Low-light and architecture?

[robmilton]

Hello, all.

 

I have the opportunity to spend buy a new lens and have a bout $1000 (USD)

budgeted. Since I'm a public school teacher (Art and Art History) I am looking to

make a "wise investment" to work with my Canon 40D as well as a future FF (one

day).

 

First, some background: I shoot a LOT of large architectural interiors (think

medieval churches), so a good low-light performer is a must. Because I

sometimes need to pick out some architectural details, I either need a tack-sharp

prime or a fast-ish zoom. (Shooting from tripods is rarely an option for me, simply

because I'm almost always "travelling light.")

 

Since I'm the "photography nerd" in the family, I also end up shooting a lot of

dinner parties (again, low-light). Since I'm usually whipping my 40D out around

dessert, I prefer not to use flash, since there's nothing quite like the mood and

colors that come from the random assortment of light quality you find at parties.

 

My 28 f/1.8 has disappointed in these situations, and the 50 f/1.4 has been a little

too long for across-the-table candids (and we all know the value in catching

someone when they don't know you're looking!).

 

So, to my question(s): I've considered the 24-105 f/4L but I'm nervous about the IS

improvement. Is it really 2 or 3 stops? I don't want to get that thing inside a dark

old cathedral only to find out you can't actually shoot sharp at 1/4 sec (like some

claim).

 

I've also considered the 16-35 f/2.8L II, but again, I'm nervous about 2.8 being fast

enough for some low-light situations.

 

I loved my 35 f/2 (sold it.. I know, dumb) so I've also considered the 35 f1.4L.

 

Any experience you wizards can offer this amateur would be greatly, greatly

appreciated. (My wife would also appreciate it so I'll stop tlking to her about it!)

 

Thanks in advance,

Rob

[tdigi]

I was going to suggest the 28 1.8. What about that lens is disappointing? If your

shooting with no flash at all a prime is your best bet in most cases. I use primes

often but I find some fill light is usually needed to help get proper exposure or just to

avoid dark eye sockets. etc.

 

The lenses you mentioned are some of the best along with the 24-70 2.8.

 

I do hear from many that the 35 1.4 is one of the best lenses you can get for a prime

and it will look really nice on a FF camera but maybe a bit long on your 40D. But

again I know many people including myself that really like the 28 1.8. I find that at

1.8 its really soft but at just 2 it gets much better.

[robmilton]

Hi, Tommy. Thank you for the input. My 28 is exactly what you said: just really soft (and sometimes hunts in low-light). I do find improvement at 2.0 and up, and I love the contrast and color. I just have to be selective about the scenarios in which I use it (sometimes have to fall back on the 50 if I can't use a flash...if I do use a flash, I dial it down about -2 or so).

 

When I had the 35 f/2 I found that 35mm was a "natural feeling" focal length on my old digital Rebel (in other words, when I would see something I felt might make a good shot, the 35 was almost exactly what I was seeing in my mind's eye in terms of composition). So I think I'd probably be comfortable with the 35L. I'd probably have to re-learn 35mm on a FF.

 

I must admit I've been leaning toward the 24-105 mainly because of the range at the longer end. But the purist in me wants to be talked into a prime. Any experience with the 24 1.4?

[tdigi]

Rob, I find the 28 1.8 is only soft at 1.8. from 2 on its pretty sharp with really good

color and contrast.

 

I am planning on getting the 24-105 as well. My only debate is do I get it as part of

the kit with a 5D. Keep in mind however if your shooting people IS is not a lot of help

since unless your subject is posing. I want this lens for more of a general all around

lens, I don't think you will be happy with it in low light with no flash.

 

If you like shooting at 35 and with minimal flash it sounds like the 35 1.4 is for you.

And if you like 35 on a 40D then why even worry about full frame. I know this is

rated as one of Canon's best lenses but its also much bigger then the 28 1.8 .

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-1.4-L-USM-Lens-

Review.aspx

[g dan mitchell]

Life is full of compromises, no? :-)

 

I like the 24-105 a lot but it isn't all that wide on your current crop sensor 40D, though it would be on the future FF

body. The IS would work well in the situation you describe and I have success shooting this lens in fairly low light

interior environments - though I'd sure try to use a tripod or monopod when possible.

 

On your crop sensor body the 16-35 f/2.8 would have a lot going for it with good performance at f/2.8. However

there are some issues you would need to be aware of. Interior shots with much depth aren't going to work well at

f/2.8 so you may end up shooting at smaller apertures. It is also a costly lens.

 

Primes might not be a bad bet, though getting inexpensive primes that will be very wide on a 40D is a bit of a

difficult proposition.

 

If you were not planning a move to FF I'd certainly recommend that you look at the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.

 

Dan

[zafar1]

Have you considered 24/1.4? This should be quite nice. You may come across a bad copy of it, but make sure to buy from a place which allows returns/exchanges and you should be able to get a pretty sharp lens in the focal length that you need.

[g dan mitchell]

Again, I have to wonder if super wide apertures are really the best answer for

architectural photographs. I suppose it depends on your approach to the subject but it

would seem important to have some depth of field for such shots in many cases - and

f/1.4 isn't going to help with that.

 

But, then again, that could be one of those compromises I mentioned above.

 

Dan

[robmilton]

G Dan, I'm not planning on upgrading to FF any time soon, I just don't want to drop $1000 on a lens (17-55 f/2.8 IS, namely) that wouldn't "grow" with me. Thus, I'd like to stay within the FF-compatible realm. But you're right: that particular lens is alluring.

 

Zafar, I have considered the 24. I have the 28 f/1.8 and the extra 4mm and faster stop would probably be perfect for the types of architecture I end up shooting. The distortions make me nervous, though.

 

Tommy, like you, I'd consider the 24-105 my "general purpose" lens, and you make a very good point about IS being useless for subject motion. It's always the f/4 that makes me hesitate on this one.

 

I've shot quite a bit of architecture in the f/2.8-3.5 range with good (not great) results, so the 16-35 is a strong contender. Otherwise, I'd be stopping the f/1.4 prime down, of course. I do like the razor-thin DOF with the faster primes, but I don't take advantage of it as much as I could/should.

 

Any 16-35 II users out there? Are you satisfied with it in low-light situations, and is bokeh pleasing?

[zafar1]

if you have a f/1.4 lens, you dont have to shoot it wide-open, but you can in case the light is low.

 

In practice and f/1.4 lens should also be quite good at f/2 compared to a f/1.8 lens at the same aperture.

 

Also I may be wrong here but I think that the focus distance coupled with low focal length, should not cause DOF challenges.

[robmilton]

Zafar, that was my thinking exactly. A 24mm lens focused at near-infinity and stopped down to something like 2.0-2.8 should leave quite a bit in focus, shouldn't it?

[g dan mitchell]

You can always get some good use out of the EFS lens now and resell it later.

[robmilton]

<i>"You can always get some good use out of the EFS lens now and resell it later."</i>

 

<p>True. Do you have the 17-55? Have you been pleased with it? I've heard horror stories about dust getting in the barrel and making a mess of things. I'm now leaning toward the 16-35, mostly because of the build quality (I'll be taking this thing around the world).

[jerry_cipriano3]

I am an architect that has been doing my own architectural photography for 25 years. If you want to do architectural photography, the wide focal length is critical and 28mm is a bare minimum for full frame, which means 17mm is minimum for your 40D. For your stated criteria, you need a 17mm prime or a 16-35mm / 17-40 zoom. Unfortunately, Canon has been remiss in making prime lenses for this use and the 17mm lenses are too expensive. The Mark 1 goes for over $1500 I think, while the latest and greatest is around $2000. The 17-40 is too slow w/o a tripod per your criteria, and the 16-35mm is too expensive, but closer in price than the 17mm primes. Forget the 24-105, 24-70, and 24 prime for the 40D.

 

Rob, unfortunately your criteria don't quite fit reality. I would recommend either getting the 17-55IS now and selling it later when you get a FF, double your budget and get the new 17mm prime, buy a 5D now, or use a tripod. Even if you used the 16-35mm zoom, you shouldn't use it at f2.8, because you do need depth of field for architectural photography. If it was me in your shoes, my first choice would be to wait 6 months and buy the new 5D along with the 24-70/f2.8 or a 24mm prime. The 24-70 has less distortion at the wide end than the 24-105. The 24mm T+S is the best for arch. photography, but you probably wouldn't want to hassle with it or buy a specialized lens. The 24mm/2.8 is an excellent and cheap lens. If you won't carry a tripod, consider a bean-bag or similar support and lean against walls or columns or furniture.

[colin carron]

I take photos of church interiors for an organisation which restores them. I have to say that in my experience there is no substitute for a tripod. If you have to travel light then I suggest you look at a very light tripod. It can be as light as you like as it will not have to cope with outdoor conditions.

 

The second requirement in my view is to have a camera with a good ISO range. Your 40D is probably one of the best here.

 

Next comes an array of tricks for keeping the camera still without a tripod. Bean bags, shooting using the self timer rather than the shutter button, using pillars to staedy yourself, Putting the camera on the floor to take ceiling pictures etc.

 

IS does work surprisingly well for shutter speeds around the normal limit of hand holdin. Clearly if the shutter is at half a second then you do not gain 2 or 3 stops.

 

My normal lens for shooting church interiors is the Canon 17-40 f/4 L. on a Canon 5D. (But on a tripod most of the time).

So m suggestion is a tiny tripod.

[robin_sibson1]

1. I think you've got to be clear about your priority here. If that's the architecture, then regard it as a bonus if you finish with a lens that's also good for dinner parties.

 

2. I have both a 5D and a 40D. The 40D is a great camera. My reason for having it is primarily long-lens use, but it's also excellent for action photography. At modest ISO, image quality is hard to distinguish between the two cameras until you start cropping, and cropping may be what you need to do, to remove excessive foreground from wide-angle architectural photographs taken from ground level. At high ISO, the sort of thing you may need for hand-held work in church interiors, there's no contest - the 5D is much better. However, even with recent price drops, your current budget won't support getting a 5D, let alone any further lenses in addition to it. In principle, however, I think a move to FF would be truly beneficial for you, something that certainly does not apply to all those who have it as an ambition.

 

3. On 1.6-factor (assuming you have to stay with that), 24mm is nothing like wide enough for non-detail architectural work, and 16/17mm is only part of the way there; the lens you need is the 10~22, which will give you the scope to crop out the foreground. Get the Ef-D screen for your 40D as an aid to levelling the camera. The 17~55 (which I don't myself have) sounds like an excellent lens and would be a good choice out as far as the limits of its wide capability, and, of course, gives you an extra stop and IS, both helpful for hand-held shots. Remember that DPP 3.4 will fix distortion and vignetting, almost losslessly, for all the lenses you might be considering, so they are now non-issues.

 

4. The real answer to your architectural needs, as I can tell you from my own experience, is to have the TS-E 24/3.5L lens and to have both FF and 1.6-factor bodies on which to use it. With practice, the shift movement is not hard to use hand-held, and transforms what you can attempt. Sadly, significant money is involved, and although you might find a s/h TS within your budget, you would not get full value from it until you also had a FF body.

[aginbyte]

Jerry Cipriano and Colin Carron have hit the matter on the nose. With the wide

dynamic range in a church or cathedral, you need a tripod (have you tried anything like

a gorilla-pod?) Also the wide angle lens is crucial. I like the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L

USM as well.

[robmilton]

<p>I should have qualified my "no tripod" clause. I do keep a gorillapod in my bag which is useful to a degree. Otherwise, I'm bracing on railings, columns, etc.

 

<p>Also, I totally concede that my priorities sound disconnected. I guess the best response I could offer is that I need a really reliable lens that I can get <i><b>some</b></i> use out of for each application. I do love the couple of primes I have for various uses when I'm home, but when I travel, I try to keep things much more "minimal" since I'm often travelling with students on class trips. (In rare cases like last summer, a trip to Europe on a research grant, I can take my whole bag of goodies .)

 

<p><i>"I think you've got to be clear about your priority here. If that's the architecture, then regard it as a bonus if you finish with a lens that's also good for dinner parties."</i><br>

 

Precisely how I've been thinking about it, Robin. And you make a good point about what's "wide" on a crop body. I've been nervous about the "modest" aperture range for the 10-22. But then again, I should remind myself that at such a wide angle, it should be easier to hand-hold, right? I'm intimidated by the notion of a TS lens, honestly.

 

<p>Colin! Without knowing it was you, I've admired some of your photographs recently; so thanks very much your valuable input. You mentioned the 17-40; would you advise <i><b>against</b></i> the 16-35 then? I can reach a little above my budget (as long as the wife stays in the dark about it).

 

<p>Jerry, you're probably right. I'm ruling out anything that starts at 24 (until I go FF, which will be when the prices and my budget can "meet halfway").

 

<p>So option (A) the 10-22 for the best nagle of view archtecture, or option (B) the 16-35 stopped down a bit for architecture and wide open for the low-light soiree?

 

<p>(By the way, thank you -- all of you -- for your kind advice . This is truly, truly helpful.)

 

<p>Rob

[tdigi]

Rob, I think before you put any money into any EF-S lenses you may be better off

just getting a 5D. My reasoning?

 

1. You say you like shooting at 35, your 50mm on a 5D would look very similar to

your old 35. So you save on buying a lens

 

2. Your current 28 becomes wide instead of normal.

 

3. Rebates just started so you can save big on a 5D

 

4. All your lenses get double duty. 1.6 crop factor and full frame. so a 50mm is 50 &

80. etc.

 

The way I see it I would never purchase EF-S lenses. I know the photo quality is

good and all but its limited. I don't know if you ever tried a full frame camera but you

will say wow when you do. I know you can sell them but I would rather get

something that works on both cameras and not have to sell my lenses. Again you

can get double bang for your buck using a 5D/40D combo.

[robmilton]

Tommy, when my wife asks why I need to buy <i>another</i> dSLR, I'll tell her because Tommy DiGiovanni said so :)

 

<p>Kidding aside, I wasn't aware of the 5D rebate (knew there were some lens rebates going on but hadn't looked at the bodies since it wasn't originally my plan). I'll look into it, though. Thank you.

[colin carron]

Rob, thanks. I certanly would not advise against the 16-35 L. By all acounts it is a very good lens.

[J.W. Wall]

5D is $1,899 at B&H after rebate.

[tdigi]

Does she like photography? tell her she can use the 40D. Seriously, I would just get a

5D over getting any EF-S lenses. If your going to get a good lens make it an L

[ben_quinn1]

What about the 14mm f/2.8 prime, isn't that architecture lens in canon's line up? Then

again 16-35 is better value I suppose as it will double as a ok walk around lens.

Though I don't think you can get all you want from one lens. It would have to be 2,

how about 17-40 L ($650) and a larger aperture prime?

[david_spencer3]

Have you considered the new Tokina 11-16/2.8? It's very sharp, probably comprable to the Canon 10-22, and considerably less at ~$560. The Canon is better at controlling distortion and has less chromatic aberation (and does have more range), but the Tokina's is fixable and there's not too much to begin with. You should be able to use it without a tripod at f/2.8. It sounds from comments like it's in an entirely different category from other UWA lenses for crop cameras. Those are suited for landscapes, this one for interiors and photojournalism.

[nathan_meador]

Consider a Sigma 10-20mm for wide angle architecture, and the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro for detail shot and double as a longer range portrait lens. That should be within your budget, but you'd have to use the gorillapod for most interior architecture shots.

 

The Sigma 30mm 1.4 is supposed to be a good low-light performer as well...too many lenses to pick from.