What to do for low light

I just came back from a trip to Epcot with my family. I brought a Canon t2i, 15-85, and a 55-250 (this is the best travel telephoto! Its very light, good range, and pretty sharp)


I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! I brought my 55-250 and only put it on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it. Good thing its very light, but next time I would rather bring a more useful lens unless I know I am going to be shooting telephoto.

So I realize I really need some low light capability. At night and on the rides it was a challenge with the 15-85. Most of the time you could not use a flash and I was at 3200 ISO (I even went to 6400 a couple of times)
Looking back most of my indoor shots were a lot of different focal ranges (many at the wide end) and I doubt a prime like Sigma 30mm would of been usable since you do not always have a choice to move around indoors.

My question is, if I had a 17-50 f2.8 Tamron nonVC or Sigma OS for indoor use how much would it of improved my ISO or pictures?

Here are some examples:
1. Some of the really dark pictures from the rides I was at f3.5 at 3200 ISO and they were still not great. What the f2.8 of been able to capture the shot?
2. If I had indoor pictures at 3200 ISO from f4 to f5 then with the f2.8 what ISO would I get and would I be able to avoid using a flash?

Or does someone have other suggestions?

Chances are even a 2.8 lens isnt going to cut it for you. Look at an inexpensive prime like the 50 1.8. Its a good performer and a workable focal length. Every time you double your iso (or half it) is one stop So 3200 at f4 is the same as 1600 at f2.8. Same goes for shutter speeds.

Take a look at what focal lengths you were shooting those night time shots with on the 15-85mm, and pick a fast prime close to that focal length. Personally, for a crop sensor I found 50mm too narrow for general shots and preferred something wider -- the 28mm f/1.8 in my case.

I have a Sigma 30mm and I had a 17-50mm f2.8 I just sold. F2.8 makes a big difference, but it's really only about 1-1.5 stops fater than the 15-85 in the shared range. So that means instead of ISO 3200 you would have been 1000 or 1600. Still a lot better, but not really night and day difference. If you went with f1.4 you'd have been more like 3-3.5 stops, so that means ISO 400 or less instead of 3200. That's a big deal.

I'd get a prime to go with your 15-85 instead of swapping for a zoom.

Lexar wrote in post #14896430
2. If I had indoor pictures at 3200 ISO from f4 to f5 then with the f2.8 what ISO would I get and would I be able to avoid using a flash?

Or does someone have other suggestions?

ISO at 3200 and f/4 is much like ISO 1600 and f/2.8

Dim light means different things to different people but it usually means really dark to the camera.

An f/2.8 lens is not really a fast lens. It is faster than most lenses though. There are many circumstances where my f/2.8 lens is not fast enough for action shots at ISO 3200 with my 50D. An f/1.4 lens (two stops faster than f/2.8) is a different world.

Maybe, you should pick up 50 f/1.8II or 40 f/2.8 pancake. They are inexpensive and awesome for low light.

what were your shutter speeds in these situations?

1) Get a fast primes like others have suggested.

2) Get a f2.8 zoom and be happy with the slight improvement.

3) Get a better body with better high ISO performance.

4) Use NR software such as Topaz denoise.

Low light situation is always a challenge, and it's never cheap to get good results.

I have a 50 f1.8 but did not bring it to Epcot.

I find its too long for the situations that I am usually in and indoors you do not have that much choice for movement. Especially in Epcot where there are so many people.

My Shutter speed was all over the place...some of the darkest ones at iso 6400 was 1/15 shutter.

At what aperture/f-stop?

I just "deal" with the lack of zoom with my 50mm on my 5D or 30mm on my 30D. Or crop a bit. But a 50mm on a crop body would feel a bit long to me also.

2.8 won't be enough if 3.5 isn't. Its not even a stop faster.

Get a fast prime like the sigma 30 1.4 which is wide enough for small areas, and learn to live with having to move a bit for good framing.

Lexar wrote in post #14896430
I just came back from a trip to Epcot with my family. I brought a Canon t2i, 15-85, and a 55-250 (this is the best travel telephoto! Its very light, good range, and pretty sharp)


I also realize that the 15-85 range is amazing for travel!! I brought my 55-250 and only put it on once, for a couple of shots, just because I had it.. but really could of lived without it. Good thing its very light, but next time I would rather bring a more useful lens unless I know I am going to be shooting telephoto.

So I realize I really need some low light capability. At night and on the rides it was a challenge with the 15-85. Most of the time you could not use a flash and I was at 3200 ISO (I even went to 6400 a couple of times)
Looking back most of my indoor shots were a lot of different focal ranges (many at the wide end) and I doubt a prime like Sigma 30mm would of been usable since you do not always have a choice to move around indoors.

My question is, if I had a 17-50 f2.8 Tamron nonVC or Sigma OS for indoor use how much would it of improved my ISO or pictures?

Here are some examples:
1. Some of the really dark pictures from the rides I was at f3.5 at 3200 ISO and they were still not great. What the f2.8 of been able to capture the shot?
2. If I had indoor pictures at 3200 ISO from f4 to f5 then with the f2.8 what ISO would I get and would I be able to avoid using a flash?

Or does someone have other suggestions?

I would go with 30 1.4 and skip 2.8 zoom. Big difference in low light, IMO. You'll be also surprised how much is in focus at 1.4-1.8 as long as you not taking pictures at MFD.

If I get the 30 f1.4 won't the DOF be too small? I would need to stop it down to a more reasonable 2 or even 2.8 to be able to capture vacation types of pictures.
So then the f1.4 is not really that relevant any longer??

Please correct me if I am wrong...

When you shoot wide open at F1.4 in very low light the DOF changes. Things will be more in focus at 1.4

Nickc84 wrote in post #14900681
When you shoot wide open at F1.4 in very low light the DOF changes. Things will be more in focus at 1.4

Huh???? Explain please? How does less light create more DoF?