topic Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens. in EF & RF Lenses

Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

Justin — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:47:52 GMT

I am looking for a good indoor low light lens for my Canon 60D. I have been using a 50mm f/1.8 lens but it seems like I am always too close and I can't always back up because I run into furniture or I am up against a wall. I usually take pictures of kids & pets so a fast lens is preffered.

I had my eye on Canon's 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM but it is a little on the spendy side and I'm not sure I need a zoom lens, when I can just take a step forward.

I am also looking at the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM and the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM. Other than the Image stabilation, is there much a difference between these two lenses? Is image stabilation worth the extra $450.00?

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

hsbn — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 23:52:29 GMT

I don't see the benefit of IS at 24mm especially in your case. The price different is not only for the IS but also for the lens construct itself. The STM lens is EF-S lens, it can only be used on crop body. The IS one is for full frame, thus the image circle is bigger and it is more expensive. But moving from F1.8 to F2.8, you will lose some light. The only thing you will gain is more room to work with.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

ScottyP — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:36:09 GMT

Yes. 50mm on a crop is often too tight indoors for anything but closeups. Can be hard to compose a shot with everything you want in the shot.

If you are going f/2.8, I would just go in all the way and get the 17-55. The extra width between 17-24 is really really nice to have, especially on a crop camera where the body robs you of width to begin with. Recall that at 17mm you are till only at a 27mm equivalent on a FF body, and most standard FF zoom lenses (24-70 or 24-105) start at 24mm, actually.

I have the 17-55. I will say I haven't used it in few years since going full frame, but it is a very sharp lens with a very useful walk-around focal length.

If I was considering a prime instead of a zoom, i would expect to do better than f/2.8. I would expect to be getting wider aperture (f/1.4) than what one could get with a zoom, since the zoom is more versatile.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

ebiggs1 — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:19:25 GMT

"I am also looking at the EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM and the EF 24mm f/2.8 IS USM"

The "image circle" will be the same on your camera. 24mm is 24mm no matter what camera you use it on. But you understand these lenses will be a stop and a half slower than your 50mm? In very low light situations that can be a deal breaker. In your case the EF-S 24mm is your choice of these two.

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM has image stabilation (IS) so it will likely get you that stop back (or more). It is a very good choice. If you stay in the Canon line up of lenses, whitch is vast, and you want to remain in this price point, that is about you only choices. But tody's zoom lenses are where it's at. They are nearly in the same league as primes in sharpness so there is really no good reason for most people to consider anything else.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

Justin — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:45:59 GMT

After looking at Canon's selection of wide angle prime lenses, there isn't much to pick from that has f1.8 or less. The EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM is out of my price range ($1649.00) and the EF 35mm f/1.4L USM is not the angle I want and is also out of my price range. However, The EF 28mm f/1.8 USM may be worth considering ($509.99). I would be giving up the versatility of a zoom lens, but gaining an advantage of going to f1.8 is a huge plus.

From what I have read the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is a very sharp lens. I have also been looking at going off brand and getting a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM. It seems to be the best of both worlds. It has a wide angle and low f-stop. However, it has been rumored to have serious auto-focusing problems, so that may be a deal breaker. I would like to know if anyone has any experience with this lens.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

ebiggs1 — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:48:10 GMT

The big problem with off-brand lenses is auto focus issues. Because most of them know how to make a lens, so their glass is usually pretty good. Not always but usually. Some of them are pure junk from the get go and they remain there. You really need to try the "exact" lens on your camera to see if it works properly.

Now the problem, Canon does not, understandable, release or make known how it makes auto focus work. All off-brand lens makers have to reverse engineer a real Canon lens and camera to try and figure out how it's done.

And now problem number two, their manufacturing is sloppy. If you get a good one, OK. But if you get a bad one, you have real problems. This has improved lately especially with Sigma and CS at SIgma has improved, too. Tamron is getting better. And Tokina is really bad.

There are a handful of these off-brand lenses that are very good now. As good as it gets good, especially from Sigma.

Best advice, is try before you buy.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

Skirball — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:33:14 GMT

@Justin wrote:
I usually take pictures of kids & pets so a fast lens is preffered.

Is image stabilation worth the extra $450.00?

Image stabilization isn't going to do a thing for you on the wide end. Even at telephoto, for kids and pets, it's going to do little. IS prevents camera shake, when using slow shutter speeds and hand held cameras. But if your shutter speed is so slow that you need IS, then you're way too slow for most kids and pets. Unless you just like to take photos of them sleeping.

2.8 is usually reasonable indoors. You'll have to crank up the ISO a bit, but you should be able to get away with it. I'm kinda surprised that you're finding 50mm too tight, even on a crop sensor. Usually a bit of extra reach is helpful for getting pictures of kids and pets that are always on the move. What kind of photos are we talking about, kids at play, or posed pics?

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

Justin — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:41:12 GMT

50mm is good at capturing faces, but I am photographing multiple toddlers. I have to get at least 10' away to get their whole body in the shot. I have to get even further away if I want to get two or more kids to fit in the frame. That’s not easily done if I am in a small or even a regular size house.

IS is also not even worth considering as a feature since I have to use fast shutter speeds to keep up with the Kids movement. I am leaning towards a lens that goes to f1.8 since I have to use fast shutter speeds. It’s a toss up between the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 lens and the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

Skirball — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:08:25 GMT

That's fine, just keep in mind the smaller DoF with large aperatures. Even at short focal lengths you're going to have a tough time getting everyone in focus in the same shot. Also, I don't know much about that Sigma (though I do own several Sigma lenses and like them a lot), but usually lenses aren't their sharpest when opened all the way up. Expect to be shooting at 2 or more likely 2.2 - 2.5.

I would go with a zoom over a prime at that FL. I love primes, I use them often, even on my toddlers in fact. But I prefer close up shots to full body. At wide angle you're going to be either running all over the place trying to get a good composition, or you're going to take a super wide angle shot where the kids get lost in all the other background that is in the frame.

Don't forget the option of flash. When I shoot my toddlers I put a single flash on a manual RF trigger and blast it straight up into the ceiling. It just acts as a big ceiling light, and allows me to get my ISO down and aperture up. It don't fuss with it, I don't aim for portrait style lighting. I just toss a bunch of extra light into the room to work with, and let it bounce all over the place.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

ScottyP — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:27:45 GMT

That Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be sweet. Being wide angle (at the wide end), and being on a crop, you actually keep a pretty decently deep DOF even wide open. Much easier to work with on multiple subjects, keeping them all in focus, than it would be on a 50mm with a shallower DOF.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

cale_kat — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 06:01:47 GMT

Justin, You're only $80 away from the 17-55mm f2.8 Canon which retails for around $880. (The 16-35mm f1.8 Sigma retails at $800.) You've come a ways from your original post and concerns about the price of the Canon lens. I wont argue the beauty of the Sigma lens or its imaging, I do believe the overall value remains with the Canon 17-55, I have spent some time with the 60D and 17-55 and I thought the two exceptionally well suited together. I don't know how you could find a more versatile lens at the price..

Just my $.02.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

TCampbell — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:40:28 GMT

There is a danger in using very low focal ratios (e.g. f/1.8). The depth of field starts to get very narrow -- so if your subjects (say it's two children) are not at the same distance, only one would be in focus and the other blurred. If that's not the effect you'd want then you'd need to change the focal ratio to increase the depth of field OR make sure your subjects are at the same distance (and when deailing with young children... that may be quite a challenge.)

For example...

The "normal" focal length (1x zoom) for an APS-C camera is 28mm. (A "normal" lens with 1x magnification means the diagonal measurement of the imaging chip matches the focal length of the lens. The diagonal measurement of a Canon APS-C chip is about 27mm. Nobody makes a 27mm lens, so 28mm is as close as you can get.)

So if we use an assumption of a 28mm lens, then a subject focus distance of say... 7'. This gives us a dimensional field of view roughly 6' by 4' (it's actually slightly less than that... but I'm rounding to nearest whole-foot values).

Assuming 28mm with f/1.8 and a 7' focused distance, the depth of field is 1.28' (6.4' to 7.7'). That means if the heads of these two children are not at the same distance ... but vary by much more than a foot.... then one of them is going to be soft.

At f/2.8, this climbs to 2' worth of Depth-of-Field. At f/4 it climbs to 3' worth of DoF.

This is why I seldom shoot this sort of thing at focal ratios below f/4. You can... but you have to be very aware of the DoF.

It's usually easier to move the subjects into better lighting.

Note that I used a 28mm lens as a baseline (because that's the "normal" focal length where you'd have no wide-angle distortions. Suppose we run that down the 18mm wide-angle limit on the lens... now the depth of field (at f/1.8) jumps back up to 3.25' (keeping that 7' distance) and at f/2.8 it's 5.6' (keeping that 7' distance). BUT... if we try to maintain the "roughly" 4x6' dimensional field of view, then we'd have to change the subject distance to 4.5' and now we're RIGHT BACK to the original 1.3' of DOF (so we didn't really gain anything ... other than wide-angle distortions.)

If you were shooting subjects at some distance, then sure... go ahead and shoot at low focal ratios without worrying too much. But given you are looking for a new lens BECAUSE of the close-shooting proximity to your subject and low light constraints... f/1.8 is probably not going to be easy to use.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

cale_kat — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 19:47:10 GMT

I don't see shallow depth of field as a "danger" but rather as an "opportunity". No two photographers are exactly alike. 🙂

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

ScottyP — Sat, 11 Oct 2014 22:14:02 GMT

You are both right of course. If you are not needing to get multiple things at different distances into the shot, the shallow DOF can be beautiful.

At least with a wide lens like 18 - 35mm you don't get into terribly terribly thin depth of field (from the "risk" line of thinking). The crop sensor too helps keep you out of the razor thin DOF, as compared to the DOF on FF at equal distances.

I really enjoy my 35mm f/1.4 indoors for that reason, actually. I can usually shoot wide open, or nearly so, without having to bump the ISO's too badly, and yet I usually still get enough DOF to get most shots. That would be trickier to do using a longer lens like 50mm or 85mm due to shallower DOF.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

cale_kat — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 00:33:49 GMT

It is also worth mentioning that the lenses with a 1.4 or 1.8 maximum aperature typically perform very well when stopped down once or twice. The benefit being that the higher you start, the better position you will be in to take advantage of natural light even when stopped down.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

TCampbell — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 01:18:04 GMT

That's true... "extremes" of lenses are seldom their sweet spots of performances.

I mention the hazzard of very low aperture only because beginners may go from a kit lens with variable focal ratio, then learn that some lenses offer much lower focal ratios which collect substantially more light. If you compare a kit 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens at 50mm (which would be limited to f/5.6 at that focal length) to a "nifty fifty" 50mm f/1.8 that's 3 and 1/3rd stops (about 10x more light). Ten times more light sounds fantastic on it's face...

Yet it's also important to consider that while the light collection goes way up... the depth of field becomes much narrower and this may become so narrow that you may not be able to get everything in focus that you actually want in focus without considering subject placement.

Commonly in cinematic photography only one "person" in the scene might be focused... deliberately de-focusing other people in the scene and drawing the viewer's attention to the person in the scene that the director wants them to see. In traditional photography, if two children are in the same photo, more commonly the photographer probably wants both to be focused. If that's the case... you may need to nudge the focal ratio back up to achieve that goal.

My original post was really to point out that very low focal ratios (f/2 and lower) don't necessarily solve the light problem without any side-effects so... use with care.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

ebiggs1 — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:33:03 GMT

"... very low focal ratios (f/2 and lower) don't necessarily solve the light problem without any side-effects so... use with care."

There is no free lunch. You give to get.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

RichardD — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 09:12:54 GMT

What about the Canon 28mm f:1.8? It's going for $449 at Adorama after a $60 rebate.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

Justin — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 19:28:06 GMT

Yes, the Canon 28mm f:1.8 lens is one that I am also considering as well as the EF-S 24mm
f/2.8 STM lens which is only $149.99 but I don’t think it is available yet.

Previous posters have a very good point about the dangers of a lens that can shoot at f1.8 because of the very shallow depth of field. I often shoot using the TV mode (with exposure compensation) to avoid motion blur. If I am using a lens that can go down to f1.8 there is a danger of accidentally shooting at too low of an f-stop. Unfortunately there is no “lowest safe f-stop” mode in TV just like there is no “lowest safe shutter speed” option for shooting in AV mode with auto ISO. At least not that I am aware of. I can always shoot in Manual, but then I would lose the exposure compensation option.

Re: Looling for a good low light indoor lens.

RichardD — Wed, 15 Oct 2014 21:42:26 GMT

I noticed in your original post that you were using the 50mm f:1.8. You stated that you objected to this lens because you had to back away from the subject a considerable amount but you did not raise an objection to the shallow depth of field provided by the 50mm f:1.8 lens. If indeed you have no objection to the shallow depth of field on the 50mm there is no reason to beleive that you would have an objectin to the 28mm.

Just a thought!