManyShots has some great advice on how to use your flash, underexposing to darken the scene, letting the flash light and freeze your subject. For more details, check this out:

http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/f...g-the-shutter/

[midget]

with nightlife, i do a majority of my work with flash. at f4 and up, so the slower lens doesnt make such a big difference.

[TooManyShots]

Originally Posted by Mastroz

ok, well u can just take a flast picture with the lense then and all should be good then?

No. You have to shoot in manual mode 2 to 4 stops underexposed to the ambient light and as well as manual exposure compensation on the flash. You must have to ability to bounce the flash on a wall or other large subject. Maybe try a flash diffuser for the outdoor setting. The more you underexpose the shot, the more dominant your flash light would be. So, you don't want to underexpose too much, maybe at 150s, and at ISO 800. Take couple of shots and take a look at the histogram to see if you properly exposed the shot. If the flash intensity is too bright, the histogram would be too much to the right. Too low, too much to the left.

[Mastroz]

Originally Posted by midget

with nightlife, i do a majority of my work with flash. at f4 and up, so the slower lens doesnt make such a big difference.

ok, cool, the 50mm will also take really good regular photos and everything... would that be a good lense to add to my lenses I have?

[Stealthy Ninja]

Sorry, edit.

For you, I'd get a UWA lens. 10-22 range.

[Kyle is raaddd]

50mm f/1.0

[quieststorm]

Thanks for all the help guys, i will most likely be getting rid of my old lenses soon

[superdat1]

Originally Posted by Feudal1

I've shot with both the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, and have had no issues shooting in crowded areas at night. Both lenses are small and unobtrusive, which I've found to be a good thing.

the size is definitley nice, along with the speed...but ive had trouble getting room in a club to shoot a person ( full body ). i personally think that a 50mm would be useless in many situations, unless you have a lot of room to move around.

[nureality]

you definitely need flash.