Thinking about an IS lens...

Some days ago I had to take pictures of a party (indoors). I did choose my Rebel XTi and the 50mm F/1.8. After all, I keep reading that low f/stop are magic in low light.

Well, I've gone as far as using the Flash + ISO 1600 + 50mm F/1.8, +1 exp. value.

The pictures came out good, but I was getting frustrated.

1) 50mm is way too zoomed in for indoors shot - my fault, i guess - I was almost INTO the freaking walls.

2) even at F/1.8..It doesnt prevent shaky pictures. I'm kind of upset. I came to the conclusion that a low f/stop cannot replace a tripod or an IS lens..

3) When I bought my 7D, I was on a budget. So I took the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (non VC). Well, I might sell my XTi to get the VC version, or the Sigma 15-50 F/2.8-4 OS HSM (290$). Of course, my 7D is far superior at high iso, so I might have just go with my 7D...

Lesson learned... 1) no prime for indoors , 2) low f/stop is useless handheld, 3) a tripod would be too ackward indoors, and 3) I should always get a IS/VC/OS lens next time.

Cr4zYH3aD wrote in post #12667786
Some days ago I had to take pictures of a party (indoors). I did choose my Rebel XTi and the 50mm F/1.8. After all, I keep reading that low f/stop are magic in low light.

Well, I've gone as far as using the Flash + ISO 1600 + 50mm F/1.8, +1 exp. value.

The pictures came out good, but I was getting frustrated.

1) 50mm is way too zoomed in for indoors shot - my fault, i guess - I was almost INTO the freaking walls.

2) even at F/1.8..It doesnt prevent shaky pictures. I'm kind of upset. I came to the conclusion that a low f/stop cannot replace a tripod or an IS lens..

3) When I bought my 7D, I was on a budget. So I took the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (non VC). Well, I might sell my XTi to get the VC version, or the Sigma 15-50 F/2.8-4 OS HSM (290$). Of course, my 7D is far superior at high iso, so I might have just go with my 7D...

Lesson learned... 1) no prime for indoors , 2) low f/stop is useless handheld, 3) a tripod would be too ackward indoors, and 3) I should always get a IS/VC/OS lens next time.

I have to disagree with you.

First of all, low f stop and IS won't replace a tripod. In fact, they will help the photographer to take better pictures in low light situation / lower shutter speed. But when you hit the point that the shutter speed is too slow for handheld or dark situation. You will still need a tripod to steady your shots to avoid camera shake or a flash to gives you light source.

Just like ABS, traction control, stability control will assist the driver in a car, but won't make the person a good driver.

And bare in mind, you are using a 50mm f/1.8, the focus is not the greatest on this lens. Couldn't really make a general comment on all prime/low f stop lens. It will be a whole difference case if you are using the 50mm F/1.2 L. But after all, no matter what lens it is, too slow of a shutter speed can't take handheld shot without camera shake, so either use a tripod or monopod.

thestone11 wrote in post #12667938
Just like ABS, traction control, stability control will assist the driver in a car, but won't make the person a good driver.

nice!

What shutter speed were you using? and Why in the world did not use your 7D?

The problem is, if you are needing IS with a wide angle lens then your shutter speeds are too slow for party shots anyway. You should be able to handhold a wide angle at 1/50th second without IS, if you use IS to go slower than that then the subject motion will give you blurred (or at least significantly soft) shots anyway.

I am a big fan of IS for stationary subjects and, yes, it can be more effective than faster aperture in low light. However, with moving subjects, I want shutter speed to stay up, so fast primes take over.

Cr4zYH3aD wrote in post #12667786
1) 50mm is way too zoomed in for indoors shot - my fault, i guess - I was almost INTO the freaking walls.

2) even at F/1.8..It doesnt prevent shaky pictures. I'm kind of upset. I came to the conclusion that a low f/stop cannot replace a tripod or an IS lens..

Lesson learned... 1) no prime for indoors , 2) low f/stop is useless handheld, 3) a tripod would be too ackward indoors, and 3) I should always get a IS/VC/OS lens next time.

I disagree with you on almost everything.

50mm is fine for certain types of shot indoors unless you have a really small space to work in. Head shots for example, in an average sized room, are perfectly fine.

f1.8 allows you to use a much faster shutter speed than, say, a f3.5 or f5.6 lens, which minimises blur caused by camera shake. A tripod and IS may prevent blur from camera shake, but it won't prevent blur from subject motion, which is probably going to be a much bigger problem at parties and other such events. If you think about it, IS is sort of like using a tripod, you can get the shutter speed right down to about 1/15 or so, but your subjects aren't going to stand completely still waiting for you to take the picture, you need at least 1/200 to have a chance of freezing motion in environments such as those, and only a fast lens + high ISO and sufficient available light or flash are going to get you that shutter speed, you can have the best tripod or best IS system in the world, and it won't help you there.

The lessons you've learned are unfortunately mostly incorrect.
1) A prime will be VERY useful indoors. I wouldn't even think of using a zoom if I had a prime that could do the same job focal length-wise. A f1.8 prime will allow you to use more than double the shutter speed of a f2.8 zoom. If you don't think that is useful indoors, then I'm not quite sure what type of photography you've been practicing. While it is true that a zoom with stabiliser will potentially allow you to use a lower shutter speed without any blur from camera shake, as I said above, you will almost certainly have motion blur from the subject unless you happen to be shooting a slumber party or something of the sort.

2) As you've probably figured out, a faster shutter speed is better for handholding, so your 2nd lesson goes out the window there.

3) This I agree with. You'll just end up getting in everyone's way. A monopod would be far better if you absolutely must have support, but bounced flash would be even better than that.

4) That is not always necessary. All you need to remember is to keep the shutter speed high enough so that you don't get any camera shake. The rule of thumb is usually 1/focal length or 1/focal length * crop factor (I find I have no problems handholding even lower than 1/focal length, so I use the first rule). IS/OS/VC is useful in some scenarios I won't deny, but I would not call it a necessity. After all, photographers managed to go without that for quite a while before they were invented.

for reference, this image, while not a very good one, was shot handheld in low light with my 30mm f1.4 at ISO 1600. You can see there is no blur of any kind:

Cr4zYH3aD wrote in post #12667786
Some days ago I had to take pictures of a party (indoors). I did choose my Rebel XTi and the 50mm F/1.8. After all, I keep reading that low f/stop are magic in low light.

Well, I've gone as far as using the Flash + ISO 1600 + 50mm F/1.8, +1 exp. value.

The pictures came out good, but I was getting frustrated.

1) 50mm is way too zoomed in for indoors shot - my fault, i guess - I was almost INTO the freaking walls.

2) even at F/1.8..It doesnt prevent shaky pictures. I'm kind of upset. I came to the conclusion that a low f/stop cannot replace a tripod or an IS lens..

3) When I bought my 7D, I was on a budget. So I took the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 (non VC). Well, I might sell my XTi to get the VC version, or the Sigma 15-50 F/2.8-4 OS HSM (290$). Of course, my 7D is far superior at high iso, so I might have just go with my 7D...

Lesson learned... 1) no prime for indoors , 2) low f/stop is useless handheld, 3) a tripod would be too ackward indoors, and 3) I should always get a IS/VC/OS lens next time.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you too.... IS doesn't replace light and having a prime that allows MORE light is going to be your best bet. Tripod mounting is always going to be your best bet but the best thing you can do in the situation is to add more light or get a monopod = )

Sirrith wrote in post #12668070
I think you misread his post.
You say you disagree with him, then you go on to perfectly summarise what he himself said in point 2).

However, I disagree with the OP with regards to almost everything.

I didn't misread the OP.

OP point number 2: "even at F/1.8..It doesnt prevent shaky pictures. I'm kind of upset. I came to the conclusion that a low f/stop cannot replace a tripod or an IS lens.."

He thinks the IS can replace the tripod in dark situation. And I just explain the IS will just help but he still need a tripod in some situation. And on his comment he said "low f stop is useless handheld", so I again explained it will help but it has its limit.

thestone11 wrote in post #12668097
I didn't misread the OP.

OP point number 2: "even at F/1.8..It doesnt prevent shaky pictures. I'm kind of upset. I came to the conclusion that a low f/stop cannot replace a tripod or an IS lens.."

He thinks the IS can replace the tripod in dark situation. And I just explain the IS will just help but he still need a tripod in some situation. And on his comment he said "low f stop is useless handheld", so I again explained it will help but it has its limit.

Yes I realised I misread your post myself! Edited it out before you posted. Thought you were referring only to his comment about low f stop.

I've taken some decent handheld shots with a relatively low end body (like the 300D) with a nice prime lens. Like the 50mm 1.4 for example. A great little lens at a reasonable price.

Thanks for the replies !

I got to "flash" in your post and thought "What's the problem then?"

If you master flash, you won't need a fast lens or a slow shutter speed.
If 50 is too long (not unexpectedly frankly), use the right length. That may involve a suitable zoom, like, for instance, your 17-50 or 18-55.

There is no merit in the notion that primes are of no value indoors in my opinion.

I have to both agree and disagree with you.

Cr4zYH3aD wrote in post #12667786
Some days ago I had to take pictures of a party (indoors). I did choose my Rebel XTi and the 50mm F/1.8. After all, I keep reading that low f/stop are magic in low light.

I agree you probably have heard that a lot. Unfortunately it is not entirely true. A wide aperture creates almost as many problems as it solves when it comes to low light photography. You can lose so much depth of field that it becomes almost impossible to nail focus, and you lose sharpness as well. I always strongly recommend that people with low-light issues attempt to solve them first with a good flash. Primes should be purchased primarily for their other benefits and secondarily for their low-light ability. Sell the 18-55 and save up a little more, then get a 430ex II, 580ex II, or an older generation version of those, as long as it has good ability to point the flash head nearly any direction you want.

I agree, it can be, depending on the size of the room. However, this is not a PRIME issue. This is a 50mm on crop = 80mm = too tight in some rooms issue. Heck, for certain kinds of shots the 17mm on your 17-50 could be too narrow.

I agree, it does not. However, that is because it is not really meant to. Shake is a function of focal length, shutter speed, and the steadiness of your hands. What a wider apertures primarily does in a low light situation is let you lower your ISO more. You should first be choosing your minimum acceptable shutter speed for the subject at hand a/o your focal length, no matter what ISO that results in. Then set your Aperture as wide as acceptable. Then finally set the lowest ISO you can without underexposing more than is appropriate for the subject. If you are limited to f/1.8 instead of f/2.8 then you can lower ISO 1 1/3rd stops more, and that can be huge, assuming that isn't too little DOF. I would actually recommend f/2 for a little more sharpness and DOF on the 50 f/1.8. 1/3rd stop ISO won't matter as much.

What comes into play here regarding IS vs non-IS is whether you are shooting moving subjects or not. IS will do nothing for you when shooting moving subjects indoors because your shutter speed needs to be fast enough for the subject, which will be probably 1/80 minimum, possibly much higher. What IS will do is allow you to lower your shutter speed on a static subject by a considerable margin, perhaps as low as 1/10 on a 50mm lens. This will then let you use a lower ISO or get away with a narrower aperture for more DOF.

Sell the XTi, Kit lens, Tamron 2.8, and 50 f/1.8, which will all be redundant. Get a 430 EX II and either the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS, or the Tamron 17-50 VC.

I disagree with 1. As I said earlier that is not a prime issue. That is 50mm being too narrow on a crop camera for the situation issue. If you had a 28mm prime you would have been fine.

I disagree with 2. It is not useless, you just need to understand what benefits it provides and how to use those benefits.

I disagree with 3 (1). Situations vary too much to state this unequivocally.

I disagree with 3 (2). For your next purchase it might be a good idea, but isn't a good idea for all circumstances, and is less of one once you have an IS lens.

yeah 50mm is like 80mm on a crop, which is good.... for portraits.

Well, IS can certainly help you get better pictures indoors and/or in low light.

However, I also disagree with most of your conclusions. I can't really add much to the points that have already been made the posters above. I have a nifty fifty, and have gotten some fairly sharp pictures in low light (don't have any handy to post right now), with no flash or tripod.

One of my thoughts though, which was mentioned above, is that at f/1.8, your depth of field can be very shallow depending on how close you are to your subject. So, even if you do get the focus right, more of the photo may be out of focus than you realize.

Jason