Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - The Brick

tonylong wrote in post #10352006
Well, in low light this lens has an f/2.8 aperture, but beyond that low light performance is probably more about the sensor. A faster lens can give you a faster shutter speed, but the IQ comes from the sensor.

I was thinking more of the way of not needing to ramp up the ISO by so much in order to get the same speed

400dabuser wrote in post #10352076
I was thinking more of the way of not needing to ramp up the ISO by so much in order to get the same speed

OK, that's a simple equation -- f/2.8 lets in twice as much light as f/4, meaning that it allows twice the shutter speed as an f/4 lens, without having to raise the ISO by a stop.

400dabuser wrote in post #10351997
Has anyone got any low light photos using the 24-70mm?

Indoors I'm always under ISO 800, 1/80.

keith breazeal wrote in post #10352025
low light

This was ISO 100, 1/10th @ f2.8

400dabuser wrote in post #10352076
I was thinking more of the way of not needing to ramp up the ISO by so much in order to get the same speed

tonylong wrote in post #10352088
OK, that's a simple equation -- f/2.8 lets in twice as much light as f/4, meaning that it allows twice the shutter speed as an f/4 lens, without having to raise the ISO by a stop.

Heavy Smiles wrote in post #10352089
Indoors I'm always under ISO 800, 1/80.

but i heard with 24-105, the IS also give you more stop over f2.8 at slower speed and no much high ISO, so which is better, f2.8 or IS?

Tareq wrote in post #10352121
but i heard with 24-105, the IS also give you more stop over f2.8 at slower speed and no much high ISO, so which is better, f2.8 or IS?

It's a tradeoff -- with IS you slow down camera shake, whereas with the wider aperture you can slow down subject movement.

I'll say that if you want to capture any kind of motion in low light you want the f/2.8 lenses for zooms (and primes when push comes to shove).

That being said, the 24-105 is a very nice lens for all-purpose shooting. If you don't need low light action shots, go with the 24-105. They get sold used all the time for good prices, so if need be you can sell and buy a 24-70.

tonylong wrote in post #10352136
It's a tradeoff -- with IS you slow down camera shake, whereas with the wider aperture you can slow down subject movement.

I'll say that if you want to capture any kind of motion in low light you want the f/2.8 lenses for zooms (and primes when push comes to shove).

That being said, the 24-105 is a very nice lens for all-purpose shooting. If you don't need low light action shots, go with the 24-105. They get sold used all the time for good prices, so if need be you can sell and buy a 24-70.

I just heard about that here, so i hope another new members can get help from your answer.

All technical stuff aside, some can handhold at slower shutter speeds than others. For more keepers, the IS has it. I really hate shooting anything but ISO 100. I shot a night rodeo and the lighting was so poor, I was shooting ISO 1600 just so I could get 1/125th shutter speed. My IS lens really helped. Reminds me of the old days of shooting with Tri-X(ASA 400) and pushing it to 1600 ASA.

Depends on which camera, if 1D3 or 5D2 it will give you good high ISO shots, but if something like xxD or xxxD then i don't like to go higher ISO than 640 myself, even with those pro Canon DSLR i prefer to be under IOS1000, and honestly, i didn't see that IS helped nor f2.8, both have limitations and i have to know what i should do, and if you do it, i hate to shoot under very low light conditions where i need tripod, it is not my problem and i do miss a lot of shots because i am not happy at with poor low light shots even if it is of Queen Elizabith or Obama or the most famous person and/or beautiful model.

Tareq wrote in post #10352220
Depends on which camera, if 1D3 or 5D2 it will give you good high ISO shots, but if something like xxD or xxxD then i don't like to go higher ISO than 640 myself, even with those pro Canon DSLR i prefer to be under IOS1000, and honestly, i didn't see that IS helped nor f2.8, both have limitations and i have to know what i should do, and if you do it, i hate to shoot under very low light conditions where i need tripod, it is not my problem and i do miss a lot of shots because i am not happy at with poor low light shots even if it is of Queen Elizabith or Obama or the most famous person and/or beautiful model.

@ISO800, the noise is barely there for a xxD compared to the 400D, even at 3200 I am struggling to get noise

400dabuser wrote in post #10352256
@ISO800, the noise is barely there for a xxD compared to the 400D, even at 3200 I am struggling to get noise

honestly, the noise is there even we try to believe it is not there, and i appreciate what new technology is trying to do these days, but i prefer to be in safe side, in some shots with low light, even at ISO 400 up to ISO 800 i can see noise, i was using 5D, 1Ds2/1Ds3, 1D3, i get noise in all cameras until i have a good exposure, and i am one of those pixel peeper, but if i resized the shots to let's say 1200x wider side i can't see noise even at 3200, but if i crop and print large and post larger size, i don't think so.

Few photos from my Friday night gig. I'll only show up 3, linked a few more. Very happy with the end result. The 24-70L is an amazing piece of glass and it did not disappoint. Focus was brilliant all night too

I'm always using this thread for new picture ideas for my Sigmalux Many great pictures in here

keith breazeal wrote in post #10352101
This was ISO 100, 1/10th @ f2.8

I wonder who's responsible for the error in the Stella Artois neon sign?