Canon Community

newsense52 · ‎12-14-2016

What model of Rebel has the fastest autofocus set in auto mode, indoor photography.

ScottyP · ‎12-15-2016

@newsense52 wrote:
Do you mean to say the bigger the lens diameter is slower than the smaller lens when we set to autofocus?
What I am trying to view is that when you focus to moving object, how soon it can stabilize the focus?

No. Different lenses perform differently at different tasks.

The excellent 85 f/1.2 L gives beautiful images with shallow depth of field and creamy out of focus highlights, which is what it was designed for. The trade offs are a very high price, a heavy weight (if you mind weight) and very slow autofocus.

The 85 f/1.4 focuses faster, weighs very little and costs a fraction of the price. The trade offs are slightly less beautiful image quality, slightly less thin depth of field and a bit more purple fringing.

Ernie points out how in photography everything tends to be a trade off. A lens specifically designed for one thing may have to give up some other ability or quality. The optical designs of these lenses are really complex.

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

View solution in original post

Waddizzle · ‎12-17-2016

@newsense52 wrote:
Not all expensive lens have great performance.
For indoor stage shooting with moving persons with less lighting.

Fastest auto focus should go the same as fastest stabilizer without zooming the object.
Suggest a lens that best describe of what I am looking for.

Not all expensive lenses have great performance in all ways that can be measured. But, most all expensive lenses will outperform inexpensive lenses in most ways that can be measured.

If you're referring to shooting video under low light conditions, then a Rebel camera body will definitely be a factor in the quality of the video that you capture, if not THE limiting factor.

Rebel camera bodies are not known for their low light performance for shooting stills. Because of that fact, Rebels are not known for excelling at capturing video under low light conditions, either.

Rebel bodies are not kinown for their AF performance, either. The single most limiting factor in AF performance in Rebel camera bodies are the number and type of AF points. Rebel bodies are good for new DSLR users. They are not for the demanding camera enthusiast, although the T6s comes close.

Rebels are not known for the performance of their built-in flash units, either. The built-in flash will not be very useful shooting subjects much more than 10 feet [ about 3 meters] away.

As far as a lens suggestion to capture images on a poorly lit stage, I'd suggest that you look for a lens that has a wide aperture, first and foremost. If you want to avoid 'zooming the object", then I would next suggest that you look for a focal length of less than 35mm.

Finally, if you want a wide aperture, a short focal length, AND inexpensive, then you're going to have to sacrifice having Image Stabilization, as well as, Auto Focus. Canon does not make such a lens. A good example of such a lens would be a Rokinon 14mm T3.1 lens. Rokinon also makes a lens for APS-C bodies only, the 16mm T2.2 lens. Either lens can be focused to what is known as the "hyperfocal distance", which will cause everything beyond a few feet to be in focus, eliminating the need to adjust focus, at all.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

View solution in original post

ScottyP · ‎12-15-2016

@newsense52 wrote:
Do you mean to say the bigger the lens diameter is slower than the smaller lens when we set to autofocus?
What I am trying to view is that when you focus to moving object, how soon it can stabilize the focus?

No. Different lenses perform differently at different tasks.

The excellent 85 f/1.2 L gives beautiful images with shallow depth of field and creamy out of focus highlights, which is what it was designed for. The trade offs are a very high price, a heavy weight (if you mind weight) and very slow autofocus.

The 85 f/1.4 focuses faster, weighs very little and costs a fraction of the price. The trade offs are slightly less beautiful image quality, slightly less thin depth of field and a bit more purple fringing.

Ernie points out how in photography everything tends to be a trade off. A lens specifically designed for one thing may have to give up some other ability or quality. The optical designs of these lenses are really complex.

Scott

Canon 5d mk 4, Canon 6D, EF 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS mk2; EF 16-35 f/2.8 L mk. III; Sigma 35mm f/1.4 "Art" EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro; EF 85mm f/1.8; EF 1.4x extender mk. 3; EF 24-105 f/4 L; EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS; 3x Phottix Mitros+ speedlites

Why do so many people say "FER-tographer"? Do they take "fertographs"?

jrhoffman75 · ‎12-15-2016

What are you trying to photograph? You are really talking about fractions of a second difference. The 85mm f/1.2 is considered to be relatively slow to focus, buts that's compared to lens that are essentially instantaneous. It's also a 10 year old design and no doubt if the exact same configuration were released today as a III version it would be faster due to advances in USM technology and computing power. The camera/lens combination needs to do a lot of "thinking " when dealing with the very thin DOF at f/1.2.

John Hoffman
Conway, NH

1D X Mark III, M200, Many lenses, Pixma PRO-100, Pixma TR8620a, Lr Classic

Canon Community

Canon EOS Rebel...