I'm torn... low light dilemma

jlrichmond76 wrote in post #8443674
I recently was taking pictures at a wedding reception. I was using my 24-105 4L and when they dimmed the lights after dinner, had a HELL of a time with AF focusing on ANYTHING. I've never had that problem before but I don't think the ambient has ever been quite that low in my experience. I was at the slowest shutter and highest ISO I was comfortable with, but had problems.

Here's my question. I also have a 70-200 2.8IS (LOVE IT) but at times it's too long for receptions. Not to mention it weighs a hundred pounds...

Anyway - should I be considering a 24-70 2.8L? Or should I just suck it up and use the zoom? Anyone wanna trade? :P

I don't see the exposure settings you're talking about being uncomfortable with...

I've shot with the 70-210 @ 1/40 sec wide open (3.5-4.5) and have gotten nice results @ ISO 1000 but that's just me...

If you're not happy with the results could be you should go with a 100-135mm prime...lighter and sharper wide @ F2.8
Good luck...

the 24-70 is nice in low light, but when the going gets tough, reach for a prime. if you get get AF lock, either use your flash or buy a ST-E2.

jlrichmond76 wrote in post #8443674
I recently was taking pictures at a wedding reception. I was using my 24-105 4L and when they dimmed the lights after dinner, had a HELL of a time with AF focusing on ANYTHING. I've never had that problem before but I don't think the ambient has ever been quite that low in my experience. I was at the slowest shutter and highest ISO I was comfortable with, but had problems.

Here's my question. I also have a 70-200 2.8IS (LOVE IT) but at times it's too long for receptions. Not to mention it weighs a hundred pounds...

Anyway - should I be considering a 24-70 2.8L? Or should I just suck it up and use the zoom? Anyone wanna trade? :P

What iso and shutter speed was that?

If your AF can't lock on in low-light, then maybe your eyes won't focus perfectly either??

Exactly. I went with MF but couldn't see enough light thru the view finder to even know if I was focused or not... it was actually that dark. The AF assist on my flash wasn't getting me there. ISO 1600? Wow. I've always had pretty grainy results at that setting. For a wedding, it's just not the image quality that I hope for.

I've been thinking about another prime for some time, too. I've heard the praises of the 85 1.2 for some time now... hmmmmm

Regarding the ISO and shutter... I know a lot of you will laugh at me but I had it at ISO1000 and 1/100 - I've played with it so much and with all the fast movement at the reception, this is where I prefer to go...
Guess I'm a sucker for crisp crispness...

jlrichmond76 wrote in post #8443731
Crap. That wasn't the answer I was looking for...

I was looking for someone to tell me that the 24-70 would solve all my problems so I could justify spending a grand on another lens...

I have no trouble with my 24-70/5d combo, but I use a flash at the reception. Don't know if it's the AF assist or the higher precision of the center point with 2.8. Not sure why the obsession with shooting in available light when there is so little?

timbop wrote in post #8449853
I have no trouble with my 24-70/5d combo, but I use a flash at the reception. Don't know if it's the AF assist or the higher precision of the center point with 2.8. Not sure why the obsession with shooting in available light when there is so little?

As for available light - hereabouts, civil registrars and clergymen generally have no problems with pictures being taken during the vows (the core of the ceremony), but do object to flash at this juncture. That's why a fast lens is useful. Of course, you may well ask why flash is considered distracting, but the clatter of shutters is not . . . . but there ya go . . .

Edit - the above observations apply to the 'official' photographer alone and is the subject of negotiation with the person officiating. Where you do have permission, you do try to be an unobtrusive as possible. My clergyman father was old school and would not allow a camera in the church at all - the place for cameras was outside on the steps!

jlrichmond76 wrote in post #8448697
Regarding the ISO and shutter... I know a lot of you will laugh at me but I had it at ISO1000 and 1/100 - I've played with it so much and with all the fast movement at the reception, this is where I prefer to go...
Guess I'm a sucker for crisp crispness...

Try taking some shots at ISO1600 with your 5D. If properly exposed the noise is far from objectionable and I HATE noise. It was the main impetus for me to go to a dSLR from a point and shoot (Sony 707).

I posted a few samples here

https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=709​806&page=4

timbop wrote in post #8449853
I have no trouble with my 24-70/5d combo, but I use a flash at the reception. Don't know if it's the AF assist or the higher precision of the center point with 2.8. Not sure why the obsession with shooting in available light when there is so little?

The AF assist probably helped quite a bit. It did for me w/ my 40D/17-50/2.8. I basically shot in christmas light lighting at 8pm in mid october. Focus was dead on.

But sometimes, you just can't use flash. Or want a specific shot/style.

To the OP, just get a flash and learn to use it well. AND get a fast prime because it's fun =)

have the canon 85 f1.8, 50 1.4 and 1.8 and sigma 30 1.4

i love the sigma and the 85 canon, the 50s not so much - boketh is way better on the 30/85

xhack wrote in post #8451064
As for available light - hereabouts, civil registrars and clergymen generally have no problems with pictures being taken during the vows (the core of the ceremony), but do object to flash at this juncture. That's why a fast lens is useful. Of course, you may well ask why flash is considered distracting, but the clatter of shutters is not . . . . but there ya go . . .

Edit - the above observations apply to the 'official' photographer alone and is the subject of negotiation with the person officiating. Where you do have permission, you do try to be an unobtrusive as possible. My clergyman father was old school and would not allow a camera in the church at all - the place for cameras was outside on the steps!

Yes, some officients here in the states object to flash during the ceremony as well. I find that there is usually enough ambient light to go with a 2.8 zoom in these cases, with no focus issue and the participants are standing still so shutter speed isn't so crucial. However, the OP is talking about the reception afterwards - which does require a fast shutter or flash to capture movement. I've never been asked not to use flash in any reception hall, although I know some shooters would prefer to shoot at f/1.2 to get the "mood". I disagree with that position, since the quality of light is often bad and many bands/dj's have flashing lights as part of the ambiance anyway.

If you are going to be doing a lot of this don't fear high ISOs and invest in good fast glass.

I shoot a good deal of corporate functions and work in low light no flash all the time at ISOs or 1600 and 3200 and I shoot with a 5D (the first one) Well here...I find all of these exceptable and I can get clean 11X14s no problem.

Heres a couple more also I don't shoot wedding and haven't for 10 or so years but I have shot a few since for some very good old clients or really presistant friends. Heres a few of those and some more low light corporate events.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

jlrichmond76 wrote in post #8448688
If your AF can't lock on in low-light, then maybe your eyes won't focus perfectly either??

Exactly. I went with MF but couldn't see enough light thru the view finder to even know if I was focused or not... it was actually that dark. The AF assist on my flash wasn't getting me there. ISO 1600? Wow. I've always had pretty grainy results at that setting. For a wedding, it's just not the image quality that I hope for.

Regarding the ISO and shutter... I know a lot of you will laugh at me but I had it at ISO1000 and 1/100 - I've played with it so much and with all the fast movement at the reception, this is where I prefer to go...
Guess I'm a sucker for crisp crispness...

Something's doesn't seem right here...not you or your shooting, but just the picture in my mind regarding how much/little light you had that you couldn't see through the VF well enough to focus, whether AF or MF....
it seems to me that @ ISO 1000 shooting at 100@ F4, if that was the correct exposure, you should have had plenty of light for AF

I'm posting a couple of shots here from a family gathering, all shot under ugly florescent tubes...... even at ISO 1000 1/40 and 1/45 sec @ F4.5 it seems plenty bright...even at a full stop darker it was bright enough for AF without flash assist....Please understand, I'm not posting them so much for the quality of the pix as for the quality of the light...

I used to have the DSC-F717. Was a superb camera in its day!

bohdank wrote in post #8451439
Try taking some shots at ISO1600 with your 5D. If properly exposed the noise is far from objectionable and I HATE noise. It was the main impetus for me to go to a dSLR from a point and shoot (Sony 707).

I posted a few samples here

https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=709​806&page=4