Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: 17-55mm usm & low light

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,918

    Re: 17-55mm usm & low light



    Quote Originally Posted by scalesusa


    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.)

  2. #2

    Re: 17-55mm usm & low light



    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist


    Quote Originally Posted by scalesusa


    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.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    228

    Re: 17-55mm usm & low light



    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.












Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •