Non-L Glass good low light lenses?

Are there any lenses that any of you use for low-light photography that aren't L glass? Don't get me wrong, I love L lenses, but they're a little over my budget right now. I've been eyeing the 24-70 for a while, but right now I can't afford it - plus i'd still like something wider.

I've looked up the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and was sold until I saw someone said it doesn't focus well in low light. I currently have the Sigma 17-70 IS and that also doesn't do well in low light, so i'm looking to sell it and get something better.

Any suggestions? I tend to mostly just shoot for fun, but I do do some concert photography here and there and a lot of night photography, so i would like to build up some lenses that will work well for that since that's where a lot of my interest is.

Thanks!

My fastest lens (50/1.4) is a non-L. For more reach, there's the 100mm f/2 that's under $500.

There's a plethora of manual non-EF lenses with fast apertures available.

That said, modern cameras are great at high-iso. See how your 7D is at 1600.

sigma 30 f/1.4
canon 85 f/1.8


those two (along w/ the 50 mentioned) yield excellent results.

Fully back what Narlus stated.

There are also a few other nice ones like Sigma 30 1.4 is a very good lens as well. Don't be scared of the Tamron. I know many who use it with success.

thank you everyone - will look into them all!

I know I've been eying the Canon EF 28mm 1.8 USM - $457 on Amazon is more than I have lying around right now though.

I personally find USM lenses to work best in low light if I do not use flash but depending on how low the light is it can be tough for any lens/camera combo to focus accurately. If your missing focus you may benefit more from a 430 or 580 flash, the Infrared light will help the camera/lens combo get more accurate focus.

canon 85mm f/1.8

A bit less expensive than the 24-70 that is a bit wider, but also a bit shorter is the 17-55mm f2.8 IS. I notice that you have a 7D so you are able to use this lens. I am sometimes surprised on how many people don't think of that lens in concert situations because it performs so well. Some people talk about it's build not being "L" quality and I just shake my head...I have put that lens through so much in the 4 years that I have had it and it keeps on taking great shots, regardless.

I've changed my mentality on the EF Lens line some time back when it comes to L or non-L lenses. Did the same on bodies too as I recently sold my 1DMIV and 1DMIII after using them for about a year and went with the two gripped 7D's instead. I'm waiting on the 5DMII to go 5DMIII before I get it.

Nowadays I buy lenses on their speed first, prime or focal range second, build quality third ... now granted I run with this mentality on the fact that I am shooting in controlled situations and environments, mostly indoors. Now if I were primarily shooting outdoor scenarios it would be a different tale and L lenses would be the sole choice.

There are some really good fast non-L lenses in the EF line that provide great shots that are equal to its L counterpart. The sole difference in most cases is the build quality. It comes down to plastic versus metal in some cases. I take really good care of my equipment. I'm not beating some front row fan in the head with my lenses so they should last a reasonable time with caring usage. You can look at anything in my bag a year or two later from purchase date and it still looks like new. Now the hoods conditions are a whole different story.

Hoods are the lifesavers of any lens! I don't shoot without a hood. I don't use "protective" filters either, I use a hood instead. Why spend the kind of money we do on any EF lens and then slap a $20-50 filter on the front to "protect" it, because some salesman recommends it, when all you are really doing is lowering the quality of this expensive glass now. Canon spends a lot of time on research and the manufacture of their glass that we don't need to enhance or "protect" it with additional front glass of our own ... that's another debate for another thread. Now back to the main gist of this comment ... I know I get lost sometimes on posting.

There ARE good EF non-L lenses that we as photographers can use and get great results with.

ROCK ON!
-Michael

I shoot smaller venues with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 with great results. For what I do I would put that up against my buddy's 24-70 L without hesitation and it only cost me $450. Slower AF? Yes but it is plenty fast enough to get the job done. Your mileage may vary but it works for me. Shooting a show with it and my brand new 7D on Friday and can't wait.

I don't own any L glass. Can't afford it. Wish I could.

I do have:
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
17-50 2.8 Tamron

I love all three equally.

^^^ we almost have all the same lenses. I'm selling my 50mm though. Anybody else find that the AF on the 50 1.4 hunts a lot in low light?

I shoot a lot of low light dance performances - the 85mm f1.8 is easily my favorite, but it's reach can be too long on my 7D.

The 50mm f1.8 works, but I find it's AF to be lacking, I have *way* more out of focus shots with that than the 85.

My next purchase is the Sigma 30mm f1.4, or an upgrade on the 50mm.

I have a 28-75 Tamron f2.8 - but to be honest, I find it not fast enough, both in AF and aperture, for the shooting I do.