Whats the best prime lens for low light conditions? that has good fast AF for the canon rebel t2i?

[Caleb]

I want a canon prime lens thats equivalent to around 50mm on the rebel t2i since its a small sensor dslr?


thats good in low light conditions that pretty sharp? any lenses with all that? and im a beginner and i really want low light conditions


what do you have to have on a lens for low light conditions? thanks

[Matt.s.Maneri]

The Canon EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM (56mm) and the Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM (45mm) are probably your best bets.

[neuroanatomist]

What

[Sean Setters]

I

[TucsonTRD]

Caleb, these posts (your question) and their answers are frequently a combination of opinion (what's the best) and budget. Can you afford the best? The two lenses mentioned by Matt are $1350 and $1615, respectively, from B&H.


Or are you more interested in the best value low-light lenses.


Braden

[clemmb]

I'd definitely try the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.


I've often thought about selling it and buying the SIgma.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





Does anyone here have experience with this lens?

[Sheiky]

I want a canon prime lens thats equivalent to around 50mm on the rebel t2i since its a small sensor dslr?



Just to make clear, since I have the feeling that you're confused: You like the 50mm perspective on a full frame camera and you want the equivalentof that perspective on a T2i?


What is your motivation to want a 50mm particularly? 50mm on an EF-S lensgives the same perspective as 50mm on an EF lens.


If I'm wrong, just ignore this and go with the choices that the others have mentioned. However be careful in your choices. My friend has the Sigma 30mm on his 7D and is not happy with it. He has AF-precision problems. (both fore- and background-focus) So he cannot calibrate it properly. However if you buy from a respectable store, Sigma has a 5 year warranty and they are happy to calibrate it for you for free. Plus: Canon lenses can have these problems as well. (although they aren't that famous for it [;)])


A lot of fast lenses need somewhat adjustment before they are 100% precise and accurate. However most people wouldn't see the difference in real life shooting for small precision-problems.


Jan

[piiooo]

Does anyone here have experience with this lens?


I have a decent copy of this lens and I love it! In this focal length category you also have Canon EF 28mm 1.8, Canon 28mm 2.8, Canon EF 35mm2.0, Canon 35mm 1.4L.


The Sigma is the only other than L choice that gives you 1.4but will not break your bank. I like the color from it as well.
Yes, wide openit is softer then the L, but the image can be sharpened selectively in post. And it costs a fraction of the L's price. As far as fringing and flare it is better or at least not worse than other non L counterparts. The autofocus is quick and accurate. I am able to photograph kids in motion, often indoors, with high keeper rate.


I bought mine slightly used in excellent condition through local Craiglist. I conducted tests on the spot so I knew I was buying a good copy. I also tried the EF 28 1.8 and found the Sigma to be more satisfactory.


The only major disadvantage is that the lens is made strictly for APS-C sensors.


I use it on my Rebel XSI as a part of take everywhere kit.


Hope this helps. Let me know if you need any other info.


Pete

[Sheiky]

I have a decent copy of this lens and I love it!


That's the thing with Sigma. I have their 50mm 1.4 and it's awesome. IMO much better than the Canon equivalent in the same price-category. However I would be lying if I'd say that my lens is perfect. Mine did need a +9 frontfocus adjustment. For me this was no problem at all. Also because I could return it if I didn't like it.


But simply stating I just love it. It has some imperfections, but I have some imperfectionson my much more expensive L-glass as well [;)]


When you buy Sigma you know that you can get great quality lenses(in a smaller budget), although checking the AF before buying a Sigma lens seams very adviseable.

[neuroanatomist]

and im a beginner and i really want low light conditions


The other thing to be aware of is that, like almost everything in photography (and like much in life) there are trade-offs. So, you want to shoot in low light and that means a wide aperture, which means a prime. So far, so good. Say you splurge and get the 35mm f/1.4L. That wonderful, wide f/1.4 means you can shoot in really low light. So, you put the lens on your T2i, set the aperture to f/1.4 and take a shot of your family sitting around a candle-lit dinner table. You have sufficient light for handholding and probably even enough light so your shutter speed is fast enough to stop motion. However, when you look at the picture you discover that only one of your family members is actually in focus, and the rest of them are blurry.


The trade off here is depth of field - that wide aperture that lets in a lot of light also means a shallow depth of field. If that's the effect you want, great. Ambient light shots of a single person would work wall (at a distance of 9', you've got a depth of field of about 12"). But depending on your subjects, an f/1.4 lens might not work. Another option to consider is adding a flash to your kit. The pop-up flash is terrible, IMO, but an external Speedlite such as the 430EX II, bounced off the ceiling, provides a nice light source.

[peety3]

50/1.6=31.25mm, so I guess you want a 35mm or perhaps a 28mm lens.


Based on the exposure triangle, you have three options in low light: use a slower shutter speed (usually limited by handholdability and/or subject motion), raise the ISO (hardware limited by camera), or use a larger aperture. So, I guess you want the Canon 35mm f/1.4.


Since you usually get what you pay for, more expensive lenses are usually better. Since the 35/1.4 is the most expensive prime lens and has the largest aperture, I suspect it

[Rocco]

"im a beginner and i really want low light conditionswhat do you have to have on a lens for low light conditions?"





As stated above, the trade off for a low light, large aperture lens is DOF. Definitely not ideal for the group photo situation mentioned, but I'm going to assume that at this point, you may have realized this. So without adding to the debate of the trade-offs/ positives and negatives of owning a fast prime, I'm going to assume you have read some posts on this site (and some of the excellent reviews) and offer my two cents.


Lets face it, really good, fast primes are expensive. With you being a self proclaimed beginner I HIGHLY recommend the "nifty fifty". While it's not the 1.6 equivalent of a 50mm on your frame, it's more than worth the almost alarmingly low price tag. When I bought mine I was shooting a XT with the kit lens. I now have the EOS 7D sporting the 17-55 ef-s ($1,100) and the new Tamron 70--300mm VC ($450) and my 50mm ($99) still gets just as much play as the other two. Love that lens, especially for the price. My next purchases are leaning to a good macro and a really good ultra wide (thinking the sigma 8-16mm) with a super high quality fast prime still on the back burner. For my purposes, the Canon EF f/1.8 II is more than adequate.


Link for current price:http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html ("http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html)


Review:http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx)





You might decide you'd rather have a hotshoe flash of some sort, maybe a good ballhead tripod. IMHO,I say make this initial investment to decide if this type of lens matches your needs.





Picture of my daughter using the 1.8. Regrettably I didn't get the focus on her eye.


/resized-image.ashx/__size/900x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/13/2311.IMG_5F00_0639.jpg


Canon EOS Rebel XT -- F/1.8 1/40 sec. ISO-400; 50mm -- Handheld





Hope I helped.


-Rocco

[Bart_T]

Dunno about helping him, but sure helped me. I

[neuroanatomist]

The thing that put me off most was the fugly bokeh that it's known for, but honestly, I really like the bokeh in your picture there.


It's something that can be worked around to some extent if you know the limitations of the lens. In better quality lenses, the spots of light would be mostly round, instead of becoming cat's-eye ovals as you move away from the center of the frame. Also, shooting wide open helps - if the lens was stopped down even a little, you'd start to see the pentagonal shapes resulting from the 5-bladed aperture, instead of the pleasing circles in the shot above (which is a great shot, Rocco!).

[Sheiky]

Dunno about helping him, but sure helped me. I've been on the fence about getting myself "another" lens for a while; very much considering the 50mm f1.8.


The thing that put me off most was the fugly bokeh that it's known for, but honestly, I really like the bokeh in your picture there.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





In my copy I only liked the sharpness at f2.8 and higher. Plus I didn't like the build at all. I was afraid to break the little thing [:|] But sometimes I see the most amazing photos here and on Flickr for example...and when I see that they're shot with the 50mm f.18, I begin to wonder if I was being to critical/theoretical about it... Perhaps it wasn't the lens, but me? [A]


Ps: What's going on Caleb? [:$]