Low light 35 mm or 50mm?

Ann McRae · March 2, 2007

Hi I am thinking maybe I should buy a lens for close indoor shots. (I am thinking about indoor, natural light photographs/portraits). Right now I have the 17 - 85 mm but it just doesn't cut it for low light work. Then my next focal lenght is 70mm, 85 and 135. Canon mount. What rivals the 135 f2.0 for low light shots, but at the opposite end of the focal length spectrum (and not the 50 f1.2 @ $5K - I am on a budget). Thanks Ann

pathfinder · March 2, 2007

35mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.4

Focal length choice may be influenced by the sensor size in yiour camera. 50 is a mild tele for APS sensored camera, while 35 is a more normal angle of view on the same camera.

35 is a mild wide angle on a full frame camera.

The 50mm f1.4 is a LOT cheaper than the 35mm f1.4 L though, for Canon cameras. The 35 gets rave reviews, perhaps even better than the 50.

jdryan3 · March 2, 2007

Ann McRae wrote:

What rivals the 135 f2.0 for low light shots, but at the opposite end of the focal length spectrum (and not the 50 f1.2 @ $5K - I am on a budget). Thanks Ann

I'm not sure what your budget is but the 24mm on your sensor would give you about 38mm, slightly wide angle. The f/2.8 is a decent lens but does vignette wide open. But it is only a couple hundred $$. The f/1.4 is a much better lens for much more $$. If you ar willing to look at a zoom, serious consideration should be given to the 24-70 f/2.8.

Otherwise I agree with Pathfinder - go for the 35 f/1.4. Fantastic glass

ziggy53 · March 2, 2007

pathfinder wrote:

35mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.4

Focal length choice may be influenced by the sensor size in yiour camera. 50 is a mild tele for APS sensored camera, while 35 is a more normal angle of view on the same camera.

35 is a mild wide angle on a full frame camera.

The 50mm f1.4 is a LOT cheaper than the 35mm f1.4 L though, for Canon cameras. The 35 gets rave reviews, perhaps even better than the 50.

In addition, consider the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS. I have the Sigma 18-50mm, f2.8 EX, and I consider that range a significant advantage in interior work, especially homes.

pathfinder · March 2, 2007

If f2.8 is fast enough, I agree that the 24-70 f2.8 is a great piece of glass.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, due to Ann's reference to the 135f2 L, that she wanted FAST glass ( f1.4 ) rather than half fast glass ( f2.8 ):D

The 17 - 55 f2.8 IS looks like a great lens to me also, like Ziggy said.

Ann McRae · March 2, 2007

I was going to ask just this question - would 2.8 really be fast enough?

Thanks, pathfinder for confirming my suspicion.

ann

pathfinder wrote:

If f2.8 is fast enough, I agree that the 24-70 f2.8 is a great piece of glass.

I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, due to Ann's reference to the 135f2 L, that she wanted FAST glass ( f1.4 ) rather than half fast glass ( f2.8 ):D

The 17 - 55 f2.8 IS looks like a great lens to me also, like Ziggy said.

Ann McRae · March 2, 2007

Checked prices at a Canadian camera shop: (all of these lenses are labelled EF-is this okay?)

35 f2.0 $395.95
24 f2.8 $449.95
28 f2.8 $609.95

and then the ones that are out of reach today:

35 f1.4 $1709
24 f1.4 $1539

thoughts? anyone got a used one for sale?

ann

Khaos · March 2, 2007

The non L 24 and 28 do not have the best reviews.

If you can afford it, I highly recommend the 35 L. If not, and you're shooting a 1.6 crop, the Sigma 30 1.4 has gotten some decent reviews. Your limitation is if you move from the 1.6 crop to a ff, the lens is pretty much useless to you.

BrettG · March 2, 2007

Keep in mind that if you're going for portraits, a mild tele might be better than a wider angle lens.

I think 85mm (in full frame terms) is seen as good (not sure, I'm not a portrait person) so as to avoid exaggerating the nose and other facial features.

So, if you're using a 1.5x crop camera, a 50 or 60mm might be good. Ignore if you're not looking for just a portrait lens

Brett.

pathfinder · March 2, 2007

For portraits or candids in low ambient illumination, for an APS sensored camrera, ( and you already own a 17-85 for brighter light) I would suggest the 50mm f1.4.

The 50mm f1.4 is FAST and it is long enough for a crop camera to not make noses too big.

Iit will be useful if you ever want to go full frame. And it is FAST, and not too expensive like the 35 f1.4 L.

Shay Stephens · March 2, 2007

For low light work, I love the 50mm f/1.4, it's my go to lens. Helps with focus speed and accuracy too which can be tough in low light.

Ann McRae · March 2, 2007

50 mm f1.4 $469.00

Thanks, pathfinder and Shay. Looks like this may be it.

ann

RedSox · March 2, 2007

Ann McRae wrote:

50 mm f1.4 $469.00

Thanks, pathfinder and Shay. Looks like this may be it.

ann

Where do you get the price $469? It seems a bit high. Should be arround $300. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home;jsessionid=Fy8x0W4Bwn!-264240014!1172880625529?ci=1&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=RootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&shs=ef+50

For indoor low light f2.8 might be still a bit slow in very poor light situation even cranked ISO up to 800. I was in the same situation like you today in search of indoor low light lens and end up with buying both 35 f1.4 and 50 f1.4. Depends on the size of the room. 50 on a 1.6 crop camera could be a bit long sometimes. It is good for head and shoulder portrait but for full body or small group I prefer 35 f1.4.

Another good candidate is 28 f1.8. I played a bit but end up with returned it to get the 35 f1.4. The 28 f1.8 is very sharp in the center but edge is soft even stop down to f5.6, which is ok if you use it solely for portrait work but leaves something to be desired for landscape, architecture etc. I also heard (read) good comments on 35 f2, but don't have personal experience with it. Before you decide on 35 or 50, I suggest you go to the store try both out, or even better rent both for a weekend or so to test and see which fits your style better.

Eric

Jeffro · March 2, 2007

Shay Stephens wrote:

For low light work, I love the 50mm f/1.4, it's my go to lens. Helps with focus speed and accuracy too which can be tough in low light.

I

my 50 f/1.4 Canon. Very sharp, fast, and works great for portrait work with my 20D.

Ann McRae · March 2, 2007

Hi

Well, those would be canadian dollars - hence the difference. Shipping plus duty plus exchange, plus rip off the canadian....

At this point, if I can buy any lens it will have to be under (or not far over) the $500 mark.

Thanks
ann

Ann McRae · March 2, 2007

Jeffro wrote:

I my 50 f/1.4 Canon. Very sharp, fast, and works great for portrait work with my 20D.

Thanks!

My slight concern is that it could be a tad too long, but I really don't think I can go for the higher prices of the others.

ann

S_Leeper · March 2, 2007

check out the focal length with your zoom...

I have the nikon 50 f1.4 & for head & shoulders - one or two around the house its great... the 30 f2. is still a bit slow unless wide open.

photogmomma · March 2, 2007

My 50mm 1.4 has been a favorite for a long time. Loved it on my 10D, love it even more on my 5D. You will NOT be disappointed!

RedSox · March 3, 2007

Ann, why don't you lock your 17-85 zoom on 50, 35 and 28 and try to see if the specific focal length is good for you. If you don't want to go above $500 and 50 is a bit long, I recommend you seriously consider 35f2 and 28f1.8. The 35f2 is the first generation EOS EF mount lens and a cousin of the famous nifty fifty 50 f1.8 mark I, which recieves good review on its optical performace and decent build quality. It is true that the technology is dated (loud focus motor, lack of FTM), but I believe optically they are all decent. Because at that time Canon was fighting for the survival of their EOS line (or Canon as a camera manufacture in whole), they just cannot afford the screw up. Below are few review about the lens that I mentioned. Please take a look, I don't know the exact exchange rate but I think both lenses should be below $500 Canadian, if the 50f1.4 is below $500 of your money. Also have you considered mail order from USA and have it ship to Canada? Maybe that will save you a few, I am just thinking out loud. Do some google search you might found if it worth doing so....Anyway good luck with your purchase decision, I am sure whichever you choose, you will enjoy your low light photography immensely.

Eric

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/83/cat/10

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/147/cat/10

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/da_Canon_35_mm_2/a_Canon_35_mm_f2.html

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Reviews/055_Ugly_Ducklings/_First-Generation_EF_Primes.html

Ann McRae · March 3, 2007

Andi, Jeff and Eric

Thanks all, I will read the reviews.

I've looked at the exif of a few photos taken in our family room - focal distances are between 38 and 66 mm. The 50 mm may work for head/shoulder low light shots in that room.

But I am also interested in using it in other circumstances - I am very often asked to do family portraits and I just might agree this year (outdoor environmental style). As well, I am considering a request from a friend to do his wedding photos (second wedding, very low key, low budget, but there will be church shots).

In addition to that, I could use it for indoor soccer - individual portraits - the 85 f1.8 is great, but again it results in lots of backing up and sometimes there isn't room.

As far as importing, after shipping and gst it often amounts to the same as buying locally and buying locally has that immediateness to it.

ann

lowbone · March 3, 2007

The Canon 35mm f2 is a good lens if you are on a budget, also the 50mm
f 1.4. If you go much wider then 35mm the people in your portraits will have big noses and other distortions. Those prices seem high even fir Canadian dollars.

Ann McRae · March 4, 2007

It gets worse. Here is the price list from the good camera shop in my city:

http://www.mcbaincamera.com/SLR/canon/lenses.htm

The 50 f1.4 is $60 higher at McBain.

Even with exchange, shipping etc. I may be better off buying from b&h.

Electronics are not subject to duty - wonder if lenses qualify.

ann

the godfather · March 4, 2007

Another option you have is to buy it used for around 250-275 and have it shipped as a gift if it is a seller you can trust...it would save you a lot of money but it's a risk for both parties.

Low light 35 mm or 50mm?

Comments