Leveraging IS for Candids in a low light reception

[ric c sydney]

All,

 

I was shooting a wedding on the weekend (my 5th) when I had an epiphany (which

may be blindingly obvious to some here -;)

 

In shooting events and weddings I have always stayed away from IS lenses

preferring to use 24-70, 35 1.4, 135 F2 on my 5D as I had generally accpeted

that IS = no benefit when shooting people. However, A key piece of my wedding

style is to "pick people off" in the crowd as they converse during the reception

usally getting some pretty good candids with my 135 F2. For this I use no flash,

crank up ISO to 1600 on my 5D and usually get a solid 1/80 to 1/160 shutter

speed depending on available light. If I stay away from backgrounds with too

many shadows (noise is much more visible in the shadows in my 5D @ ISO 1600) I

do get very useable shots with this approach.

 

Now to my question. If I only need 1/80 to say 1/125 in low light to stop

subject motion and I can say get this at ISO 1600, does that mean that if I had

the 70-200 2.8 IS (yes I know I am losing a stop versus my prime) I could be

shooting at 200mm because I have enough shutter speed to stop subject motion? To

push the example further, If I bought something like the 300mm 2.8 IS prime, as

long as I can get a shutter speed of say 1/80, does that mean I could do

something crazy like shoot out at 300mm and still get sharp non motion blurred

people shots? Consequently IS for lenses with focal lengths 100mm or less would

add no value here so its only for the long tele's.

 

This interests me greatly because it then opens up a raft of new creative

possiblities for me from a candids perspective for recepetions and other low

light events.(especially in some of the larger events and receptions I have shot)

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide.

 

Ric.

[marv_stasak___southfield__]

I use the Nikon system. Their equivalent would be a 70-200 VR F2.8 With a 1.5 magnification factor, I am getting the equivalent of a 300mm lens at full zoom. I can hand hold at 1/15th and get sharp pix, assuming my subject doesn't move. To me, the lens is nothing short of a miracle. It is my "go to" lens. You say you see no value in vibration control lenses of under 100mm. I think that unless you are rock solid when you shoot (and I stopped being that after I turned 30), you will always see an improved result with vibration dampened lenses. My only concern would be with lenses that do not have at least an f2.8 opening for ease of focus. My experience has been that f3.5/f4 lenses hunt too much in darker surroundings like many churches tend to have.

[jimstrutz]

Yes, of course. And this is one of the prime reasons why IS is great for shooting people. They're not generally moving that fast, and even a slower than 1/80 shutter will usually stop them fine.

 

Just don't expect to use your 600mm f/4 IS hand held without attracting some serious attention from the room. :)

[jimstrutz]

Unlike Marv, I find my 17-55 f/2.8 IS to be a truly wonderful use of image stabilization. It has more effect on long lenses, but it is still very useful with the short ones.

[greg jansen]

The limit for me is 70-200 2.8 VR, 1600 ISO, 60 second. Maybe 1 in 3 shots blurry. Sometimes back off to about 160-180mm to get less shakes. I think the 300mm would be pushing it- things are magnified so much if you even breath wrong the picture will be a blur.

[maroark]

Could you guys that shoot hand-held with the IS post some examples with shutter speeds listed?

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

The more magnification you have the more movement will be 'magnified'. The difference between your 135mm and 200mm will be slight but for me I found that a moving subject at 200mm could not be frozen at under a 1/100 which is why I gave up on my excellent 70-200L IS and bought a 85mm 1.8, to be honest I work much better close up anyway and the 70-200L was making me lazy with the result that the pictures didn't have the intimate feel that I get with the closer focal length.

[ric c sydney]

Thanks guys some great responses.

 

Ben, you raise an interesting point. Food for thought around the intimate feel. However in some of these very large reception halls this is cahllenging. I will however still be keeping my 135 F2 for this purpose.

[fotografz]

Ric, we use either a 70-200/2.8 IS or a 300/2.8 IS at every wedding. Which is determined

by asking how far away the balcony is from the altar. The 70-200/2.8 is obviously more

versatile, but the 300/2.8 IS is a premiere long lens offering shots you don't often see.

Like higher perspective ring exchange shots that look as if we were standing 2 feet away.

 

MY partner is the one doing that shooting usually, and either uses a tripod or rests the

lens on something stable like the balcony railing or the back of a pew. It's often difficult to

get a tripod into the center areas of a balcony due to the organ being there.

 

Here's a shot using the Canon 300/2.8 IS while resting on the balcony railing. It was shot

on a 5D at 1/60th @ f/2.8 ISO 400. The inset shows a shot done from the far left side of

the wrap-around balcony using a 24-105 IS set at 47mm ... so you can see how the 300

got more intimate than we would ever have been able to get otherwise.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Oh, I forgot to add that we use neither of these lenses at the reception... or rarely do. Maybe

the 300/2.8 IS on a monopod would be an interesting idea for toasts etc. while standing on a

ladder or chair to get above the crowd. Gotta give that a try.

[kiva]

I would agree with Ben on the "intimate feel" with the closer focal length ... it actually creates excitement in the surrounding area which can be a positive if it matches the activity at the time.

 

In addition: the 70-200 also captures a different "intimate feel" of the subjects in isolation ... it's almost an introspective type of "feel" for me so it has a value of its own.

 

The above are generalities, of course, but interesting none the less.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Marc, I think that it is possible that the intimate feel when working close is more because of the effect on the photographer rather than the 'look' of a focal length? At least that is my take on it. When a photographer is detached by distance from a scene, however much they may be able to photograph intimately, they are still photographing as an outsider to the moment. I've seen a lot of your close up stuff and could I venture that they look less 'clinical' than that shot? Maybe because of the angle or whatever, but I think it shows in the photos. Just my personal opinion though..

[fotografz]

Interesting observation Ben. By default I quess I agree with you since I rarely use anything

above 85mm. I had a 70-200/2.8 IS and sold it for lack of use.

 

In fact, you may have just help me sort out something that has been perplexing me ... in

evaluating my work done over the years, I favor that done with a Leica M rangefinder and film

... which may have less to do with the camera and film than that I used normal and wider

lenses almost exclusively and got much closer.

[rtrace]

Ben/etc., check out this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CY8u

 

Bogdan

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

I think that Marc has a point though, long lenses are often a necessity for where you couldn't get the shot otherwise whether you advocate the 'look' or not, you use what you have. However much people may agree to the concept that shorter lenses provide possibly more intimate pictures, that isn't to say that long lenses should be banished. Horses for courses...

[fotografz]

Yep, my partner has all the long glass and usually does the shots from the balcony. That

vantage point has saved the day more than a couple of times.

 

But again, neither of us use those teles at the reception. I use a 135/2 on occassion, but

that's about it.