Printable View
I'm looking to upgrade from my kit lens and was looking for something handholdable in low light. Camera is Xsi.
Whichshould be better? The 17-55 2.8 IS or the 50mm 1.4.
Does the IS make up the difference in aperture?
I'm not too worried about stopping action just which will allow me to handhold for cityscapes at nightetc. I'll also want to use the lens as a general pupose lens.
Also would the depth of field be too shallow for general street shots?
Thanks in advance
Jake
I'd go with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS for its versatility, Image Stabilizer and f/2.8 aperture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake66
it all depends on how you express the image
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake66
Sounds to me like you also need a tripod! even though you said handheld. cityscape shots are often shot at narrow apertures with tripods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
but like Nate said, it depends on how you express the image. I like the look of extended exposure shots at night with light trails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jake66
jake66 - I think you need to clarify the other ways you intend on using this lens (outside of night street shots).
Here's why I'm asking--the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a fantastic general purpose lens. In fact, it is often my recommendation for the best lens you can buy for a crop sensor camera. However, one weakness I've noticed is that the lens does not focus well in very-low-light conditions. It really hunts for focus in dimly lit conditions, and many times, can't achieve focus at all.
For that reason alone, I'd be more apt to advise you purchase the 50mm f/1.4. However, I haven't used the 50mm f/1.4 enough in low light conditions to verify that it is indeed substantially better under the same circumstances. If it is better, thenthe 50mm lenswill likely be a better choice for your primary need. Unfortunately, I find the 50mm fixed focal length a bit inconvenient for an all-purpose lens on a crop body. Under the right conditions, it's dead useful (and downright necessary)--but my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS sees five times more action than my 50mm f/1.4 because of its versatility.
I found that my 50 1.4 hunted quite a bit in low light. It is a different price range but my 35 1.4 is the fastest focusing lens I have ever used. Really good in low light.
I agree with powers_brent. A good tripod will be essential for city-scape shots at night.I would highly suggest the 17-55 as it is incredible and very versatile for a crop sensor camera as you have. You may be better off buying a good tripod and head instead of a lens. If you are considering a 50mm prime, I suggest the "nifty fifty" (50 1.8). It is incredibly cheap and produces great images. That way you don't lose too much money if you find out a 50mm prime doesn't work well for your needs.
I have both the 50 f1.4 and the 17-55 f2.8, and both are really amazing products. I shoot with a 20D and a 7D, and the 17-55 is really better than anyone on the forum can state. Jaw droppingly good.
The 50 f1.4 is great for portraiture, and general low light photo's. I do not get great results till I am at f1.8 or so. Then it shines. I hear a new 50 f1.4 mark II is on the way, so I would be leery of buying this now.
2 lenses I would call your attention 2
The 85 f1.8, a killer lens.
The 135 f 2.0, the best lens canon has ever made.
No one does it better. Great for low light, and the best backgrounds you can imagine.
My next trip to the bank will hopefully bring me the 35L f1.4, as I hear it is the bees knees.
I'll second the 85 1.4. Got it a few weeks ago, and I love it. I use it more than the 50mm now. I just take a few giant steps back. But, for me, the images just seem to pop more with the 85 than the 50mm 1.4. quickly became my favorite lens.
I also have the 17-55, and it's a great lens, but agree that it's not ideal in really low light.
I have the 50mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.0 both are amazing. The fifty is best when stopped down though. I rarely shoot more wide open than 2.8. THe 100mm and its practical equivalent 85 f/1.8 are both sharp wide open and even more AMAZING when stopped down. LOVE my 100mm f/2.0. Cannot recommend it enough. In terms of focus hunting, if you have a speedlight you can always use the af-assist beam as one option even though it is not always appropriate to use it. Unfortunately I have no experience with the 17-55.
That's some really great advice. Thank you all. I think I'm gonna have to go with the 17-55 as I'm concerned I'll miss the wider angles on the 50. I'm sure it'll probably still focus much better in low lightthan my 18-55.As for the tripod I already havea decent manfrottoit's just not always convenient to carry around and get set up. Also I'll be using this lensfir standard daylight landscape duties as well so the IS will probably help a lot since I'd like not to use a tripod too much.
Thanks again
Good choice - the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is an excellent lens, and is the one that's on my 7D most of the time. It will definitely focus better in low light than the kit lens. Indoors in good room lighting it's a good performer, but in relatively dim light, though IMO it focuses fine, f/2.8 is often not enough without bumping up the ISO pretty high (for me, a shutter speed issue with moving kids as subjects - for still subjects it's fine with the help of the IS).
So, the 17-55mm is the place to start, but if you end up taking a lot of ambient light indoor shots you may find yourself adding a prime to your kit down the line. The EF 85mm f/1.8 does a bit better in low light, and I love it for head/shoulders shots indoors in ambient light - but, I sometimes find myself needing a shorter focal length so either the EF 50mm f/1.4 (waiting to see of if there's really a MkII) or the 35mm f/1.4L will be in my future. But even then, I think the 17-55mm lens will remain my most-used lens.
For hand held, low light, candid shots, my favorite is the 35 f/1.4L on a full frame. 85 f/1.2L second for when you can use the reach, less in the background, etc, but because of the field of view and the required greater shutter speed, I think the 35mm is safer. 35mm is wide, but if you'r not really close to anything, not distractingly wide.
A f/2.8 zoom will be more versatile in terms of having more focal length range, and overall, far more useful across most situations, but we're talking 1/4 the light collection, 2 stops, which in my opinion is a significant disadvantage, even with IS, if you're using entirely ambient light, simply because most subjects won't be freezing so that you could take their picture.
That said, I guess it's also a question of how low the light really is. With the ISO cranked, I've taken pictures indoors at f/2.8 that were too fast and the curtains picked up the flicker of the florescent lights.
A cheap fast prime and a nice zoom might be the best combination.
I think you should also consider the 50mm 1.8. At 90 bucks, it's a great entry into relatively fast primes. I had the XSi and nifty fifty combo for a while, and took some great shots at concerts with it in pretty low light. And once you're comfortable with a 50mm prime, you can decide if you want another prime, and if you want to go longer or shorter.
And, i mean, everyone should own the nifty fifty at some point. Although mine just broke when my nephew, in mid tantrum, caused my 7d to fall to the floor. Thankfully, the lens took the hit and not the camera. And really, a lot of the appeal of that lens is the price. I wasn't even angry the lens broke. I was more glad it cushioned the 7D.