Lens for low-light situations

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>I have a 40D, and a decent set of lenses, suitable for most situations, but lacking in one area.<br>

My backpack usually contains a EF-S 10-22, 24-70L, 70-200 f/2.8 IS (and a 1.4 extender.) - fine for most situations when I go out and don't know beforehand what I will be shooting. I have a few more lenses, which I usually keep at home (like the 100mm macro) or bring along in certain situations (85mm f/1.8 for indoor sports).<br>

However, I have run into limitations regarding low-light situations, music events in <strong>small venues</strong> and street photography in the evenings, so I am considering adding a fast prime lens - wider than my 85mm one.<br>

But which one?<br>

50mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4 or even one of the f/1.8 primes in the 20-28mm range from Canon or Sigma?</p>

<p> </p>

[pbalko]

I love my Canon 28 1.8, even though the CA is a bit high along extreme contrast edges. If, by chance, you're converting to B&W, you won't even notice it. My 50 1.8 is also real nice for the small venues, especially when I can get close to the band. I'd say those two, along with your 85, should set you up real nice.

[hakhtar]

<p>You can't beat 24mm f1.4L or 35mm f1.4L for the camera and the sort of use you have mentioned! The 24mm under low lighting condition!</p><div></div>

[trevor_martin]

<p>Since you mentioned Sigma, I have their 24mm f/1.8 macro and I can tell you it is the sharpest lens I have ever owned, and seems to have great build quality. I use a 40d so I don't know how well it would do in the corners on a full-frame sensor. Even wide open it's very sharp as long as focus is right on. Slow and noisy auto-focus though, but the 24mm 1.4L was way out of my price range.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Three fine non-L Canon primes that produce excellent IQ are the 35mm f/2, the 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.8.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>There's also the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.</p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>Regarding the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, I ignored that as it is crop-only. Would be fine on my 40D, of course, but I'd rather get the 24mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/1.4 as they would be usable when/if I get a FF camera.<br>

I have read various reviews of the lenses I mentioned above, but it is just not clear to me which one would be the "best" for me</p>

[tdigi]

<p>The 35 1.4 and new 24 1.4 have a reputation as the best wide primes for Canon but you will pay a premium. I personally like the 28 1.8. I often hear that the 35 2.0 is good too but I tend to stay away from non USM lenses. The 28 is a nice focal length on your 40D for street and shots in close venues. It functions much like the 85 and in fact my favorite small low light setup is a 28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 all of which can be purchased for less then the 35 1.4. but if I could justify needing an L prime ( I don't print large, most work I do with my camera gets done with my current non L primes just fine and I shoot with a 5D2 which is awesome in low light ) I would probably get one.</p>

[jwilli4834]

<p>EFS 17-55 2.8 IS USM</p>

[mike_oflaherty]

<p>Judging by what you have in you bag, you should be good for most situations. Have you tried increasing the ISO? I'm sure this would help, that would be my first thing on the list. If the issue is noise that goes with the increased speed doe a series of of shot at different speeds and and compare and see what tolerable. If your not blowing up the images to poster size this should do the trick. Second off, are you using a tri/mono pod for your low light shots? If not, I would do a little research and get each, you can never have a steady enough hand to shoot with in low light with the fastest lens you have on you rig. Good luck in what ever you decide to do.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For an xxD camera, I certainly like my 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8 as light (and low light) and relatively inexpensive additions to the kit bag.</p>

<p>Of course, if you're willing to spend more, a 35mm or 24mm f/1.4 or even the 50mm f/1.2 are good.</p>

<p>I join with Mike in suggesting that high ISOs have their price, but also their benefits. Even without post processing, many of us who had to shoot with the grainy "high speed" (wow, as high as ASA 500 or even a 1000!) films of the 60s and 70s find the noise problem to be "overstated."</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Not a crop, because why waste a really wide lens, but the scene below was outside at 9 p.m. only light from various light fixtures, ISO 12800, Canon 5DM2, Sigma 20mm f1.8, 1/5s, handheld, at f5.6., Lots of noise reduction, some USM, some color correction. Slight banding visible in full resolution.</p><div></div>

[sreegraphy]

<blockquote>

<p> Have you tried increasing the ISO?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike,<br>

On normal indoor lighting condition 40D's maximum ISO of 1600 will not be adequate even for f2.8 unless flash is used</p>

[fridrik_skulason]

<p>Indeed - I have run into several situations where my f/2.8 lenses are just not adequate.<br>

What I will probably do (after having gone through the various reviews (photozone, lensplay, KenRockwell, FredMiranda and the-digital-picture) and considered the above comments) is to replace my current 50mm f/1.8 with the 1.4 version, and get either the 35mm or the 24 f/1.4 as well. <br>

With two /1.4 lenses and my 85mm f/1.8, I think I should be OK.<br>

Thanks, everyone.</p>

<p> </p>

[sreegraphy]

<p>Fridrik,<br>

Though you tend to buy lens wider than f2.0 It's harder to use becoz of DOF limitations. The only option is to use lil amount of flash. If flash is not suggested to use then obivous thing try to use camera that support more than ISO 3200. I do remember when I was shooting a concert I used 5DII with 70 - 200 f2.8 IS and I got decent exposure and DOF when using ISO 6400, f4.0 - 5.0 by maintaining good subject to camera distance.</p>

 

[mike_oflaherty]

<p>Sreehari I did not know that, you learn some thing new each day. If such is the case a new lens will not help that much, it's time to save some coin and upgrade the body in order to get the results that are desired. The old camera could be sold for use towards a new one or it will make a great back up.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>40D's maximum ISO of 1600</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For the record, in case this archived file is found by someone later, the actual maximum of the 20D, and I'm pretty sure the 40D too at least to the same, can be altered in the menus to "H" (i.e., ISO 3200).</p>

[mwtphoto]

<p>you are correct JDM</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>In case the debate is not over, I have had good results with a Sigma 50mm 1.4. But as said earlier, it is the camera's ISO sensitivity and noise response that determine how effective the shooting will be in low light. In the radio tower shot I used f 5.6 because I wanted the whole tower in focus. That would not have been the case at f1.8.</p>