Canon EF-S IS STM 18-135 mm for low light?

looking to buy the above lens for some video shoots at my sons kickboxing events. for photos i'm using 17-50mm 2.8 but, looking to video the next event. wanted something with a bit of reach while still being able to be allmost on top with the 18mm. is it any good for low light shooting as the ring doesnt have the best of lighting. it will ( if any good ) be coupled with my 70d

thanks

I wouldn't consider it a good low light lens as it's an f3.5-5.6 lens. So by 50mm it's a f5 (about a stop and 2/3 slower then your current lens) and it hits f5.6 at 85mm. Also you have to take into account that it's a variable aperture lens so as you zoom in and out the aperture change (if you're have it set at less then f5.6).

Set your 17-50 to f5.6 and see if you can live with the 2 stop difference.

tjs42 wrote in post #17137698
looking to buy the above lens for some video shoots at my sons kickboxing events. for photos i'm using 17-50mm 2.8 but, looking to video the next event. wanted something with a bit of reach while still being able to be allmost on top with the 18mm. is it any good for low light shooting as the ring doesnt have the best of lighting. it will ( if any good ) be coupled with my 70d

thanks

Heya,

IS doesn't help with low light moving subjects. So using an F5.6 aperture in low light is the opposite of what you're wanting to do.

Look to the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 prime. If you want low light, you're going to end up with a prime, or you're going to but stuck at F2.8 at the widest (with telephoto range) and start getting better at processing and dealing in high ISO levels.

The 70D can handle high ISO beautifully. I can get clean shots at ISO 3200 on my older sensors. The 70D can handle that nicely. So start practicing shooting at ISO 3200 or even ISO 6400, with a fast (F2-ish) lens, like the 85 F1.8.

Alternatively, if you are commonly up on top of them, and need wide angle, consider a wide fast prime, or a F2.8 zoom with a wide end like you already have and again start using higher ISO.

Very best,

thanks for the info. didn't realy want to go the route of the prime. more so wanted something with zoom to a decent length. had a couple of primes 30 & 50mm but, couldnt justify keeping them as they werent used that much. went for the 17-50 to cover both but, feel am lacking in a zoom when i cant be near the ring. dont want to break the bank but dont want a fixed mm. what are other options for low light videoing. the camera microphone picks up the clicks off my 17-50 when im videoing and its quiet so dont want to use that

Low light, no flash photography is a 'battle' with the exposure triangle that I have been fighting for several years. In short, one needs fast lenses (f2.8 or faster) and high ISO speeds with little noise. Neither comes cheap, and compromises must be made.

To stop moving subjects such as someone walking, shutter speeds of 1/160 and faster are necessary, unless you're willing to trash 9 out of 10 shots with subject movement caused blur. And don't forget that f1.8, for example, results in a very thin Depth of Field (DOF) that many may erroneously blame the AF in the camera or the lens as having faulty focus.

While one can 'touch up' minor under-exposure problems during post processing, details in darker areas may be lost, and noise increases with under-exposure.

As I said...it's a 'battle'. The key is to know your gear and its limitations and to get the best results, aka, best compromise.

18-35 f/1.8
24L II
35 f/2

You need all the light you can get. And don't be afraid of ISO 3200-6400. Shoot raw, +EC, Lightroom 4.

+1 for EF 85 f/1.8

How many of those posted here have actually tried a 18-135mm STM for video? I bought this lens specifically for video and I'm very impressed, so impressed in fact I bought its 10-18mm STM little brother.

The biggest limiting factor depends how low the lighting actually is. I've had quite a bit of success with this lens shooting videos of people in low light conditions. Dingy fresh produce markets for example. I'd suggest the lighting at a boxing match would be brighter.

My typical settings are 1/50th shutter speed at f/5.6 at 1600-3200 ISO. I've found my 700D produces clean video footage at 3200 ISO as long as my exposure is spot on or exposed to the right a bit. Your 70D should be the same.

When the light levels drop a bit the 18-135 STM may be a tad slower to lock focus so I'd suggest manual focus. Do a few tests in low light situations.

Look,, if it's the only suitable lens you have, give it a go before parting with any cash.

The OP is shooting video.

yogestee wrote in post #17139630
How many of those posted here have actually tried a 18-135mm STM for video? I bought this lens specifically for video and I'm very impressed, so impressed in fact I bought its 10-18mm STM little brother.

The biggest limiting factor depends how low the lighting actually is. I've had quite a bit of success with this lens shooting videos of people in low light conditions. Dingy fresh produce markets for example. I'd suggest the lighting at a boxing match would be brighter.

My typical settings are 1/50th shutter speed at f/5.6 at 1600-3200 ISO. I've found my 700D produces clean video footage at 3200 ISO as long as my exposure is spot on or exposed to the right a bit. Your 70D should be the same.

When the light levels drop a bit the 18-135 STM may be a tad slower to lock focus so I'd suggest manual focus. Do a few tests in low light situations.

Look,, if it's the only suitable lens you have, give it a go before parting with any cash.

The OP is shooting video.

Those posted here didn't even read the question of the OP
They even didn't read the second post of the OP about the noise that the microphone pick up about the lens that he does not want to use anymore, and where, AGAIN, he specify that he is doing VIDEO

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17139672
Those posted here didn't even read the question of the OP
They even didn't read the second post of the OP about the noise that the microphone pick up about the lens that he does not want to use anymore, and where, AGAIN, he specify that he is doing VIDEO

As an experienced stills shooter I'm now shooting more and more video. It's bloody challenging.

What I've found is you can get away with much higher ISO with video than with stills It's probably got something to do with shooting at lower resolutions, a HD video still only has about 2 mega pixels. Also one can't pixel peep with video.

https://www.youtube.co​m …2RYuSvG4&featur​e=youtu.be

A little video I put together just for this thread. The footage was when I was still testing my 700D/18-135mm STM combination. It was really quite dark where I shot this and the ISO is 1600-3200.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17138719
18-35 f/1.8
24L II
35 f/2

You need all the light you can get. And don't be afraid of ISO 3200-6400. Shoot raw, +EC, Lightroom 4.

What 's "+EC" ?

yogestee wrote in post #17139630
How many of those posted here have actually tried a 18-135mm STM for video? I bought this lens specifically for video and I'm very impressed, so impressed in fact I bought its 10-18mm STM little brother.

The biggest limiting factor depends how low the lighting actually is. I've had quite a bit of success with this lens shooting videos of people in low light conditions. Dingy fresh produce markets for example. I'd suggest the lighting at a boxing match would be brighter.

My typical settings are 1/50th shutter speed at f/5.6 at 1600-3200 ISO. I've found my 700D produces clean video footage at 3200 ISO as long as my exposure is spot on or exposed to the right a bit. Your 70D should be the same.

When the light levels drop a bit the 18-135 STM may be a tad slower to lock focus so I'd suggest manual focus. Do a few tests in low light situations.

Look,, if it's the only suitable lens you have, give it a go before parting with any cash.

The OP is shooting video.

im thinking about buying the lens but, was getting peoples opinions it first. wanted a cheapish lens that was up to the job to start with then, could be upgraded when needed great advice thank you

yogestee wrote in post #17139751
As an experienced stills shooter I'm now shooting more and more video. It's bloody challenging.

What I've found is you can get away with much higher ISO with video than with stills It's probably got something to do with shooting at lower resolutions, a HD video still only has about 2 mega pixels. Also one can't pixel peep with video.

https://www.youtube.co​m …2RYuSvG4&featur​e=youtu.be

A little video I put together just for this thread. The footage was when I was still testing my 700D/18-135mm STM combination. It was really quite dark where I shot this and the ISO is 1600-3200.

thanks for the link. whats the lens like for zooming in and out under low light as ill be away from the ring on a stage where its pretty dark?

tjs42 wrote in post #17140551
thanks for the link. whats the lens like for zooming in and out under low light as ill be away from the ring on a stage where its pretty dark?

I've never been a fan of zooming (either in or out) while filming. The problem is the zooming action can be jerky even with the camera mounted on a tripod. Better to hit the stop button, zoom in or out then restart filming. I'm also not a huge fan of extra long takes. 60 seconds max for me.

Manual focus will be better in your situation. Focus when you've zoomed. As you zoom out (wider angle) the lens should remain in focus on the subject. It's the opposite if you focus after zooming out and then zoom in.

The 18-135mm STM is one of those bang for your buck lenses, so is the 10-18mm STM. Fabulous lenses both for video and stills. I've never been a huge fan of kit lenses, I'm a lover of fast primes but the 18-135 STM is a beauty.

My wife and I are off to Ubud in Bali in a few weeks. I'm only taking the 700D, 18-135 STM and 10-18mm STM.