Best prime lens for indoor and outdoor lowlight video under $200? (Canon EOS Rebel t3i)

[TheMaukingbird]

I want to be able to film downtown (lots of streetlights) and indoors without having to fix a lot in post. I'm recording on video at 1/50 second, 24 fps, ISO 1600 or below,  I would prefer 800 or below. I have a prime lens, 50mm f 1.8, but I need a wider angle. Absolutely desperate. Wider lens is high priority, but an equal priority is having clear non grainy video that let's in enough light. 

I've been considering Canon 24mm f 2.8 STM but I'm afraid it'll show up too dark. 

Also considering Yongnuo 35mm f 2, but I'm afraid it won't be wide enough for my cinematography. 

*What noise the lens makes means nothing to me, I'm utilizing several wireless lavaliers*

*Not overly sensitive about depth of field*

*For video on tripod and dolly track*

*Downtown looks like picture that is posted in real life when eyes adjust after a minute*

Looking for your experience with these lenses, or any other lenses you bought for under $200 that accomplished lowlight video for you. If you have photographic examples, feel free to post. Please include f stop, shutter speed, ISO, any specs would be useful. Thank you, Canon Community!

 

[RobertTheFat · Accepted solution]

Sounds as though you want something along the lines of a 30mm f/1.4. Sigma used to make one several years ago, and somebody probably still does. I think your biggest problem will be staying under $200. My recollection is that the Sigma wasn't very expensive. (It couldn't have been, or I couldn't have bought it when I did.) But it wasn't the best lens I've ever owned either. My guess is that anything made today will be better, but will cost more.

It turns out that Sigma does make a current version (in its well-regarded "Art" series) of that 30mm lens, and it's ratings appear to be pretty good. But it will set you back $500 at that store in New York that most of us use.

[ebiggs1]

"I've been considering Canon 24mm f 2.8 STM but I'm afraid it'll show up too dark. 

Also considering Yongnuo 35mm f 2, but I'm afraid it won't be wide enough for my cinematography."

You have two problems as I see it.  First is, all photography has its limit to what is possible.  2nd, the $200 limit.

If lenses in the f1.8 or f1.4 range don't do the trick it is going to be very difficult.  My choice for you would be the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art Lens.  It is nothing short of fantastic. Not a prime.  Limited by the two factors, f1.8 and it certainly it can't be had for $200 bucks.

Not even a lens like the prime Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC Wide-Angle Lens for Canon, totally manual, can be had for $200 bucks.  You need to rethink that part or save up longer.

[Waddizzle]

---

@TheMaukingbird wrote:

I want to be able to film downtown (lots of streetlights) and indoors without having to fix a lot in post. I'm recording on video at 1/50 second, 24 fps, ISO 1600 or below,  I would prefer 800 or below. I have a prime lens, 50mm f 1.8, but I need a wider angle. Absolutely desperate. Wider lens is high priority, but an equal priority is having clear non grainy video that let's in enough light. 

---

Wide angle plus wide aperture is not inexpensive.  It does not have to be expensive, but it cannot be had for under $200.  If you want a "fast" ultra wide angle lens, and lower noise at ISO 1600, then you will have to pay for both a better lens and camera.

I suspect that you are looking for something significantly wider than 50mm, which means something around 20mm or shorter.  You are going to have to live with ISO 1600/800, and post processing for a while longer.

I suggest that you look into Rokinon cinema lenses for an inexpensive [but significantly more than $200] ultra wide angle lens. But, you will be looking at f/2.2 to f/2.8, though.  

Cinema lenses are actually rated with T values, instead of f values.  The difference is that an f value only considers the physical dimensions of the lens, while a T value, which runs slightly higher, takes into account light that is lost due to the internal lens elements.

[TCampbell]

One of the issues you'll find is that if you shoot wide-open, you'll have a very narrow depth of field.  You mentioned you're not too worried about that (so I assume you'll pre-focus the camera to a subject distance and not worry about auto-focus or worry ab out having a sharp background.)   A VERY wide-angle lens naturally gets a broad depth of field by nature of being ulta-wide... but ultra-wide and low-focal-ratio are expensive.

I also noticed your image has diffraction spikes on the street lights.  You'll only get that shooting at high f-stops.  If you shoot wide-open then you wont have diffraction spikes on your lights.