Lens questions - L series, IS or keep my current lens?

[mindy_van_hecke1]

<p>I shoot kids & babies i<strong>ndoors.</strong> I am thinking about a new lens. Im looking at <a href="../equipment/product-detail?product_id=488"><strong>Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM</strong></a><strong> ($1,189) </strong> but someone posted this on here "On my Rebel XT it is great on the tele end, but not wide enough in my opinion." So I was thinking about this also: <a href="../equipment/product-detail?product_id=480"><strong>Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM</strong></a><strong> ($988)</strong>and the 24-105 IS</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Im 4 years into photography and kind of intermediate: Heres what I dont fully understand: </p>

<p > </p>

<p >1. For indoor/low light photography with fast moving children- which is more important- the L series sharpness or the IS? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >2. I currently have an EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 so Im having a hard time investing in either of these since the focal range is so similar- but am thinking it will just be much better in lower light. Will the 2.8 change my photography indoors? Will I be able to shoot kids indoors without flash if I have the 2.8 or should I just keep my lens and put the money into some studio lighting? I dont want to spend the extra $1,000 if I will still have to go out and get the lighting. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks for your thoughts!</p>

<p > </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I think you would be better off with getting a few strobes and using those. If you are doing "fast moving children" the hardest part is getting sufficient depth of field for the shot. A wide lens (f/2.8) will have to be stopped down. Strobes will stop the motion all on their own.</p>

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p> For indoor/low light photography with fast moving children- which is more important- the L series sharpness or the IS?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The IS is more important than L series sharpness. No lens will produce a sharp photo if there is motion blur. Also, a fast lens may be just as important as IS. The IS may provide 3-4 stops of forgiveness, but it won't freeze motion if your subject is moving. If you can swing the extra dough, the 85mm f/1.8 prime would be a nice addition to compliment the relatively short 17-55mm. This is also a beautiful portrait lens that will be great for the work you intend to do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I currently have an EFS 17-85mm f/4-5.6 so Im having a hard time investing in either of these since the focal range is so similar- but am thinking it will just be much better in lower light. Will the 2.8 change my photography indoors? Will I be able to shoot kids indoors without flash if I have the 2.8 or should I just keep my lens and put the money into some studio lighting? I dont want to spend the extra $1,000 if I will still have to go out and get the lighting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always sell old equipment to get new stuff, so I'd sell the 17-85mm, then you don't have to worry about similar lenses. In this case, I'd go with the 17-55mm, as said in your post that the 24-70mm isn't very wide on a Rebel. Although I've never used the 17-55mm, many people on here claim that the only thing missing from an L designation is the red ring. As for flash, the 2.8 will make a difference indoors and allow you to shoot without flash sometimes, but I would use a flash almost any time you can. If you learn how to bounce it off the ceiling, which is as easy as counting to 10, your photos will improve dramatically over direct flash and often over natural light. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If your fast moving children are usually shot in the same focal length range, say normal (28-35mm on an APS-C camera), then by far the cheapest solution would be to buy a fast prime lens in the range used.<br /> On the other hand, if your EXIFs show lots of different focal lengths, you've got to have a zoom lens, and the alternatives are one of the fast zooms. The advantage of the EF-S 17-55mm is that it does have both fast aperture AND IS. It is often said that it would be an 'L' lens if it were not EF-S. The 17mm is a wide angle on the cameras the lens fits, but not very wide. Any lens that starts at 24mm and above is going to be only a short "normal" lens on APS-C. The 24-105 IS is a wonderful lens, but best on a 35mm sensor where its role is really very much like your EF-S 17-85mm which is frankly still my main lens on my APS-C bodies, but I'm not shooting "shooting kids" either.</p>

<p>Flash is a wonderful thing if it is used right. I rarely use it myself, preferring available darkness and fast lenses with high ISOs. For those who know what to do, it can produce very natural looking pictures, bounce being one part of achieving that. On-camera flash only worked for Weegee. If you can, take a course or do a lot of reading on lighting-- even if you don't go to hot or strobe lighting it will help.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>For what you shoot a faster lens is the way to go as you get better AF (at F2.8 or lower) and the ability to stop motion in low light. In addition it will give a shallower DOF. IS is useful but probably not essential. I have the 24-70 F2.8 but find I do not use it a lot on my 7D as the 16-35 F2.8 II has a more useful range. This would suggest that of the two you should get the 17-55 F2.8 EF-S lens which has a good reputation (I have not used it). You may also want to consider a prime to augment your existing zoom - for example the 35/2, 50 F1.4 or F1.8 or 85 F1.8. Otherwise sell the current zoom and buy a fast one.</p>

[mindy_van_hecke1]

<p>Thanks so much for this advice, I really appreciate you taking time out of your day to help a newbie stranger:) <br>

Lorne, I just ordered the AB 800 strobe. Such a can of worms with how to get exposure correct with a strobe, Im a little freaked out- but excited in that geeky photographer with new gear way...<br>

Nathan- Thanks for this, I have a 50mm L series f1.4 and am so deeply in love with it that I was leaning towards the L so Im so glad you helped me figure out that I probably need the IS more. Ill sell my lens and go for it. I have a speedlight 430 EXII also but just get so frustrated with my results, I have high cielings and have to use a gobo and bounce card and its just not been pretty. Need to play more. Where do you guys sell your used equipment? <br>

Checked out both of your nature photos BTW- love it, those alaska shots had such vibrant color Nathan. Once I feel like Ive mastered getting what I want shooting people I cant wait to get into landscapes. </p>

<p> </p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I try craigslist first. That way I don't lose money to Paypal. If there's no takers on c-list, I'll put it on ebay. </p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Keep your 17-85 for a backup lens. Get the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (either the VC $600 or non-VC version $434 sharper and lighter) and the 85mm 1.8. Get another body for a back up so if anything ever goes wrong you will be prepared. With those two lenses, another body and your flash you should be able to photograph most any event or portrait you will run into. Good luck!</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Lets assum you are using a 100mm. In order to hand hold the camera you would need a shutter speed of 1/160 of a second or faster to prevent hand shake from blurring the photo. If your subject is not moving and your shutter speed is slower than 1/160 second you will get soft images because of the motion of your hands. If your subject is a kid running around 1/160 of a second would be fast enough to give you a sharp image of the kid.</p>

<p> Hosever if you switched to a 100mm IS you would be able to hand hold the camera at a shutter speed of 1/40 of a second and not have to worry about the motion of your hands blurring the photo. However if your kid is running around the kid would be blurred because 1/40 of a second is not fast enough. A shutter speed of 1/160 of a second however would give you a sharp image of the kid without IS. </p>

<p>So to freeze subject motion you need to use a fast shutter speed which can be achieved by using a fast lens, or a higher iso setting. IS isn't going to give you a faster shutter speed. However if your subject isn't moving fast and you cannot use a flash or tripod IS is really helpful in allowing your to get sharp pohtos hand held.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>Even with an f/2.8 zoom and flash, you will be challenged to take good photos of kids running around indoors. That's because they will generally be poorly composed--the subject will be small/indistinct and/or there will be a lot of distracting background junk, or you won't see the kids' cute expressions or both. I've found that setting up situations where they are engaged and relatively still (with toys or other people) and then shooting with f/2 - f/2.8 to use shallow depth of field to make them stand out against the background works well. I use two flashes bouncing off the ceiling and/or walls to get nice lighting. It's not so much that indoor lighting is dark, although it often is, it's that the quality of the light is really bad - with heavy color casts that are hard or impossible to fix up in post processing. For kids running around, I try to find situations where they are effectively running laps (around a table, say) and then getting in position to catch them as they go by the same spot repeatedly. That usually gets me good ones. Lastly, I sometimes use slow shutter speeds and pan with the kids' movements to keep the figures relatively sharp against what becomes a motion-blurred background. All of this works at f/4 with full-frame or f/2.8 with crop. G'luck.</p>

[jim_larson1]

<p>Fast moving children: That to me implies shutters of 160-200.<br>

Do you need IS for a 50mm lens at that speed? I don't think so.</p>

<p>I agree about the comment regarding depth of field as well.</p>

<p>The answer here is definately strobes. Did you mention the 17-55/2.8 AND the 24-105/4L? I would (and have) opted to pair the 10-22 with the 24-105. Oh. . .and get some strobes :)</p>

[DickArnold]

I used to shoot kids indoors. I used a relatively inexpensive set of studio lights, softboxes, backgrounds. My set of lights are Novatrons that I have had for twenty years and they still work just fine and are light enough to move around. Athough I don't shoot for hire anymore I made an exception and did do a recent job and took my lights. I played well with the kids and got excellent results with even and well controlled light. I also used a portable backdrop. If you are seriously doing this for money I would recommend lights rather than a lens. There are some excellent portable strobes on the market these days. If that is not appealing a fixed 85 1.8 EF lens is only about $400. I just bought one and don't know how I lived without it. I do not think the 24-105 (I have one) is good on a cropped body like an XTi. Apart from that when I did weddings and newspaper work I learned how to use unobtrusive fill flash on camera. Softboxes off camera are the best however, IMO. I think anyone who aspires to do professional work needs to learn a lot about the use of flash on and off camera. I do not think it difficult to learn to use studio strobes. I took a class from Monte Zucker years ago and he taught us a simple studio lighting setup that I still use and it still yields decent or at least salable pictures. The great thing about studio strobes is that you control the light. It doesn't control you. And it is very easy on skin because it is diffused when used properly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

[markonestudios]

<p>I agree, strobes (or even your 430EXII used properly) will gain you a lot of mileage compared to even a fast prime if you shoot with no flash. It will help you freeze motion in situations where the shutter speed is low. You say your ceilings are high How high? Remember too that bounce is not always off ceilings, but can also be off walls for more directional light, adding depth to your photos...</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I'm sorry, but I looked twice and I can't see which camera body Mindy is using. Don't we need to know that before we can recommend lenses? She mentions one or two that would be great on a FF camera but not so great on a crop-sensor. She does mention some one elses Rebel, so should we assume that she has a crop-sensor, or what?</p>

[DickArnold]

Exposure is not hard with strobes but you need a flash meter. I use manual exposure and a twenty year old Shepherd simple minded analog flash meter. Its finally falling apart but I hate to give it up. You just meter the subjects position pointing the meter at the main light then shielding the meter from the main light and pointing at the fill light and set your camera. It is really an incident light reading rather than light reflected off the subject that you get with a camera meter. Once you understand it, it is easy to set lighting ratios. For example you may have a main light close to a single subject and a fill light somewhere further back near the camera. The closer you get the main light to the subject the softer and more diffused the light is falling on the subject. You just meter the main light for correct exposure and the fill light to underexpose by a stop or two to fill the face shadow opposite the main light. The best way to get the desired result for me is to move the fill light back and forth until I get what I want. For the kids I just shot, actually teen agers, I used more even lighting in their home as I did them together for some pictures. I use softboxes for more even diffused light. I also use a background light on the backdrop. And when I am set up at home I also use a hairlight for single portraits. If you are going to use only one light then I would get a fairly large reflector to take the place of the fill light on the shadow side of the face.

[JDMvW]

<p>If, as you imply, the kids are "free-ranging", I still say that the EF-S 17-55mm IS f/2.8 may be your best bet for an APS-C camera. Inside, you're not going to need much more on the long end, and outside in good light, you can use your EF-S 17-85mm lens. Not many people need two overlapping lenses like this, but for this you sound like the exception.</p>

<p>You also have to accept that shooting at ISO 100 may not be enough - sometimes the picture overrides the "noise" and the latter can be handled in post processing to a surprising degree.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I'd get (indeed I did get) the 24-105 f4L. Plenty of range for kids. You don't need to go really wide with kids unless you want to capture the whole room. Add a couple of primes such as the 35 f2, 50 f1.8m or 1.4 and 85 f1.8 and you have the best of all worlds.<br>

If you need a wideangle, the Canon 10-22 pairs nicely with the 24-104f4L.</p>

[mindy_van_hecke1]

<p><strong>David S.</strong> -Body Im shooting with is Rebel XTI. <br>

<strong>Geoff F. </strong> I have a 50mm 1.4 L that I adore- just cant get everthing I want in the shot sometimes so wanted to get a good lowlight zoom also. That big range of 24-105 is tempting tho.<br>

<strong>Mark Anthony-</strong>I have a speedlite 430exii and I also just ordered and AB800 but I am frustrated trying to use the speedlite in manual mode. I just cant seem to get it for some reason (wrote a separate post about that). Sorry- I digress. Iv spent hours trying to figure out what I know should be simple but for some reason cant get.<br>

Anyway, Thanks, I really appreciate the wonderful advice I have gotten here. Im getting the light meter too. Every post I do on here costs me money :)</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Both lenses are equally sharp and equally fast. Both feature ring-USM autofocus. Think about your 17-85. Which would be the lesser evil, losing the long end or losing the short end? With the 24-70, are you willing for give up IS?</p>

<p>I have the 17-55. It's a great lens for indoor photography. At times I like working with natural light, for example, soft light coming through a window from the side. Other times the hotshoe flash comes in handy. Whether flash or natural light, f/2.8 will help a lot.</p>

[DickArnold]

One point to remember if kids are moving around and they are not on the same plane that you need reasonable depth of field. I like to shoot at around f8 for situations like this. This is where strobes or flash enable that DOF. 2.8 may not provide this in all situations.