Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 03 Dec 2011 (Saturday) 05:17
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Is the 35mm 2.0 or the 50mm 1.4 better in low light?"
35mm f/2
12
30.8%
50mm f/1.4
27
69.2%

39 voters, 39 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is the 35mm 2.0 or the 50mm 1.4 better in low light in your experience?

 
uneek78
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
340 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: NC
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:10 |  #31

twoshadows wrote in post #13489871 (external link)
If you're looking at the Sigma 30, you might also want to consider the Canon 28mm f/1.8. It really depends on what you're looking for, but the slower (Canon's f/1.8 vs Sigma's f/1.4) has better AF and a significantly closer MFD. The Sigma is slightly sharper than the Canon at similar apertures (what one would expect considering that at f/1.8 the Canon is wide open while the Sigma is stopped down 2/3 stop), but only slightly. I don't think you'll go wrong with either lens*. The Sigma 30 has a somewhat special way of rendering an image that is unique to some of Sigma's lenses, like the 50mm f1.4 and (discontinued) 100-300 f/4. BUT, it is a subtle difference from the Canon.

* - assuming a good copy. The Sigma is known for AF issues that may require calibration and, to be clear, I do not recommend sending a new lens in for calibration.

Images from the 28mm f/1.8:
On 1.3x crop
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

On 1.6x crop
IMAGE NOT FOUND
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

On FF
QUOTED IMAGE

Nice!!!!!!!!!!!!


Gerard Payne | www.gerardpayne.com (external link)
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 24-105L |Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:16 |  #32

if you're talking indoor low light i think the best thing you could be would be a flash....


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uneek78
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
340 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: NC
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:23 |  #33

DreDaze wrote in post #13490003 (external link)
if you're talking indoor low light i think the best thing you could be would be a flash....

I'm trying to prepare for those times that there is no flash photography allowed. Also "no flash" photos is what I really like when in clubs, concerts and such.


Gerard Payne | www.gerardpayne.com (external link)
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 24-105L |Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:25 |  #34

uneek78 wrote in post #13490021 (external link)
I'm trying to prepare for those times that there is no flash photography allowed. Also "no flash" photos is what I really like when in clubs, concerts and such.

i'd still recommend a flash...if you're talking indoor cramped clubs, i think 50mm will probably be a little long...i typically decide what to get based on focal length first...indoors you can't always back up without taking a sledgehammer to wall :)


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ashura
Member
117 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:28 |  #35

DreDaze wrote in post #13490003 (external link)
if you're talking indoor low light i think the best thing you could be would be a flash....

Depending on what you shoot, a flash may be a very bad idea.
- some places don't allow them
- it attracts a lot of attention
- you can only light part of a scene, and sometimes you want to show what's in the background too
- if badly used it just looks horrible

I think it is important to learn how to use available light before resorting to a flash. A fast prime is the best way to experiment with available light.

I second about the 50 mm being a bit long for indoors on a crop. It's hard to get much more than portraits. I'm getting a 35/2 because of this.


flickr (external link)
50D, EF 24-105/4 L, EF 50/1.4, EF 35/2.0, EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5, 430EX, D-Lite 4 It kit

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:31 |  #36
bannedPermanent ban

DreDaze wrote in post #13490029 (external link)
i'd still recommend a flash...if you're talking indoor cramped clubs, i think 50mm will probably be a little long...i typically decide what to get based on focal length first...indoors you can't always back up without taking a sledgehammer to wall :)

Agree. 50mm maybe too long for indoor on crop. ~30 is a more usable. Canon 28 or sigma 30 imo...


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 03, 2011 16:39 |  #37

Ashura wrote in post #13490041 (external link)
Depending on what you shoot, a flash may be a very bad idea.
- some places don't allow them
- it attracts a lot of attention
- you can only light part of a scene, and sometimes you want to show what's in the background too
- if badly used it just looks horrible

I think it is important to learn how to use available light before resorting to a flash. A fast prime is the best way to experiment with available light.

Depending on what you shoot, a fast lens may be a bad idea.
-sometimes, no matter how fast they are, it's not enough to stop motion blur/camera shake
-if you need to shoot at a fast aperture, you'll have a extremely shallow DOF, hence not getting everything you want in focus sometimes
-if you miss-focus then your results will look horrible

i have no comeback for the attracts attention :)

personally i think the best combo is fast prime, and an external flash...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uneek78
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
340 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: NC
     
Dec 03, 2011 17:28 |  #38

DreDaze wrote in post #13490089 (external link)
Depending on what you shoot, a fast lens may be a bad idea.
-sometimes, no matter how fast they are, it's not enough to stop motion blur/camera shake
-if you need to shoot at a fast aperture, you'll have a extremely shallow DOF, hence not getting everything you want in focus sometimes
-if you miss-focus then your results will look horrible

i have no comeback for the attracts attention :)

personally i think the best combo is fast prime, and an external flash...

What lens do you vote for a fast prime?


Gerard Payne | www.gerardpayne.com (external link)
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 24-105L |Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,380 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Likes: 3278
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 03, 2011 17:35 |  #39

if you could afford the sigma 30mm f1.4, or canon 28mm f1.8 i'd go there...i couldn't so i have the 35/2


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uneek78
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
340 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: NC
     
Dec 03, 2011 17:41 |  #40

I'll probably get the 35mm f/2 also. And save up next year for the big boy and sell the little boy.


Gerard Payne | www.gerardpayne.com (external link)
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 24-105L |Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ConverseMan
Senior Member
Avatar
766 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Kansas City, MO
     
Dec 03, 2011 19:21 |  #41

kin2son wrote in post #13489746 (external link)
This is irrelevant. Can I say to OP keep using the 24-105 f4 and just bump iso to compensate the slow aperture?

Stick to the question.

Lol. That's about all I have to say to that post. So - I'll put a picture up:

IMAGE: http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/181000/181364_RICOLA.jpg

Nathan W.
Nikon D700 | Nikon 50mm 1.8 | Nikon 85mm 1.8 | AlienBees
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mark-B
Goldmember
Avatar
2,248 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Louisiana
     
Dec 03, 2011 23:59 |  #42

artyH wrote in post #13488687 (external link)
I use the 35f2 more than the 50. Image quality is good on both lenses wide open, but I don't care for the results I get with the 50 at f1.4. If a person's head is turned just slightly, the closer eye gets focused on and is sharp, but the now distant eye may be a little blurry. You can get this with the 35 at f2, but much less often.

The shallow depth of field is directly related to your distance from your subject. With the 50mm, you are probably getting very close to your subject to fill the frame with head & shoulders. With the 35mm, you are more likely standing farther away from your subject to get a half body or environmental portrait, therefore the depth of field is not as shallow. You are associating this property with the lens, but it is entirely possible to have your subjects 100% in focus with both lenses.

Actually, the 35mm f/2 has such a short minimum focus distance, you can create shallow depth of field even at f/20:

IMAGE: http://www.msbphoto.com/img/s10/v2/p362941832-4.jpg


To answer the original question, the 35/2 and the 50/1.4 perform very similarly in low light. Neither is that great, but the 35mm might be just a little bit better. Of course, the f/1.4 lens will get you a much higher shutter speed if that is something that will help your pictures. I have samples from the 28, 30, 35, & 50 if you follow the link in my signature.

Mark-B
msbphoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
liupublic
Goldmember
1,114 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Tempe AZ
     
Dec 04, 2011 13:25 |  #43

uneek78 wrote in post #13489455 (external link)
Wooooow!!!!!!! This is some good info!!!! I'm going to put this in my notes. You must do a lot of outdoor portrait work. Tell me more about the canon 24-105mm if you have anything. I have only had it for a couple days now.

I have 24-105L for a long time now. Moved from 40D -> 50D -> 5d2 with 24-105L. Still my most used lens. I have two 5 and 7 yrs boys that will not sit still much. I like to take portrait shots while walking in a park or hiking in Sedona. No way I will be able to shoot with a prime lens. Learning to use a shoe mount flash makes so many more shots possible. I just want to capture the moments as they come instead of dropping my bag to change lens.

I often think of it this way. A great prime is great for DOF control while a flash makes it possible to separate DOF control and shutter speed and maybe lower ISO.

This obviously will apply to many other situations. For me, I only use the prime for indoor stuff that flash is not allowed or draw too much attention. So usually it's usually a restaurant or museum. Fairly rare.


Still learning
Nikon D750, Sigma 24-105OS, 105mm 2.8g micro VR, Tamron 70-300VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 04, 2011 13:50 |  #44

Mark-B wrote in post #13491626 (external link)
The shallow depth of field is directly related to your distance from your subject. With the 50mm, you are probably getting very close to your subject to fill the frame with head & shoulders. With the 35mm, you are more likely standing farther away from your subject to get a half body or environmental portrait, therefore the depth of field is not as shallow. You are associating this property with the lens, but it is entirely possible to have your subjects 100% in focus with both lenses.

Actually, the 35mm f/2 has such a short minimum focus distance, you can create shallow depth of field even at f/20:

To answer the original question, the 35/2 and the 50/1.4 perform very similarly in low light. Neither is that great, but the 35mm might be just a little bit better. Of course, the f/1.4 lens will get you a much higher shutter speed if that is something that will help your pictures. I have samples from the 28, 30, 35, & 50 if you follow the link in my signature.

I realize that you can get stuff in focus at f1.4 with the 50, if you are far enough away. However, this may not be the case if two people are sitting on the same couch and you take a quick portrait. I have had the same outcome with both lenses, namely a far eye may be out of focus or the tip of the nose may be out of focus, but find that this is more likely in my living room at f1.4. I can't see this in the finder of my 60D, so I will often prefer to shoot at f1.8 or f2 with the 50f1.4.
Mine is sharp enough at f1.4 or f1.6, but I would still like to use smaller apertures when close...and I often need to be close inside. I was just pointing out that even though I have the ability to use f1.4 on the Canon, I am more likely to use it at somewhat smaller apertures, where I get a little more depth of field, higher contrast, and better resolution.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LibertyToad
Member
120 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 04, 2011 14:07 |  #45

kin2son wrote in post #13489738 (external link)
You are not really answering OP's question. OP wants to know which is better in low light. You picked 35 2 because of focal length?? That's not what OP's asking for....

If that is the only consideration, then the answer becomes obvious--it has to be the faster f/1.4 since it gathers more light than the f/2 based on physics.

However; in my humble opinion,the faster lens is not always better--there is more to consider than just the speed of the lens....


Canon 7D, 17-85mm USM IS, 70-300mm USM IS, 24-105mm f/4 USM IS L, 35mm f/2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,131 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is the 35mm 2.0 or the 50mm 1.4 better in low light in your experience?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is EndaGeorge
726 guests, 292 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.