Could someone please tell me what lens would be best for indoor, very dimly lit, church pictures?

[KariBell67]

I am looking for a recommendation regarding a low light lens. I have a Canon 60D, and love it, but the lenses I have don't work well for low light indoor pictures. I want to be able to get clear sharp photos of my younger daughter at dance recital in an auditorium, as well as pictures of one of our other kids, who's a senior next year, in our church, which is really low lit. I had a friend who wants me to take some photos of her daughter's wedding, but it will be in a hotel conference room, with very poor lighting, and the kit lenses I have just don't work well for that. I am definitely ready to invest in a better lens. I have a Canon 50mm f1.4, and love it, but it's probably not the best when I'm farther away from the action, like in the auditorium for dance recital. It also wouldn't be good for a wedding, as you have to get fairly close to the action to catch some of those special moments. So, what 2 or 3 lenses would be good for all of these photo situations? Any help is truly appreciated! Thanks!!

[TTMartin]

---

@KariBell67 wrote:

I am looking for a recommendation regarding a low light lens. I have a Canon 60D, and love it, but the lenses I have don't work well for low light indoor pictures. I want to be able to get clear sharp photos of my younger daughter at dance recital in an auditorium, as well as pictures of one of our other kids, who's a senior next year, in our church, which is really low lit. I had a friend who wants me to take some photos of her daughter's wedding, but it will be in a hotel conference room, with very poor lighting, and the kit lenses I have just don't work well for that. I am definitely ready to invest in a better lens. I have a Canon 50mm f1.4, and love it, but it's probably not the best when I'm farther away from the action, like in the auditorium for dance recital. It also wouldn't be good for a wedding, as you have to get fairly close to the action to catch some of those special moments. So, what 2 or 3 lenses would be good for all of these photo situations? Any help is truly appreciated! Thanks!!

---

If the 50mm f/1.4 works, but, just isn't long enough, the EF 85mm f/1.8 or EF 100mm f/2 would be good low light performers with some extra reach.

If the 50mm f/1.4 still doesn't let in enough light, then an external flash (if allowed) would be the way to go.

[ScottyP]

And the 85 f/1.8 or the 100 f/2 TTMartin suggested might work for you as well. I have the 85mm and it has on more than one occasion been my go-to lens for dim lit fast action.  The indoor water park was one good example of that.  Fast moving kids, poor lighting.  Not unlike a dance recital I'd think. Maybe the 100mm would be better, depending on how close you are able to get, but with the 1.6x crop AOV multiplier 85 is pretty long really, and for dance you want a full body shot, not a tight head shot. 

[ebiggs1]

None of the prime lenses are going to satisfy you or your requirements.  IMHO, of course.

But I hope you are sitting down when you read this. I am going to recommend the best two lenses there is. These lenses are all you likely will ever need.  They are very expensive but the best usually is.

Canon ef 24-70mm f2.8L USM II amd ef 70-200mm f2.8L IS II.  I have used this pair or the forerunners of them for exactly what you want for years and years. You will want to use a fairly high ISO at least 1600 but I would try 800, too.

I am also going to suggest you consider a more important aspect to your situation.  Plus it is free. It is location, location, location!  It is far more important where you are shooting from than anything else.  The best equipment in the world can and will fail if you are in a poor shooting spot.

If you just can't swing the Canon lenses I recommend, there is a cheaper choice which is almost as good. They are made by Tamron.  They will come in at nearly half the cost.

The huge advantage with these lenses is they are constant apertures.  That means they do not alter their focal ratios as you zoom.  At f2.8, they stay f2.8 for instance.  Set f4 and they stay f4, etc.

Without seeing your actual locations no one here can give you exact settings to use.  So the best thing is for you to go in ahead of time to try and test what you can get away with.  A willing subject as a stand in will help also.

[ScottyP]

I would not be so quick to dis the primes if dim light shooting is your particular need. ISO 1600 and above looks pretty rough on a crop sensor.  If you have an f/1.4 lens, that is two stops more light for you than what f/2.8 gives you, so instead of shooting ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 you could be at ISO 400 or 800.   F/2 or f/1.8 is one (or a bit more) stop brighter than 2.8. 

If you do want a better brighter normal range zoom for your crop look at the Canon EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Same constant bright aperture as the lenses above, but 1.) the focal range is adjusted wider for a 1.6x crop sensor, and 2.) it costs only about $750.00.  If you don't plan to go full frame in the future it makes sense.

The 70-200 is magnificent. I think I'd probably take that over something like an EF 135mm f/2, despite what I said above because it is just that good and very much more versatile, and because the lack of IS on the 135 means you'd need a min shutter speed of more than 1/200th on a 1.6x crop body to avoid camera shake, which would be fine for daylight sports but might be hard in to achieve in dim light.  

[Waddizzle]

ScottyP wrote"

"If you do want a better brighter normal range zoom for your crop look at the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. Same constant bright aperture as the lenses above, but 1.) the focal range is adjusted wider for a 1.6x crop sensor, and 2.) it costs only about $750.00.  If you don't plan to go full frame in the future it makes sense."  

That may be one of your best options for under a thousand.  You can almost always zoom closer with your feet.  But, you cannot always zoom further away because of walls and other obstacles.  See"  There I go with Ernie's "location, location, location" once again.

[KariBell67]

Thank you so very much for all the information! I was eyeing the 70-200, but am a bit hesitant. Is it good only for when you are further away from the subject/s? 

[kvbarkley]

70 is not that much different than 50, but if you have the fifty and the time, you can always switch.

[Waddizzle]

---

@KariBell67 wrote:

Thank you so very much for all the information! I was eyeing the 70-200, but am a bit hesitant. Is it good only for when you are further away from the subject/s? 

---

The 70-200mm is a versatile range of focal lengths.  With your APS-C sensor you will get an apparent focal range of 112-320mm, which could be quite effective if you're sitting a dozen, or so, rows from the front.  Bear in mind, that it will be lengthy lens in the close quarters of audience seating.  It may make your arms weary, too, increasing camera/lens shake.  A monopod may be a good investment on that front.

I just recently picked up the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, and I'm still discovering just how awesome the image quality is.  If you do go for a 70-200mm "L", definitely pick up the version, f/4 or f/2.8, with Image Stabilization, IS, because those are weather sealed.  Everybody who owns one around here will definitely advise getting the f/2.8L IS II USM, present company included.

Depending upon the size of the wedding venue, the 70-200mm may prevent you from getting full body shots.  Remember, you using an APS-C sensor camera body.  I think you will want something wider for some shots, just to capture the context and atmosphere of the event.  You will almost definitely want something shorter than 50mm to take a shot of the wedding party, if you shoot them indoors.  A better shot would be to shoot the wedding party outdoors with the 70-200..  

Pull the trigger on the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  Pick up an in expensive EF-S 24mm f/2.8, if you do not have a kit 18-55mm lens for those occasional wide shots that will invariably present themselves.  It is slow to focus compared to more expensive lenses.  It's reasonably sharp, but I would definitely use a tripod with it in poor lighting. 

Or, pick up the 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 that was mentioned earlier. I think both of these lenses are compromises, though.  I think it would be better to go for the 70-200mm f/2.8L, and compromise on just one lens and not spend a lot money doing it.

[kvbarkley]

It looks like Canon just set up some new instant rebates:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/promotion/10402/canon-lenses-speedlites-savings.html