GREAT LENS FOR NIGHT CITY LANDSCAPE

[alan_hui]

Can anyone suggest a good lens for night landscape in a city such as Tokyo for my canon 50D?

I will be shooting x'mas light decorations on building at night.

 

Thanks a bunch!

[pjmeade]

What lenses do you have at the moment?

[mike_earussi1]

What makes you think your present lenses are bad?

[nhut-nguyen]

Do you have a tripod?

[tscheung]

17-40f4 + remote & tripod

[paul_russell1]

Two options to my mind: the TS-E 24mm, a bit of an indulgance on an APS-C camera, but useful for keeping verticals vertical and

'shifting' out distractions. Downside, best used stopped down at greater shifts, and the nice wide 24 becomes a bit more like a 35mm.

 

The Sigma 10-20 DC. Wide enough to let you keep the cam level and crop into the 15MP to cut out extrenious detail. Not a fast lens,

but even a fast lens is going to require a tripod and longer exposure. Other downside is that it will vingette if you ever go for a full-frame

body (although it will actually mount unlike EF-S lenses)

 

A third way would be to get level with the decorations and use something like a 28mm f2.8 or 50 f1.8. The 28mm is sharp enough

accross the plane from f4 and the 50mm f1.8 from f2.8. Cheap too.

[lsaavedra]

I also support the TS-E 24mm choice. Great for cityscapes with tripod

[peza]

<div></div>

[aubreyp]

Handheld: Canon 14mm f2.8 (rent it)

Tripod: Canon 17-40 f4 or Canon 10-22

[g dan mitchell]

I use lenses ranging from 17mm to 400mm for night photography. Sometimes I stitch large images from multiple shots. I

usually shoot long exposures from a tripod.

 

It is hard to generalize without knowing more about what and how you shoot.

 

Dan

[JDMvW]

Any lens will do, given that you can use a tripod, high ISOs, etc. At one time, long ago and far away..., when

fast films were what we would now call ISO 50 or so, f/3.5 lenses were sold as "fast".

<p>

You want to hand hold? Then a fast lens (f/2.0 or less, <i>or is it more?</i>), IS, camera that can pump up the

ISO and still produce results. A lack of concern about "noise" is also helpful.

[wayne_campbell]

I see that Petr's shot was taken on a 5D at 12mm but what lens was it?

[paul_russell1]

"You want to hand hold? Then a fast lens (f/2.0 or less, or is it more?)" Neither, more is quantitve. You should have said "f2.0 or faster", which is relative and germaine to the language of the discipline.

[alan_hui]

I would be handheld most of the time. But I will use tripod to shoot a city view from a distance.

[peza]

It was Sigma EX 12-24 f/4.5-5.6. Substantially better lens than EF 16-35/2.8L. Only issue is - it is 1+1/3 to 2 f-stops slower. Especially corner sharpenss and distorsion shines over Canon counterpart.

[g dan mitchell]

If you are going to do a lot on night handheld photography, you pretty much need large apertures. In a zoom large

aperture and IS would be a good combination that wouldn't hinder you at all on the tripod shots. A couple of approaches:

 

If you are really serious about this, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens could be a great tool. The f/2.8 aperture plus IS

should allow you to hand hold the camera in fairly low light situations, though you might get motion blur from moving

subjects. That would not be a problem if you are shooting architecture, etc. or if you want the blur as part of your image.

 

If active subjects are on your agenda, you might want to either add a prime or two to this zoom or even go all prime

since larger aperture primes are available, and you could pick up a few for the price of the EFS 17-55.

 

Dan

[JDMvW]

Paul:<p>

>> Neither, more is quantitve[sic]. You should have said "f2.0 or faster", which is relative and germaine

[sic] to the language of the discipline.<<

<p>

Hey Paul- it was a <i>joke</i>. Would you prefer it if I had said "fewer"? You think the f ratio is a "speed"?

Jeez...

[jonneely]

Tokina 11-16 2.8

 

fast and sharp!

 

 

Jon

[paul_russell1]

"You think the f ratio is a "speed"? Jeez..."

 

Eh?

 

Can a lens be 'faster' or 'slower' than f2.0? I would have thought this was an unambiguous way to describe the point that even any

amateur could understand. If I said a lens was faster what would you take it to mean? That it has a wider maximum aperture? That

the length of a correct exposure can be decreased? (i.e. a 'faster' exposure)

 

Sorry for confusing you, I'll try not to use the correct terminology in future, just so you understand.

 

As for the "(sic)", well I'd rather make typo errors than have a simple thing like f-numbers confuse me.

 

Have a lovely weekend my friend.

[JDMvW]

And a lovely weekend to you. Paul. I hope you can relax a little and take it easy....;)

 

As for the subject of this posting, I repeat, any lens will do if you will use it correctly. A good tripod will

be your friend.