Low light lens question. Please help.

[jake66]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Colin]

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.

[gbc]

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.