what lens for walkaround at night?

[marcomariano]

Hi all,

 

currently i'm only using 17-85 on 400D. just would like to have an info from

your experiences between these two lenses, the 17-55f2.8 and 24-105f4L when

used at low light situations like streetlights or candlelights is the only

available source. flash is my last option.

[hjoseph7]

I use the 24-70mm f2.8 because the zoom factor gives me flexibility, but I think the 50mm f1.8, or the 35mm f2 might work just as well. I just haven't tried those lenses yet.

[marcomariano]

thanks harry,

 

i also have my self 50f1.8, the problem with this lens is it acts 80mm on 400D and flare, since its christmas time and alot of christmas lights on the street, flare from behind huge well lighted christmas trees is killing my images. i mostly take short range candid shots of people on the streets.

[mwaks]

Walking around with a tripod or a bean bag will give you much more choice in lenses. Shooting at night does not mean always shooting wide open. You might want some deep depth of field.

[mark from thailand]

In general, without knowing too much about wither option, I think it is fair to say the lens

with the larger maximum aperture will perform better in low light.

 

Hence, the 17-55 /f2.8 seems 'better' (although, as an EF-S lens is, possibly, a little more

limiting for future?). Reviews I have read on it rate it highly as well.

 

However, as an 'L' lens, I am pretty sure the Image Quality would be better from the 24-

105.

 

Price not really a differentiator, as they are both around the USD 950 range.

 

And lastly, zoom range may be an issue. It is quite a reduction in max focal length, from

85 you have now, to 55 on the 17-55. You would also notice the difference in moving

from 17 to 24mm with the 24-105.

 

Seems it comes down to how often you will need that extra f/2.8 stop v the slightly better

IQ, build quality & reach of the L?

[nhut-nguyen]

For your scenario (I assume you hand hold your camera), I think the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS wins hand out. It's one stop faster than the 24-105 and has Image Stabilizer. Being an EF-S lens, it won't work on full frame camera like the 5D, and 1 grand investment, you should think carefully before purchasing another EF-S lens.

[ofey_kalakar]

35 f1.4 L or 50 f1.4

[bueh]

The best Canon lens to hand-hold is the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM wide angle. Zooms are not so well suited for low light work due to their small apertures. Flare is a problem for most fast lenses at night when very strong light sources are present, I wouldn't expect wonders. Use a lens hood and shade the front element as good as possible.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Optically, both lenses are pro-quality; if the 17-55 were a full-frame lens and had weather sealing, it would qualify as an L lens. Both lenses have top-notch AF systems (ring USM and internal focusing). Both lenses have IS, which is useful.</p>

 

<p>The 17-55 beats the 24-105 in a few ways:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>It's a stop faster (which, in addition to the obvious benefits, also activates the high-precision central AF point)

<li>It's a legitimate wide-to-medium-tele zoom; on a 1.6-crop body, the 24-105 only marginally counts as wide.

</ul>

 

<p>The 24-105 beats the 24-105 in a few ways:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>L build quality; the 17-55's build quality is that of a high-end consumer lens. Having said that, you may not need any better than high-end consumer build quality. I've had four Canon high-end consumer lenses and three Ls, and have never found the build quality of the high-end consumer lenses to be inadequate.

<li>The 24-105 is dust- and water-resistant; the 17-55 is not. This is of limited benefit on your 400D, since the body isn't sealed in any way.

</ul>

 

<p>If the choice is these two, then from the information you've provided, I'd pick the 17-55. Its range of focal lengths is more useful, and its extra speed is advantageous.</p>

 

<p>Personally, I don't have anything against either lens; in fact, I plan on buying the 24-105 very soon to replace my 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM (which, despite being quite a good lens, is now the weakest lens in my kit since the others are all primes or Ls), and if I stick with 1.6-crop, I plan to replace my 17-40/4L USM with the 17-55 eventually. I don't do much night walkaround shooting so speed isn't as big a need for me as it is for you.</p>

[brucecyr]

"i also have my self 50f1.8, the problem with this lens is it acts 80mm on 400D and flare, since its christmas time and alot of christmas lights on the street, flare from behind huge well lighted christmas trees is killing my images."

 

That is probably overexposure rather than flare, so its going affect any lens you use. In evaluative metering, for example, the intent is to produce an 18% neutral grey tone. Since the scene is mostly dark, the extreme contrast created by the christmas lights will result in them being overexposed. If you try to dampen those lights to a "natural" level, you will find the rest of the scene too dark. You can try to moderate things in post-processing.

 

But the best lens of the ones you mentioned is definitely going to be the 17-55 f2.8 IS. I got some great night time street shots in Brussels in November with that lens -- well, up to the point where everything got sloshed a bit in lambic haze :-)

[andrew robertson]

I would say something with f/1.4 aperture would be best. 2.8 is hardly fast.

[William Michael]

>>> I would say something with f/1.4 aperture would be best. 2.8 is hardly fast. <<< (AR)

 

I echo that: my thoughts you wrote as I was scribing, to expand . . .

 

 

 

>>> your experiences between these two lenses, the 17-55f2.8 and 24-105f4L when used at low light situations like streetlights or candle lights is the only available source. flash is my last option. <<< (MM)

 

 

Under street lights and candle lights one will often need F1.4 through to F2.8 at Hand Held shutter speeds, and at reasonably High ISO. Therefore, primes are more suitable for this work, IMO.

 

 

So my contention is neither zoom would be my choice; but of the two mentioned, the 17 to 55 F2.8 IS is clearly the better option.

 

 

In regards to ` candid shots of people on the streets`, we must assume that the people are not always static, so the IS function will be of limited use.

 

 

 

>>> i also have my self 50f1.8, the problem with this lens is it acts 80mm on 400D and flare <<< (MM)

 

 

I would always expect, as a generalization, because lens` construction, more flare from a zoom lens than a prime, in a flare prone shooting scenario.

 

 

I use the 50mm F1.4 on a 20D for night work: when shooting into multiple, single sourced lights there will always be flare issues, that is not the lenses fault, it behoves the photographer to either make an artistic use of the flare or use the vantage point and framing to reduce it.

 

 

>>> i mostly take short range candid shots of people on the streets. <<< (MM)

 

 

 

With these shooting parameters and assuming the 50mm is too long, the (Canon) lenses for consideration are: 24mm F1.4L; 28mmF1.8; 35mm F1.4L; also the slower 24 and 35 would be in contention.

 

 

WW

[mendel_leisk]

Maybe Canon 35mm f2.0

[matt_needham]

I was wandering around downtown (lots of street lamps, lit shop windows, etc...) in a driving blizzard two nights ago, and at ISO 1600 my exposures were between 1/30th @ f/2.8 and 1/50th @ f/4. I was using a 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D, but almost any lens I own could have handled it.

[rainer_t]

My personal choice for these situations is the Sigma 30/1.4

[William Michael]

>>> ISO 1600 my exposures were between 1/30th @ f/2.8 and 1/50th @ f/4. I was using a 50mm f/1.4 on a 5D, but almost any lens I own could have handled it. <<< (MN)

 

I am not sure what emphasis your comment is slanted towards, but if I might slant the above quote this way . . .

 

Considering these specific instances outlined, at times where 1/30th @ F2.8 were required, an F2.8 lens would handle these better than an F 4 lens, and indeed, your F1.4 prime was probably more useful again, than an F2.8 lens or any other (slower) lenses you own.

 

This is the main argument of having a fast prime for low light work: when the speed is needed it is available.

 

WW

[bob_osullivan]

"However, as an 'L' lens, I am pretty sure the Image Quality would be better from the 24- 105."

 

Not so. I own both of these lenses, and the 17-55IS is actually the sharper one. But both are very goog. AF speed is comparable.

 

These are two different lenses and really don't compare. The focal lenght is not comparable, nor is the max aperture. So first decide what focal range you need, then look at what's the best lens in that range.

[tim_klimowicz]

I own both the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS and the Sigma 30mm 1.4, both used on a 30D. As

useful as the 17-55mm 2,8 IS is, I stlll find myself carrying the Sigma 30mm 1.4 at nights

and indoors almost exclusively. 2.8 just isn't fast enough, even with the IS. It steadies the

frane fine, but the 2 stops gained with the 30mm 1.4 is the difference between 1/8th second

exposure and a 1/30th second exposure. One stops movement much better, while the other

doesn't even come close. At that range, it's huge.

[marcomariano]

hi guys!

 

appreciated your inputs so much. its like i'm leaning towards 17-55 since its wide enough for my type of photog. not to set aside 24-105 since its still an L lens which we all know has its own pros than the latter, but 24 is not wide enough for me and a stop slower. may be if given a chance to own a FF body, i would give the former a place in my bag.

 

how about normal primes, pros & cons between 28f1.8 & 30f1.4?

[andy_gulati3]

I like my Sigma 30 for these types of shots. Once you get to know Sigmas strengths and weaknesses, it can be a wonderfully versatile lens. The 17-55 is twice as long (and longer yet when extended) and considerably heavier. For street shooting, I would find it difficult to be inconspicuous with such a big lens, and I know for sure I would not want to be fiddling around with focal length.

 

The Canon 28/1.8 may offer a quicker focus. But I'm not sure there's much advantage going for a prime that is nearly one stop slower than the Sigma, or one stop faster than a capable zoom.

[rainer_t]

28/1.8 vs 30/1.4

 

28 is a fullframe lens, and its USM is a tiny bit quicker than Sigmas HSM.

 

30 is 2/3rd fstops faster and has a sharper center (but less good borders) ... to me, the Sigma seem to handle contralight better. ...

Also, the Sigma already comes with lensshade and a bag.

 

If you don't intend to go fullframe soon, I would take the Sigma.