ISO with the 15-85 vs 17-55

<p>Full disclosure. My wife and I are amateurs that have been shooting for a number of years mostly family shots. We now have grandchildren. <br>

After copious amounts of research and review of deciding between the 15-85 and the 17-55. My wife and doting grandmother has been frustrated that she (when she shoots indoors with a 17-40L on our 50D) cannot get our grand kids in those candid moments either up close (hence the 15-85) or somewhat blur free (hence the 17-55). I have purchased the 15-85. I looked for a very long time at the 17-55, but decided (traded the 17-40L) on the 15-85 for the following reasons: a bit wider, considerably longer, a bit lighter, and I realize, somewhat slower.<br>

My rationale for purchasing the the 15-85 is first, saving $500. Second, and this is my question for the community, can I not play with the ISO to at somewhat compensate for the difference in the aperture? If I am barking up the wrong tree in my thinking, I will return the 15-85, sell a kidney, and get the 17-55.<br>

Your thoughts are most appreciated-</p>

<p>If you can embrace the noise, and shoot at high ISOs, the f/4 plus IS will be adequate.<br>

Especially, if you don't make huge prints of the images, the noise will be hardly noticeable on any relatively recent Canon EOS digital camera.</p>

<p>Actually, for very low light, you might want to consider one of the Canon EOS prime lenses in the f/1.8 or faster aperture. The cheapest of these is a short telephoto on an APS-C camera like the Rebels or xxD cameras which you must have or the lenses above wouldn't mount. The lens I speak of is the EF 50mm f/1.8 - which has gone up a little, but is available used for from US$50 to $100. For more money and a longer reach, the 85mm f/1.8 is fine, and for a more 'normal' lens, the 28mm f/2.8 or the 35mm f/2 are great lenses too.</p>

<p>On the Canon 50D (which is a very good camera, but somewhat underrated) you can certainly boost up the ISO to make up for the maximum f5.6 aperture of 15-85mm. How much you decide to boost it up depends on the quality you find accetable.<br>

Even f2.8 can give you problems in dim lighting situations. Beleive me it can be pretty frustrating when you zoom out only to find out you ran out of juice because your lens can't handle it. Another problem is that it might be harder trying to obtain blurred out backgrounds and nice Bokeh no matter how much you boost the ISO.<br>

If these things are not that important to you, then the 15-85mm was a good choice. I too prefer the extra length of the 15-85, because I like to fill up the frame in my pictures. In my opinion the 17-55 is too short for a every-day/walk around lens.</p>

<p>Increasing the ISO will compensate for the narrower apertures. However, you will nee a noticeable increase in noise as well; if you go too high, the pictures will look terrible. Does the 15-85 really allow you to get that much closer than the 17-40? There's really not much point in buying the 17-55 if you already have the 17-40.</p>

<p>Have you considered bouncing an external flash? An older, used EX model (430 EX here for $225: <a href="http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Shoe-Mount-Flashes/1/sku-CE219990804060?r=FE">http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-EOS-Shoe-Mount-Flashes/1/sku-CE219990804060?r=FE</a>) will suit you just fine for your purposes and shouldn't be very expensive, certainly no more than you paid for the 15-85, which you could return for the money to purchase the flash. It'll allow you to keep your ISO fairly low and you can use your fine 17-40 without having to deal with the very shallow DOF you'd have if you used a fast prime...with small children, keeping them in focus with shallow DOF is quite difficult.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's really not much point in buying the 17-55 if you already have the 17-40.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He indicated in his text he traded in the 17-40L for the 15-85. Besides, the 15-85 is a whole different animal: the 2mm on the wide side makes a big difference as does the extra 45mm on the long side. However the 3 to 4 stop IS of the 15-85 really set it apart.<br>

<br /> I'm happy with the 15-85 as a travel lens and find ISO 1250 (7D) to be plenty clean for 8x12 and 12x18 prints.</p>

<p>Low light image from 7D/15-85:<img src="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/Northwest_Images/Seaside_1377sign.jpg" alt="" width="720" height="480" /><br /> http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_efs15-85.htm</p>

<p>I missed that about the trade, unfortunately. I don't know how the 50D handles higher ISO, but can you turn it up enough to stop children's motion indoors? The IS certainly won't help there, although it will help for other kinds of shooting. I think a flash is likely to be the solution; KEH has plenty of EX flashes for $200 or less, and they certainly should have enough power for close shots indoors.</p>

<p>If he shoots in close quarters mainly at the wide end, F3.5 vs 2.8 is a small difference and the 15-85 is just as sharp as the many fabled 17-55 IS. Of course if he finds himself at the long end most of the time the 15-85 is gets slow fast by 50mm while the 17-55 is constant 2.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“[i have a 50D and have] been frustrated . . . cannot get our <strong>grand kids in those candid moments </strong>either up close (hence the 15-85) or somewhat <strong>blur free when she shoots indoors . . . </strong>(hence the 17-55). I have purchased the 15-85 . . . this is my question for the community, <strong>can I not play with the ISO to at somewhat compensate for the difference in the aperture?</strong> If I am barking up the wrong tree in my thinking, I will return the 15-85, sell a kidney, and get the 17-55.”</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>IF - I understand the question correctly: you are asking how far can you push the ISO of a 50D to attain a shutter speed adequate enough to arrest the Subject Movement of Children playing Indoors – and you wish to shoot with Available Light.<br>

The answer to that question is I would be comfortable pushing a 50D to ISO3200.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>I think the next question you are asking is: Will the Aperture Available on lenses 15-85 AND 17 -55 BE ADEQUATE TO PULL A Shutter Speed capable of arresting Subject Movement of Children Playing indoors when using ISO3200 and shooting under Available Light.<br>

My answers to that question are:<br />– the 15 to 85 – likely in mostly all circumstances NO.<br />– the 17 to 55 – likely in many circumstances NO.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Obviously this will depend upon the EV of the room – (how much light you have in the room) and if you have a large window clad sunroom and you are shooting during daylight hours, then you might be home and hosed – but if you are relying on indoor artificial lights – then that is a different kettle of kippers.</p>

<p>Typical Shooting Specs for indoors, average room lighting is: F/2.8 @ 1/60s @ ISO3200 ± 1 stop.<br />Typical (minimum)Tv (Shutter Speed) required to arrest Subject Movement of Children Playing indoors is 1/250s, preferred limit is: 1/320s – 1/400s.<br />Typical Tv to arrest Subject Movement of Children sitting still, is about 1/125s, though 1/60s is feasible.</p>

<p>Therefore, without knowing the EV of the rooms in which you are shooting – I would suggest that yes, you are barking up many wrong trees.</p>

<p>If your room lighting is typical of the EV I have indicated, then you will require a Prime Lens in the order of F/1.4.<br />To get wide enough you will need the 24LMkII. The 24/1.4 is the most used lens in my kit for indoor available light shooting, with an APS-C camera.</p>

<p>However, this solution, is NOT a suggestion for you – merely the best technical answer to the question you pose and without knowing the exact lighting conditions under which you are shooting.<br />The EF28/1.8 (already mentioned) is a less expensive option and will adequately serve on an APS-C body.<br />BUT neither of these lenses is as wide as the 15mm (or 17mm).</p>

<p>You should test the light which you have and take under consideration the shooting specs I have advised: you might have enough light on sunny days to pull adequate shots with either lens – but I think at night time or on overcast days you will fall shot with both lenses.</p>

<p>My best advice for the solution to your problem is to take the $400 you have “saved” DO NOT buy the 17 to 55 but rather buy a good dedicated Flash (e.g. 430EXMkII) and learn how to bounce and diffuse it when shooting indoors.<br>

You will still have the option of shooting Available Light, when the Ambient Light permits.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Gentlemen-<br>

Thank you so much for your kind and considered responses. I believe I will stay with the 15-85 and add perhaps a faster prime. I already have a 430EX Flash unit, but my issue is that (and those of you who are grandparents understand this), I will miss the moment when "baby is taking first steps" waiting for the flash to fire up. William, I especially appreciate your most helpful comments. During the day, our living room is filled with natural and artificial light and I have little problem there. It is at night where I run into trouble.<br>

Perhaps there is no perfect answer, but I am grateful for all of you in extending your learned expertise and suggestions. <br>

Grear</p>

<p>Pursuant to the noise about Noise – it is more of a concern as the ISO increases, yes.<br>

But we must take into account:</p>

<ul>

<li>Noise is more noticeable on the screen, than in the print</li>

<li>Underexposure exacerbates the appearance of noise</li>

<li>There are many good noise reduction Post Production Programmes available</li>

</ul>

<p>Of all these factors – attaining the correct exposure for the main elements of the scene (usually skin tones) should be most underscored and reiterated. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> [[i will miss the moment when "baby is taking first steps" waiting for the flash to fire up.]]</p>

<p>As the father of two younger children (one of whom started walking in December) who also uses bounce-flash indoors all the time (420EX), I can't say I understand your statement here. <br>

I turn the camera on, I turn the flash on, I photograph. Shooting with a higher ISO means the flash does less work and recycles faster. I keep low self-discharge NiMHs in there and can use them for a couple hundred shots. The only time I've missed a shot has been because of the photographer (me) not the equipment.</p>

<p>Rob-<br>

Your response is most helpful. I will check into the NiMH batteries. That could be a great help! </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“waiting for the flash to fire up”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Buy two sets of four, good quality HiMh rechargeable batteries and a reasonable charger.<br>

“Eneloops” seems to be a brand favoured in the USA (if you live in the USA) – this brand is not easily available to me so I am not making a first-hand recommendation for it.<br>

Use an higher ISO – like ISO400 or even ISO 800, which will not work the Flash as hard (as ISO100)<br>

I would be surprised if your recycle time was not adequate to the task.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>HAHAHA<br>

Writing at the same time! Crikey! one has to be quick to get the answer in - before the spot light is taken away.</p>

<p>HAHA!</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William and Rob-<br>

I have just checked Amazon and they carry the exact items you have described-<br>

Thanks so much!</p>

<p>Have fun.</p>

<p>Advantages of 17-55mm f2.8:<br>

a) Higher precision focusing b) brighter viewfinder c) Constant & lower ISO d) easier to get blurred backgrounds at all focal lengths e) better Bokeh at all focal lengths <br>

Advantages of 15-85mm 3.5/5.6:<br>

a) Lighter more compact b) much better range and reach (24-136mm equiv) c) cheaper d) smaller filter size e) better general purpose f) better Image Stabilization g) so far no complaints about being dust magnet</p>

In case of emergency the on board flash is usable.

 

Adding a fast prime is a sound plan. Maybe check your shooting history for the wanted focal length.

A slight err on the wide side is best as you can always crop.

 

The discussion of which prime would be a fine subject for a new thread...

<p>You can't legally sell kidney :-)<br>

Perhaps a trade?</p>

<p>To the OP: if you go through your first post, you'll see no mention of f-stops. Just considering the EF17-40 (f4.0) and the EF-s17-55 (f2.8), that's <em>one</em> stop of difference.</p>

<p>So, for example, if the grandkids tearing around require 1/4 second exposure with the 17-40, 1/8 second would be needed with the 17-55. Not insignificant, but there'll still be a lot of blur. The faster lens will help, but for fast moving subjects in low light you need to use all the tricks you can muster.</p>

<p>In short: I'd go for the fastest lens, but it will not be a panacea.</p>

<p>Timing's important: try to catch them at a pause. Steady faces and a little blur of hand or limbs is nice.</p>

<p>One stop difference is a lot. It means double(2X) the light available. There is only one stop difference between a 100WS power pack and 200WS power pack, but that difference can mean you getting the shot or not. However, I agree for casual shots of kids it might not mean too much especially with todays cameras. </p>

<p>I have a 15-85mm great travel/candid lens, because of the zoom range.</p>

<p>But, instead of selling a kidney, I also have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. (*Not VC). In fact, I owned the Tamron 17-50 first, but then like most, I needed a little more range. I know it "duplicates" the zoom range. But, I also shoot paid jobs, and I'm fine having a duplicated range.</p>

<p>Anyway, so I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for low light situations and "professional" work. And then the Canon 15-85 as a back-up, and for family/travel/candid stuff. Just a thought.</p>

<p>The Tamron runs about $450.</p>

<p>Do not be afraid to turn up the iso. That's what it's there for. One of the biggest advantages of digital vs film is being able to crank up the iso when you need it.</p>

<p>When shooting, think about how large you're likely going to be printing these photos. For stuff that goes in the family album and is unlikely to go larger than 6"x9" (e.g. christmas morning, thanksgiving dinner, birthday parties) you can easily use 1600 iso. 3200 iso works just fine too.</p>

<p>Photos that get printed large tend to be from slower, more deliberate, and more careful work. You'll want to stay at 400 iso and lower for posed photos.</p>

<p>I believe Amol and someone else has spoken of the Tamron 17-50 and maybe I am starting a new subject (no doubt, already discussed), but what are others' experience with the Tamron? In my research, I see a fair amount of people having some focus issues with them. What has been the community's experience in taking "child action" shots?</p>

<p>Unless you intend to use manual focus, don't bother getting a Tamron (or Sigma) lens for moving subjects. Canon 17-55 or other higher quality lenses will give the AF speed and accuracy.</p>