All of those are fast, light and relatively inexpensive (under $450 new, easily found used under $350 and, in the case of the 50 1.8, under $100)
I second divamum's excellent recommendations.
I would add the Canon EF 35mm f/2 as another option. I own it and it's quite a decent little lens. I've heard some people say it isn't sharp wide open, but my copy is quite usable at f/2 -- not tack-sharp, but unless you plan to make three-foot-wide prints of your images, it should be quite adequate.
I have both of the 50mm lenses and they're great. Most of the time I prefer the f/1.4 because it has USM (that is, it focuses faster, and silently), plus it's sharper than the f/1.8 at f/2 and has better bokeh. The main advantage of the f/1.8 lens is its price; it's a fantastic deal for the money, very sharp from f/2.8 on, but not as nice as the f/1.4.
I have not used the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 myself, but I have read up on them (and the more expensive 135mm f/2L) in the course of trying to decide which of them to buy. My impression is that the 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper, especially wide open, than the 85mm f/1.8.
However, I have one question for the OP: For what purpose do you want low-light lenses? If you want to take photos of indoor family events, then you may find 50mm or longer to offer too narrow a field of view on a 50D. In that case the 35mm f/2 is your best bet, I think.
I would add the Canon EF 35mm f/2 as another option. I own it and it's quite a decent little lens. I've heard some people say it isn't sharp wide open, but my copy is quite usable at f/2 -- not tack-sharp, but unless you plan to make three-foot-wide prints of your images, it should be quite adequate.
I have both of the 50mm lenses and they're great. Most of the time I prefer the f/1.4 because it has USM (that is, it focuses faster, and silently), plus it's sharper than the f/1.8 at f/2 and has better bokeh. The main advantage of the f/1.8 lens is its price; it's a fantastic deal for the money, very sharp from f/2.8 on, but not as nice as the f/1.4.
I have not used the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 myself, but I have read up on them (and the more expensive 135mm f/2L) in the course of trying to decide which of them to buy. My impression is that the 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper, especially wide open, than the 85mm f/1.8.
However, I have one question for the OP: For what purpose do you want low-light lenses? If you want to take photos of indoor family events, then you may find 50mm or longer to offer too narrow a field of view on a 50D. In that case the 35mm f/2 is your best bet, I think.
Thanks for the replies, and thanks for your in-depth post.
And I'm talking really low light, like, music shows.
I recommend the 50 f1.8 if you're on a budget. I shoot Nikon, but if it has similar performance constraints as the Nikon 50 f1.8, you should do fine with the lens. The one thing you will need to worry about is high ISO noise. I am not familiar with the ISO noise produced by the 50d, but if it produces bad noise, you will need to get the f1.4.
Fast lenses and low light option
I have a Canon 40D and looking at 17-55 2.8 lens to purchase. I have a Canon 85mm 2.8 and learning to love it. I looked at a Tamron but have always been a Canon lenses fan. Any experiences out there with the Tamron and/or this particular lenses - Canon or not??
I have a Canon 40D and looking at 17-55 2.8 lens to purchase. I have a Canon 85mm 2.8 and learning to love it. I looked at a Tamron but have always been a Canon lenses fan. Any experiences out there with the Tamron and/or this particular lenses - Canon or not??
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) - nice sharp lens but it probably won't help the OP as they will likely need more than 50mm
I have a Canon 40D and looking at 17-55 2.8 lens to purchase. I have a Canon 85mm 2.8 and learning to love it. I looked at a Tamron but have always been a Canon lenses fan. Any experiences out there with the Tamron and/or this particular lenses - Canon or not??
MPar64, welcome to the Digital Grin.
If you are asking about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM, I have that lens and it is a very good to excellent performer in almost every feature. The build is not up to Canon's best, but everything else is professional quality and you can get professional results.
It's probably not a first choice in extremely low light without flash. For that purpose, nothing beats a fast prime lens.
I have not used the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 myself, but I have read up on them (and the more expensive 135mm f/2L) in the course of trying to decide which of them to buy. My impression is that the 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper, especially wide open, than the 85mm f/1.8.
I have had both, and my 100 at 2.0 was definitely sharper than my 85 at 1.8, but there were times when that extra tickle of light - and the ability to hand hold at a slower shutter speed - made the difference in getting the shot or not.
I used both for live performance shooting; I found the 100 was a better focal length for me, and only let it go (recently) because I needed to fund a 135L, which is possibly the best low-light tele out there... but it's expensive and does need the higher shutter speed because of the longer focal length.
I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 which I absolutely love, but 2.8 lenses often don't cut it in performance light. Even with IS to stabilize the *lens*, you still need some speed to capture the motion on the stage.
For your purposes, OP, I'd suggest that the 85, 100, or 135 are you best choices, combined with a fast 50 to give you more room when you need to capture something a little wider. That's the combination I now use for theatrical conditions (where the light is sometimes a bit better than concerts/music gigs) and it works well.
If you need an even faster aperture the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is OK wide open if you plan on sharpening later. It's about as fast as you can get unless you get "very" expensive.
I decided to purchase the 85mm f1.8, over the other recommendations. One small reason being that it's cheaper, does the job I need it to, and will allow me to also purchase a fish eye that I'm after.
Which brings me to another question.
Recommendation for a fairly cheap, reliable fish eye lens. No particular purpose I need it especially for, just want to shoot some cool shots with it.
Thanks again everybody!
EDIT: I actually found the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM at only around $50 more than the 85 1.8, so I'll be getting that instead, looks like a better lens for my circumstances, hope someone can agree with me.
... Recommendation for a fairly cheap, reliable fish eye lens. No particular purpose I need it especially for, just want to shoot some cool shots with it.
Regarding the difference between the Canon 85mm, f1.8 and 100mm, f2, they are more similar than different. Choose according to best focal length for your application.
... When using flash, is it recommended to use another flash as well as the one built in to the camera?
...
An external flash can offer several advantages to the built-in flash:
It moves the flash further up and away from the axis of the lens, reducing red eye and improving shadows (a little).
Many external flashes also allow tilting the flash head which in turn allows bounce flash, feathered flash and the use of flash modifiers like "bounce with fill card".
Some external flashes also allow a swivel function which is often beneficial for additional bounce options, like bouncing off of a wall or using bounce in the vertical/portrait orientation of the camera.
You can also mount an external flash on a flash bracket or even move the flash completely away from the camera, allowing tremendous flexibility in the direction and quality of the light. (This generally requires some sort of additional flash trigger to move the flash away from the camera.)
Okay, so I've reverted my choice, and I've chosen to get the Canon 85mm, f1.8.
You'll be fine with either. I preferred the 100 f2 simply because I needed the extra reach, but the 85 was a fine lens, and the only reasons I swapped it out was for the extra length. They're both pretty easy to sell, too, should you decide you actually want to swap out for the other once you've tried it.
An external flash can offer several advantages to the built-in flash:
It moves the flash further up and away from the axis of the lens, reducing red eye and improving shadows (a little).
Many external flashes also allow tilting the flash head which in turn allows bounce flash, feathered flash and the use of flash modifiers like "bounce with fill card".
Some external flashes also allow a swivel function which is often beneficial for additional bounce options, like bouncing off of a wall or using bounce in the vertical/portrait orientation of the camera.
You can also mount an external flash on a flash bracket or even move the flash completely away from the camera, allowing tremendous flexibility in the direction and quality of the light. (This generally requires some sort of additional flash trigger to move the flash away from the camera.)
Okay thank you, I'll do a little homework on the subject.
You'll be fine with either. I preferred the 100 f2 simply because I needed the extra reach, but the 85 was a fine lens, and the only reasons I swapped it out was for the extra length. They're both pretty easy to sell, too, should you decide you actually want to swap out for the other once you've tried it.
Lets just say that I'm able to get on the side of the stage while the band is playing, will the 85mm be sufficient, or will I need something lower?
And what's the disadvantage of using a non-prime lens to do work like this?
Okay thank you, I'll do a little homework on the subject.
Lets just say that I'm able to get on the side of the stage while the band is playing, will the 85mm be sufficient, or will I need something lower?
And what's the disadvantage of using a non-prime lens to do work like this?
Zoom lenses have a range of focal lengths and therefore, a range of different fields of view. This allows different compositions from the same vantage point. This is a tremendous time saver and lends itself to more creative uses of composition.
Prime lenses often have larger apertures and some primes are also very sharp wide open. A larger aperture allows faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO settings.
Which focal length you use depends on distance to subject and how you wish to frame the subject. For instance, do you want more intimacy with the subject or you do you want to show the subject in their setting?
Okay thank you, I'll do a little homework on the subject.
Lets just say that I'm able to get on the side of the stage while the band is playing, will the 85mm be sufficient, or will I need something lower?
And what's the disadvantage of using a non-prime lens to do work like this?
I'd go with the 85 for that situation, although you may even find that a tad long. That's where a fast 50 (or even a 35) comes in handy, remembering that if you shoot a little loose you can still crop down afterwards. As I said above, I really like having two fast primes of diffferent focal lengths for performance shooting; it's rare that I only use one of them.
Why primes? They're generally faster, and in the complex lighting conditions of performance situations, every lumen you can get onto your sensor is usually a blessing. It can be a pain not to be able to frame each shot ideally from one position and to be constantly lens swapping (2 bodies makes this much easier!), but 2.8 lenses often just aren't quite fast enough to cope with some of the challenging lighting. Even IS is only minimally useful - sure, it means you can handhold at slower speeds which can be helpful, BUT it won't slow down the motion on the stage so you may still get blurring.
You better stick with Divamum's original proposal or open your wallet. Depends a lot on what kind of photos you want to take from your vantage point. 17-55 gives you some flexibility. 85 is great for a portrait style but limited in flexibility. 50 probably combines the worst of both worlds.
So I got my 85mm 1.8 in the mail and I think it's too long! So I'm contemplating getting the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8.
But Wow, the bokeh on the 85mm is fantastic!
I'm going to keep it, as it was only $380, and it's a hassle to return items in the mail. Even if it is too long for what I need it for, it will have it's other uses, and the bokeh is just too good to pass up!
Are there any cheaper alternatives to the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8?
So I got my 85mm 1.8 in the mail and I think it's too long! So I'm contemplating getting the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8.
But Wow, the bokeh on the 85mm is fantastic!
I'm going to keep it, as it was only $380, and it's a hassle to return items in the mail. Even if it is too long for what I need it for, it will have it's other uses, and the bokeh is just too good to pass up!
Are there any cheaper alternatives to the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8?
Thanks.
there are cheaper (and better!) alternatives -
Tamron 17-50 2.8
+1 on the Tamron (I have one and love it), but in concert light it will likely only be possible to use it successfully at 35 or wider (where you can let the shutter speed drop). 2.8 is really on the edge for performance shooting unless you can be SURE that you're going to have a lot of bright light...
I'd still encourage you to try a fast 50 prime for something wider. The 1.8 can be picked up cheaply used and is only ~$100 new. It's noisy, and build and AF speed aren't as nice as the 85 (which is one of Canon's best non-L lenses) but it does the job and is amazing value for money. That plus the 85 make a great combo.
I've recently paired a Sigma 30mm f1.4 with my 50D and have had good results with it so far. It's quiet and the focus is fast. It's a little pricey at around $450. Here's a link to a couple of snapshots I took with it in a low light venue. http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=155794&page=2
I have the Tamron 15-50 f2.8 also, which is a great lens. It's a little noisier than the Sigma.
Comments
1. What are you planning on shooting?
2. Do you need/want a zoom or a prime lens?
3. What is your actual budget when you say "not too expensive"?
I personally shoot Nikon but have heard good things about Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens (Nikon's version rocks too). Can't beat it for the price I imagine.
http://nikonic1.smugmug.com/
85 1.8
100 2.0
All of those are fast, light and relatively inexpensive (under $450 new, easily found used under $350 and, in the case of the 50 1.8, under $100)
I second divamum's excellent recommendations.
I would add the Canon EF 35mm f/2 as another option. I own it and it's quite a decent little lens. I've heard some people say it isn't sharp wide open, but my copy is quite usable at f/2 -- not tack-sharp, but unless you plan to make three-foot-wide prints of your images, it should be quite adequate.
I have both of the 50mm lenses and they're great. Most of the time I prefer the f/1.4 because it has USM (that is, it focuses faster, and silently), plus it's sharper than the f/1.8 at f/2 and has better bokeh. The main advantage of the f/1.8 lens is its price; it's a fantastic deal for the money, very sharp from f/2.8 on, but not as nice as the f/1.4.
I have not used the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 myself, but I have read up on them (and the more expensive 135mm f/2L) in the course of trying to decide which of them to buy. My impression is that the 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper, especially wide open, than the 85mm f/1.8.
However, I have one question for the OP: For what purpose do you want low-light lenses? If you want to take photos of indoor family events, then you may find 50mm or longer to offer too narrow a field of view on a 50D. In that case the 35mm f/2 is your best bet, I think.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Thanks for the replies, and thanks for your in-depth post.
And I'm talking really low light, like, music shows.
I shoot Nikon (D90) and took the following gallery in a club exclusively with the 50 f1.8 Nikon lens.
http://www.djdimages.com/Music/Christian-Beach-CD-Release/10386495_uF9rF#719248644_FfLNE
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
I have a Canon 40D and looking at 17-55 2.8 lens to purchase. I have a Canon 85mm 2.8 and learning to love it. I looked at a Tamron but have always been a Canon lenses fan. Any experiences out there with the Tamron and/or this particular lenses - Canon or not??
I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-vc) - nice sharp lens but it probably won't help the OP as they will likely need more than 50mm
MPar64, welcome to the Digital Grin.
If you are asking about the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM, I have that lens and it is a very good to excellent performer in almost every feature. The build is not up to Canon's best, but everything else is professional quality and you can get professional results.
It's probably not a first choice in extremely low light without flash. For that purpose, nothing beats a fast prime lens.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I have had both, and my 100 at 2.0 was definitely sharper than my 85 at 1.8, but there were times when that extra tickle of light - and the ability to hand hold at a slower shutter speed - made the difference in getting the shot or not.
I used both for live performance shooting; I found the 100 was a better focal length for me, and only let it go (recently) because I needed to fund a 135L, which is possibly the best low-light tele out there... but it's expensive and does need the higher shutter speed because of the longer focal length.
I have a Tamron 17-50 2.8 which I absolutely love, but 2.8 lenses often don't cut it in performance light. Even with IS to stabilize the *lens*, you still need some speed to capture the motion on the stage.
For your purposes, OP, I'd suggest that the 85, 100, or 135 are you best choices, combined with a fast 50 to give you more room when you need to capture something a little wider. That's the combination I now use for theatrical conditions (where the light is sometimes a bit better than concerts/music gigs) and it works well.
Our Andy got fantastic results with a Canon EF 85mm, f1.8 USM at concert:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=11413
If you need an even faster aperture the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM is OK wide open if you plan on sharpening later. It's about as fast as you can get unless you get "very" expensive.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I decided to purchase the 85mm f1.8, over the other recommendations. One small reason being that it's cheaper, does the job I need it to, and will allow me to also purchase a fish eye that I'm after.
Which brings me to another question.
Recommendation for a fairly cheap, reliable fish eye lens. No particular purpose I need it especially for, just want to shoot some cool shots with it.
Thanks again everybody!
EDIT: I actually found the Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM at only around $50 more than the 85 1.8, so I'll be getting that instead, looks like a better lens for my circumstances, hope someone can agree with me.
Check out this thread for the fisheye lens:
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=154708
Regarding the difference between the Canon 85mm, f1.8 and 100mm, f2, they are more similar than different. Choose according to best focal length for your application.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
When using flash, is it recommended to use another flash as well as the one built in to the camera?
Thanks, and sorry for all the questions!
An external flash can offer several advantages to the built-in flash:
It moves the flash further up and away from the axis of the lens, reducing red eye and improving shadows (a little).
Many external flashes also allow tilting the flash head which in turn allows bounce flash, feathered flash and the use of flash modifiers like "bounce with fill card".
Some external flashes also allow a swivel function which is often beneficial for additional bounce options, like bouncing off of a wall or using bounce in the vertical/portrait orientation of the camera.
You can also mount an external flash on a flash bracket or even move the flash completely away from the camera, allowing tremendous flexibility in the direction and quality of the light. (This generally requires some sort of additional flash trigger to move the flash away from the camera.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
You'll be fine with either. I preferred the 100 f2 simply because I needed the extra reach, but the 85 was a fine lens, and the only reasons I swapped it out was for the extra length. They're both pretty easy to sell, too, should you decide you actually want to swap out for the other once you've tried it.
Lets just say that I'm able to get on the side of the stage while the band is playing, will the 85mm be sufficient, or will I need something lower?
And what's the disadvantage of using a non-prime lens to do work like this?
Zoom lenses have a range of focal lengths and therefore, a range of different fields of view. This allows different compositions from the same vantage point. This is a tremendous time saver and lends itself to more creative uses of composition.
Prime lenses often have larger apertures and some primes are also very sharp wide open. A larger aperture allows faster shutter speeds and/or lower ISO settings.
Which focal length you use depends on distance to subject and how you wish to frame the subject. For instance, do you want more intimacy with the subject or you do you want to show the subject in their setting?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'd go with the 85 for that situation, although you may even find that a tad long. That's where a fast 50 (or even a 35) comes in handy, remembering that if you shoot a little loose you can still crop down afterwards. As I said above, I really like having two fast primes of diffferent focal lengths for performance shooting; it's rare that I only use one of them.
Why primes? They're generally faster, and in the complex lighting conditions of performance situations, every lumen you can get onto your sensor is usually a blessing. It can be a pain not to be able to frame each shot ideally from one position and to be constantly lens swapping (2 bodies makes this much easier!), but 2.8 lenses often just aren't quite fast enough to cope with some of the challenging lighting. Even IS is only minimally useful - sure, it means you can handhold at slower speeds which can be helpful, BUT it won't slow down the motion on the stage so you may still get blurring.
You better stick with Divamum's original proposal or open your wallet. Depends a lot on what kind of photos you want to take from your vantage point. 17-55 gives you some flexibility. 85 is great for a portrait style but limited in flexibility. 50 probably combines the worst of both worlds.
But Wow, the bokeh on the 85mm is fantastic!
I'm going to keep it, as it was only $380, and it's a hassle to return items in the mail. Even if it is too long for what I need it for, it will have it's other uses, and the bokeh is just too good to pass up!
Are there any cheaper alternatives to the EF-S 17-55mm f2.8?
Thanks.
there are cheaper (and better!) alternatives -
Tamron 17-50 2.8
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398
also look at the new Sigma 18-50 2.8
I'd still encourage you to try a fast 50 prime for something wider. The 1.8 can be picked up cheaply used and is only ~$100 new. It's noisy, and build and AF speed aren't as nice as the 85 (which is one of Canon's best non-L lenses) but it does the job and is amazing value for money. That plus the 85 make a great combo.
I have the Tamron 15-50 f2.8 also, which is a great lens. It's a little noisier than the Sigma.