17-55mm usm & low light

[Darren]

I'm heading to Seoul National Museum in a few weeks and just wondering if the 17-55mm is good in very low light situations. I read in one of Scott Kelby's books that buying a cheapish 50mm lens with 1.4 or 1.8 aperture is great for low light situations such as church weddings but of course SNU is darker than any church I have been to. So is the 17-55mm great for museums or is the cheap 50mm the way to go?

[neuroanatomist]

I'd go with the 17-55mm, especially since you already have it. I'm assuming you mean for taking pictures of the exhibits, not people. It's an important difference - f/1.8 is 1.33 stops faster than the f/1.8 of the 17-55mm. An f/1.4 lens is 2 stops faster. But, the 17-55mm has IS which is good for about 3 stops, meaning it's effectively better in low light. But IS only helps with static (non-moving) subjects. So, if you're shooting exhibits in low light the 17-55mm will be better, but if you're shooting people in low light, the faster prime will be better.


EDIT: One more thing to consider - if the museum does not have a no-tripod policy, bring a tripod. That will give you the best possible low-light performance, regardless of lens. Most museums in the US prohibit tripod use, but most will allow a monopod. No matter which lens you use, a support will help in low light.

[gbc]

I love the 17-55, but for the situation you're describing, I think it'll be a little too dark. Even spending $90 on the 50 1.8 would be worth it. I shoot a lot of low light shots, and there's a big difference between my 50 1.8 and my 17-55 2.8.


Then again, if it's a museum, the exhibits will be pretty well-lit, right? If you're just shooting exhibits and not people, i think the 17-55 would be OK.

[clemmb]

Most museums in the US prohibit tripod use, but most will allow a monopod. No matter which lens you use, a support will help in low light.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Most museums in the US I have been to do not allow photography at all.


Mark

[neuroanatomist]

Most museums in the US I have been to do not allow photography at all.


Interesting! Most that I have been to, in California and New England, prohibit flash photography (potential damage to artwork/exhibits) and tripods (my guess there is liability for someone tripping over the extended legs), but not photography as a whole. Although, since so many people with P&amp;S cameras have no idea how to deactivate the flash, the general prohibition is probably wise...

[scalesusa]

F:/2.8 is generally too slow for indoors. I have tried with my 5D MK II, at ISO 3200.


If you are using a crop camera, large aperture prime is best. Make sure it is wide enough, for a building interior, you will need a very wide lens.

[neuroanatomist]

F:/2.8 is generally too slow for indoors. If you are using a crop camera, large aperture prime is best.





I think this depends on the subject. An f/2.8 lens with a 3-stop image stabilizer allows you to shoot at shutter speeds you'd need f/1.0 to achieve on a non-IS lens. Canon doesn't currently make a prime with an aperture larger than f/1.2. As long as the subject is immobile (I don't mean people posing - I mean static exhibits like art and sculpture, architecture, etc., and theOP is going to a museum), you'll be better off with f/2.8 + IS. Certainly, if you are shooting people or anything else with the ability to move, IS will not help and in that case, a large aperture prime is best. (That's one reason the 35mm f/1.4L is on my wish list.)

[Gina Franco]

F:/2.8 is generally too slow for indoors. If you are using a crop camera, large aperture prime is best.





I think this depends on the subject. An f/2.8 lens with a 3-stop image stabilizer allows you to shoot at shutter speeds you'd need f/1.0 to achieve on a non-IS lens. Canon doesn't currently make a prime with an aperture larger than f/1.2. As long as the subject is immobile (I don't mean people posing - I mean static exhibits like art and sculpture, architecture, etc., and theOP is going to a museum), you'll be better off with f/2.8 + IS. Certainly, if you are shooting people or anything else with the ability to move, IS will not help and in that case, a large aperture prime is best. (That's one reason the 35mm f/1.4L is on my wish list.)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>








Also: the 50 1.8 at 1.8 isn't tack sharp--and that's a tricky DOF, too. You almost need to use that lens at 2.0 or 2.8 for sharpness if you're shooting objects at some distance.


Also: ya'll might be asking for better quality images than I'm achieving, but I've taken tons of photos in a dim chapel of moving subjects with the 24-70 2.8, which has no IS, and with a Rebel XSI, which has only the unusable ISO 1600 (and so I use 800), hand held. Not all of them are keepers, but many turn out beautifully. I would think the IS would be a huge advantage in the case of still objects in dim light. When I've used the 50 1.4 in the same conditions, again, I've had to stop down a bit to avoid soft images or blurriness.

[jimr]

The 50mm f1.8 is great for low light - but the lens is a bit slow in reaction time when your subject is moving.


Below is one taken with the 50mm f1.8; taken at f1.8, 1/50 second exposure, 800 ISO - manually focused as due to the low light conditions auto focus would not work. BTW: Taken at a zoo enclosure than forbid flash photography. The only source of light was a very dim blue light bulb about 3 feet way (maybe the same brightness as a candle). I could hardly see this little guy with the naked eye.


/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.31.38/Calgary_5F00_2009-095.JPG


So the 50mm f1.8 is great for the price and works great in low light if you can minimize your subject's movement. You will never get a good shot of 2 year old kids high on sugar running around a church using this lens, but for the couple posing it will work great. So at the Museum if you are taking pictures of things in the museum then it should work great - even better if you can carry some small tripod.


Also the 50mm F1.8 generates very little distortions of the subject. If you take your pictures in RAW format then you can use the Canon tools and apply a lens correction. The 50mm is very close to the perception of the human eye so for museum type things you will get great visual results.

[Sheiky]

I'm heading to Seoul National Museum in a few weeks and just wondering if the 17-55mm is good in very low light situations.


Darren I think you'll be just fine. For these situations the IS system definitely beats the large aperture in my opinion. That plus the zoomcapability of your lens would make it a good combo, if not...the best you can get probably.


1.4 or 1.8 aperture isn't really going to help you, unless you want to use the large aperture meaning dealing with the amazingly shallow DOF, which isn't really helpful in museums. &Yacute;ou'll probably find out that f2.8 (the 17-55 is very usable at 2.8, unlike the 50mm at 1.8) of your lens is sometimes not even good enough for museums and you might even want to crack it up to f4 or smaller.


But overall it will do the trick very well. Unless you can't take pictures at all of course. Here (Netherlands, Europe) there aren't many museums where you may actually take pictures. Flash is pretty much abandoned in every museum, and normal photography isn't something that is very broad allowed around here. Probably because a lot of people with P&amp;S cameras don't even know how to turn the flash off [:P] Besides that you must also be carefull what to do with the pictures, because most objects in galleries and museums are copyrighted and so permit you to publish photos of them.


AnywayI wish these things don't apply to your museum and I wish you good luck and much joy!


Jan

[MattG]

2.8 with IS can certainly be used well indoors.

[wusstigphoto]

I used my 17-55 in the Sistine Chapel which is about as low light as i've ever taken pics... most came out very good. Its super dark in there and there's signs every where that say 'No Flash Photography'... needless to say, flashes were popping off every 5 seconds or so and the attendants in the room didnt even try to to stop anyone. I didn't use mine once (outta respect). I always try to lean against something for added stability.


btw - if you use a monopod with the 17-55 IS, you have to switch off the IS anyhow

[neuroanatomist]

btw - if you use a monopod with the 17-55 IS, you have to switch off the IS anyhow


Not true, actually. The IS system in the EF-S 17-55mm and the other (relatively) newer IS lenses senses that the camera is on a tripod, and fixes itself in the centered position. The 17-55mm manual recommends turning off IS when on a tripod, but only to preserve battery life. This is different from the older IS implementations (it was clear from my shots with an EF 300mm f/4L IS (a 1997 lens that lacks a tripod-sensing IS system) that when mounted on a tripod with IS on, images were blurred due to feedback of trying to stabilize an already-immobile lens).


Also, note that even in lenses where the IS is not tripod-sensing, a monopod is NOT a tripod. A monopod adds stability, sure. But you're still holding the monopod, and as a living, breathing person you will always have some degree of motion, and some of that motion will be transferred to the monopod, and thus to the lens - IS will help reduce that motion. So, when shooting with a monopod you should leave IS on.

[scalesusa]

You are correct, it does depend on the lighting and the subject. As long as the museum is empty, and no one is walking around to come between your camera and the item you are photographing, you can do a longish exposure. I've found that the crowding in museums makes it hard to do, and having the option of a fast shutter speed helps.


50mm F/1.8 1/60 sec ISO 3200, 5D MK II.





http://mt-spokane-photography.smugmug.com/Deer-Park/Voyage-of-the-Dawn-Treader/Miniature-Rose-Handheld-1-10/838063411_ivRJ2-L.jpg