Lens For Low Light

Printable View

  • 07-15-2004, 11:03 AM
    havi
    Lens For Low Light
    I've been researching lenses for a while and I'm sorta at a loss on what to get. My main purpose for this lens would be for extremely low light situations. I'm currently using a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II on a Canon 10D, but I feel that I need something better as I can't use a flash in many situations.

    I'm thinking about buying the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, but I'm not sure if it'd open up & be sharp enough to make it worth while. Does anyone have experience with both lenses that'd know if it's worth dropping the $1k (give or take a few $$$'s) for the slightly wider aperture & lens quality?

    Any help/suggestions/advice is greatly appreciated!
  • 07-15-2004, 03:49 PM
    Michael Fanelli
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by havi
    I've been researching lenses for a while and I'm sorta at a loss on what to get. My main purpose for this lens would be for extremely low light situations. I'm currently using a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II on a Canon 10D, but I feel that I need something better as I can't use a flash in many situations.

    I'm thinking about buying the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, but I'm not sure if it'd open up & be sharp enough to make it worth while. Does anyone have experience with both lenses that'd know if it's worth dropping the $1k (give or take a few $$$'s) for the slightly wider aperture & lens quality?

    Any help/suggestions/advice is greatly appreciated!
    Unless you have special needs, shooting a 50mm at f/1.4 is going to yield an absolutely terrible DOF situation. Have you tried boosting the ISO? A 10D can do excellent work at 400 ISO and even 800 can be acceptable.
  • 07-16-2004, 12:08 AM
    Photo-John
    Subject?
    What kind of subject are you photographing? Michael's right about the depth-of-field with a faster lens being pretty poor. Even photographers shooting live concerts don't usually shoot at f/1.4. You really should be shooting at a higher ISO. Michael said that the 10D is acceptable at ISO 800. I'd go even higher than that if necessary. And if you're shooting still subjects, you should just be using a tripod.
  • 07-16-2004, 01:06 PM
    FREELANCE2004
    both oh the previous post are absolutely correct.i shoot 200mm 2.8 nikon.its great at 800 iso.i shoot indoor basketball with this and have pretty goog luck.under flourecent lights its a great lense.good luck
    FREELANCE2004
    mmr1031@aol.com
  • 07-16-2004, 06:27 PM
    another view
    I agree - my standard setup for concerts is ISO800 and f2 to f2.8, which give you shutter speeds that you'll need to be careful with. Depends what you're shooting, a 35mm lens is about a 50mm equiv on a 10D but one great thing about Canon is the 24 f1.4. If I shot Canon I'd probably get that lens... The two I use most for concerts are 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.4, occasionally 80-200 f2.8 and 20-35 f2.8.
  • 07-19-2004, 03:35 PM
    havi
    Thank you guys for responding! :)

    Yes, I generally shoot with the ISO set at 400 - 800.

    The purpose of the lens would mainly be for shooting bands. For the majority of the time the lighting is tolerable, but there're always a few clubs that will are simply too dark for the lens which is why I was thinking about the 35mm f/1.4.. Would the difference between my 50mm f1.8 II and the 35mm f/1.4 (or the 24mm f/1.4) be worth the cost for shooting live bands?

    I really appreciate all the help!
  • 07-19-2004, 05:17 PM
    Michael Fanelli
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by havi
    Would the difference between my 50mm f1.8 II and the 35mm f/1.4 (or the 24mm f/1.4) be worth the cost for shooting live bands?
    Well, I'm pretty sure that the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is only 1/2 stop. That won't make a big difference even wide open.
  • 07-19-2004, 06:52 PM
    another view
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by havi
    Thank you guys for responding! :)

    Yes, I generally shoot with the ISO set at 400 - 800.

    The purpose of the lens would mainly be for shooting bands. For the majority of the time the lighting is tolerable, but there're always a few clubs that will are simply too dark for the lens which is why I was thinking about the 35mm f/1.4.. Would the difference between my 50mm f1.8 II and the 35mm f/1.4 (or the 24mm f/1.4) be worth the cost for shooting live bands?

    I really appreciate all the help!
    That extra half stop may help a lot. Since you're pushing the limit of what your AF can handle, every bit of aperture you can get will help. And since your viewfinder will be brighter, AF will be faster and/or more accurate. Certainly doesn't hurt, your keeper rate will probably go up! Even if you don't plan to shoot at 1.4, you have that option available. 1.4 lenses are probably (generally) sharper wide open than 1.8 lenses, too.

    Like I said before, the 24 f1.4 would be what I would get personally but that focal length might not be what you need. The 35 is pretty close to a 50 though. Any f1.4 other than a 50 is going to be a lot of money - but if you need the lens then you need the lens. Whether or not it makes sense financially is another question :D !
  • 07-19-2004, 07:24 PM
    havi
    heehee.. I wish I knew of a place near my house that had the lens & would let me rent it for one of the shoots! Thanks for all your help! I think I'll prolly bite the bullet and get the 24mm.. :)
  • 07-19-2004, 09:39 PM
    Michael Fanelli
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by havi
    heehee.. I wish I knew of a place near my house that had the lens & would let me rent it for one of the shoots! Thanks for all your help! I think I'll prolly bite the bullet and get the 24mm.. :)
    Make sure you can bring it back. You might be surprised at the extremely narrow, and for most, unusable DOF at f/1.4.