Fast lenses not so interesting for object details urbex photography (dark conditions)

I use my 15 2.8 fisheye + 35 1.4L + 17-40 f4L (only not fast lens) for urbexing.

Urbex = portraying abandonned buildings and surroundings

This consists of :
-overview shots in dark condions
-details of objects at different hights

For the overview shots in dark conditions it's no problem, for this 16-35 II or 17-40 f4 are the same as you need to use tripod and go to +- f11, so no advantage of the faster stop.

The problem for me is the details of the subjects where I use my 35 1.4 for. For example I took some pictures of a nice silver clothing brush wide open out of hand, it was partially sharp, but the dof was way too narrow so actually it wasn't nice

Should I have taken the object shots with tripod also at less narrow dof ?
Can I conclude that fast lenses aren't interesting for objects in dark conditions as you need to use tripod anyway as you need more than f4?

The only disadvantage is that there are so much details to see at different hights (vase, photoframes,....) that there would be a lot of tripod adjustements of heights.
But maybe this the only way, as no-one uses flash or HDR maybe.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #14853197
The problem for me is the details of the subjects where I use my 35 1.4 for. For example I took some pictures of a nice silver clothing brush wide open out of hand, it was partially sharp, but the dof was way too narrow so actually it wasn't nice

Should I have taken the object shots with tripod also at less narrow dof ?
Can I conclude that fast lenses aren't interesting for objects in dark conditions as you need to use tripod anyway as you need more than f4?

You seem to understand the principle well enough, yes, if you want deeper DoF then you need to use a smaller aperture, that is basic physics and there is nothing you can do to change that. Your option then, is how to deal with the lower light reaching the sensor. If you slow your shutter speed you may well need a tripod, or alternatively you can boost ISO (if you aren't already maxed out) and leave the shutter speed where it is.

I don't think it's fair to say that fast lenses aren't "interesting" for objects in dark conditions. Many users on these forums would probably find the shallow DoF shots more interesting, it all depends on how you see your finished image. Besides, a fast lens isn't any worse than a slow lens if you are stopping it down, you may be using both at f/8 so neither would be more (or less) "interesting". On the other hand, the faster lens will still give you a brighter viewfinder while you compose your shot, very handy in dark conditions, and also help the camera focus better as more light will be reaching the AF sensors.

Like I say, it's basic photography and if you want more DoF, you have to stop down the aperture and make up the exposure with either slower shutter or raised ISO, but you seem to already know that anyway.

That's when a zoom with IS comes in handy such as the 24-105...

I use fast glass all the time, but you have to realize that a larger DOF can only be achieved at some focal distances if you stop it down.

Higher ISO is your friend here.

kin2son wrote in post #14853962
That's when a zoom with IS comes in handy such as the 24-105...

I sold mine for the 17-40L as 24mm wasn't wide enough for urbex

I get by with the 17-40L for interiors & usually 50/1.4 for details - sometimes the 100mm macro but I don't always feel the need for that one.

Usually tripods are essential anyway. They certainly are for the room shots as I tend to shoot HDR for those. Detail shots I usually shoot single shot but very often a tripod is needed anyway. I've been to some houses/places where even ISO6400 & f/1.4 is still giving me 1/10th or so - There isn't a way around it sometimes. Yes tripods can be a pain but if you want the best shot you have to use them IMO.

Correct, I had 24-105L IS in past too, 17mm is indeed perfect for urbex.
Canon made a 16-35 2.8L I & II allready (which I re-sold), first one wasn't better than the 17-40 (corners) and second one is double the price but you have to stop it down anyway and urbex is with tripod.

The person here above states that 24-105 f4L would be the solution for the IS and not using tripod, but if he knows the solution :
why didn't Canon engineers didn't make a 16-35 2.8L IS or 17-40 2.8 IS or f4 IS then?

I had my normal tripod with me, but didn't use it cause there were so much details/heights to picture. Next to this I had a mini-tripod with me of which I can expand the telescopic ends to about 1.5m-2m, it can be packed to a 20cm tripod, you can even keep it attached at the bottom of your cam, it's very portable and stable enough (camera doesn't move), only for adjusting heights it's not so practical.

LeeRatters wrote in post #14856272
I sold mine for the 17-40L as 24mm wasn't wide enough for urbex

I get by with the 17-40L for interiors & usually 50/1.4 for details - sometimes the 100mm macro but I don't always feel the need for that one.

Usually tripods are essential anyway. They certainly are for the room shots as I tend to shoot HDR for those. Detail shots I usually shoot single shot but very often a tripod is needed anyway. I've been to some houses/places where even ISO6400 & f/1.4 is still giving me 1/10th or so - There isn't a way around it sometimes. Yes tripods can be a pain but if you want the best shot you have to use them IMO.