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

[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


Review: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.


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


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? [:$]