| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/24/2010 12:13:02 AM · #1 |
I'm relatively new to photography (first DSLR 3 months ago) and considering purchasing a Canon 17-55 is usm (to add to my 18-55 kit, 50 1.8, and Canon XS). I like shooting friends at bars/restaurants (in addition to anything and everything else) where the lighting is much less than ideal, especially at night. I can usually get a few keepers when using the 50 1.8 wide open and 1600iso, but this lens is too telephoto on my 1.6 crop for my liking. It seems my alternatives (on my budget of about $1,000) are the Canon 28mm 1.8 (which I hear lacks in sharpness, and has CA issues which I'd like to avoid as I also do landscapes) or the Canon EF-S 17-55 is usm, which I would love to have for its all around great performance. Being that I don't have access to the 17-55, I was wondering what the chances were that it would perform decently under poor lighting conditions (ie bars) shooting candids of my friends chatting.
Does anyone have experience with this? Or can someone conjecture how this lens would perform (using it at about 28mm) in these conditions? Can I expect the same results that I'm getting with a 1.8 without image stabilization with a 2.8 with IS when shooting friends talking?
Any input would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 11:56:12 AM · #2 |
Well, this might not be the answer you were hoping for... f/2.8 is probably not fast enough in many of those situations, with only ambient light. You are probably better off with a fast prime, although you are going to be challenged to stay within budget. It's possible you might get a copy of the Canon 24/1.4 (the original, not the Mk II version) used for around that price, perhaps a little more. On your cam, that gives a 35mm-like perspective that is great for the intended use, and the short focal length gives you some workable DoF, even wide open. The 17-55 is a very nice lens, and as a general purpose zoom would be a huge upgrade from the kit lens. I'm just not sure it's the right one for low-light indoor work. By the way, the IS will help with shake, but won't help with subject motion, so unless you like blurred faces, it's not a great benefit. You need to keep shutter speeds at 1/50 or faster, and at that speed you will have the occasional blurred hand or face. Not that that is always a bad thing...
The other thing to consider is filling with a little flash to supplement the ambient light. I use this technique sometimes, bouncing flash off a ceiling, never direct fill. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 01:52:45 PM · #3 |
| Thanks, that is really helpful information. I actually have a 270ex flash with bounce capabilities, the multiple focusing flashes just really annoy me and everyone else, and I would really like to not lug around one of the larger Canon flashes when I go out with friends. Hopefully, with the 17-55 2.8 I would be able to turn off those pre-flashes and rely on the lens finding the focus? From what I'm reading it sounds like it should be able to lock on in situations where my kit lens just hunts. I'd be willing to sacrifice a few unfocused shots if it means keeping everyone in the restaurant from wanting to hurt me. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 02:03:23 PM · #4 |
What's the kit lens' max. aperture? 3.5? You might see a slight improvement with 2.8 for focusing then. Don't expect too much though. If you want the camera to try what it can do without flash assist for focusing you can switch that off in the Custom Settings on most Canon bodies. I haven't checked that for the XS though.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2010 04:48:35 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by bo7448:
From what I'm reading it sounds like it should be able to lock on in situations where my kit lens just hunts. I'd be willing to sacrifice a few unfocused shots if it means keeping everyone in the restaurant from wanting to hurt me. |
Yes, you will probably get a significant benefit in ability to lock focus in lower light. I totally agree with you on your reasons for avoiding flash. Heck, if you want real candids, then flash is the last thing you want, LOL. You can give the 17-55 a try, and with the high-ISO performance of today's cameras, you may be able to get away with it. I do encourage you to try a really fast prime sometime. Try renting one if you can. |
|
|
|
04/24/2010 07:43:39 PM · #6 |
I have that lens. While it's used often I can't say I'm a fan of it. It is the dirtiest lens in my bag. It collects dust inside so bad it has to be sent back to Canon to get it cleaned. Every internal element has dust on it. I have a Sigma 70-300 APO that cost 1/5 of the price of the 17-55 that has gone to countless softball games and imaged thousands of sand lot pictures and no dust as well as every other lens in my bag except for that dang 17-55. However I must say other than that it's a pretty good lens. The I.S. is great and as far as I know it's real quite focusing.
If you Google it you'll see that I'm not the only one with the problem and it has a history of filthy internal elements.
That said... It is the work horse of my lenes and I can't part with it to send it to Canon for cleaning.
It collects dust so bad I use it to vacuum my whole house.
|
|
|
|
04/24/2010 08:32:31 PM · #7 |
What body are you going to use it on? If it is a full frame sensor, then Im not sure, but if you are using a 1.6 clipped sensor then I would recommend the Tamron 28-75 xr/di at less than half the price. The lens can fit a full frame camera but the edge softness is a killer, however it is very sharp across a clipped sensor. It lacks the IS, which I dont care about since palsy is not one of my issues and with a reasonably steady hand IS is a battery draining waste on a short lens, IMHO. This is a great walk around lens.
And while there are some nice ef-s lenses out there, with the dropping price of full frame bodies, Im not sure I would buy any more of them unless you were doing weddings of the like, why not either go prime and fast, or slower, cheaper and better with the 17-40 f4? Or just upgrade the kit lens for speed sharpness and reach with the tamron for under 500. |
|
|
|
04/26/2010 01:35:31 PM · #8 |
| So I've done some more looking and I think I'll go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (IS) for general purpose and the Canon 28 1.8 for indoor candids. Between these two (which together cost the same as the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS)I should be able to cover what I'm aiming for. Thanks for everyone's input! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 01:23:48 PM EDT.
