# Need advice on indoor low light lens choices.



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 6, 2012)

I have the following.
Canon 5d3
24-105
50 1.4
70-200 f4 is

I just bought the 70-200 f4 is for medium telephoto but still want something for better low light shooting. I ran a program to see my most used focal length and came up with 40,50,85,105.

I was looking at the following lenses for the upcoming holidays. Any suggestions?

24-70 mk ii
35 1.4
135mm f2


----------



## Razor2012 (Sep 6, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have the following.
> Canon 5d3
> 24-105
> 50 1.4
> ...



I have the 24-70II also ordered but the 70-200 2.8II matched with the 5DIII is an awesome combo. I've taken a cpl of thousand shots and the results are outstanding in regards to low light shooting.


----------



## revup67 (Sep 6, 2012)

I too was looking at the 135mm F2 as recent as yesterday but in comparison with the 100mm Macro USM L IS 2.8, the 100mm is sharper. Take a look at the scores and visuals at http://www.the-digital-picture.com - see Tools then the ISO section. There's not much that can beat the 100mm L IS USM 2.8 Macro except for the $5800 200mm F2. That is one remarkable lens but the 100mm does well when compared to it as you will see and for a lot less. I ran Focal alignment on the 100mm as well and no adjustments were necessary for front or back focusing which is unusual as most lenses need some adjustment. The 1.4 50mm needed a -20 adjustment..that was disappointing but what do you expect for a $350 lens. it's worst quality is 1.4 and its best is F10 at least on my lens. Almost mitigates the point of owning a 1.4 when wide open it stinks.


----------



## Menace (Sep 6, 2012)

My 2 cents worth...

Sell 24-105L and replace it with the new 24-70L II as you'll gain an extra stop. 

Although you just bought the 70-200 f4 IS, if you can exchange it for the 2.8 IS (v2 if you an afford it and weight is not a big issue) - meaning you'll have constant 2.8 aperture all the way from 24-200! 

Still keep 50 1.4 for very low light. 

Hope this helps. Let us know what you think.

Cheers


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 6, 2012)

Get yourself a Speedlite 570EXII. Very effective for fill flash and indoor use.

Looking at the lenses you have and the focal lengths you listed, the 50 1.4 should have you covered.

Both the 35 1.4 and the 135 2 are excellent.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 6, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have the following.
> Canon 5d3
> 24-105
> 50 1.4
> ...



Do you use the 50 f/1.4 for low light already? Are you satisfied with its performance? Do you like the effects (shallow DOF, etc.) of shooting at f/1.4? If so, the 35 f/1.4 makes a lot of sense, which would give you a 3 stop difference compared to your 24-105.

For indoor holiday parties with lots of group shots esp. indoors, I think the 135 is too long. 35 and 50 may be better suited.

f/2.8 is only one stop faster than f/4. That is not fast enough for dim ambient light. You might still be better off using your flash. I'd wait for the reviews on the 24-70 II before plunking down 2k+ to see if it's worth upgrading from the 24-105.


----------



## kirillica (Sep 6, 2012)

It depends on size of indoor. If it's not enough room, then 24-70 (I or II), if you have enough place in there - 70-200 F2.8 (II in case of IS)


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 6, 2012)

kirillica said:


> It depends on size of indoor. If it's not enough room, then 24-70 (I or II), if you have enough place in there - 70-200 F2.8 (II in case of IS)



I checked with my 24-105 this morning and it seems as though the 24-70 range for me will be my more used indoor simply because of room. I am debating on returning the f4 70-200 for the 2.8 but not really sure the added weight is worth the extra $1k and to only gain a stop still will require fill flash to me. I do not find myself using the 50mm simply because with kids it can be hard sometimes not being able to zoom in or out plus the more light the less my twins are in focus so thats why I am having a hard time finding the best way to approach most shooting environments knowing I cannot get them all. I did great birthday portraits with it at 2.8 but there was plenty of ambient light in the room. Basically what is everyones go to suggestion for christmas morning? Should i get the 600ex and go that route?


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 6, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on size of indoor. If it's not enough room, then 24-70 (I or II), if you have enough place in there - 70-200 F2.8 (II in case of IS)
> ...



Yes, get the flash.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 6, 2012)

For indoor sports I use the Canon EF 200mm f2.0 L IS USM with 5 stop IS and I am very happy with it. 

If the price is to high for you, you can use the EF 100 2.8 IS macro, the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS instead. (I would prefer the EF 70-200 2.8 II IS) or a fast prime lens.


----------



## dstppy (Sep 6, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> kirillica said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on size of indoor. If it's not enough room, then 24-70 (I or II), if you have enough place in there - 70-200 F2.8 (II in case of IS)
> ...



The Tamron SP 24-70mm Di VC USD is also a really competent contender . . . Christmas morning and flashes don't go together at my house


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Sep 6, 2012)

I would have to agree with Random. Having two little ones of my own I found myself using the 50 1.4 a lot simply for the speed it offered and the shallow dof (persona preference). About 4 months ago I bought the 35 1.4L and have LOVED this lens. I shoot a 60D and 5DII and l use it on the latter for most of the indoor shoots. I have the 430EX ii and though it is a good flash, I don't like using it unless I have to (again just preference). My wife and I just came back from a vacation and all we took was the 5DII and 35L, no regrets at all.

-Tabor


----------



## Michael_pfh (Sep 6, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I have the following.
> Canon 5d3
> 24-105
> 50 1.4
> ...



My suggestion is to buy those 3 lenses.


----------



## CJRodgers (Sep 6, 2012)

I have 5d mkii with 35L, 50 1.8 and 135L. Im really happy with my low light abilities. Only thing id change now is swapping the 50mm 1.8 for the 50mm 1.4 or the sigma 85 1.4. And getting a 16-35L zoom for wider, or maybe holding out for a newer rumored version seeing as I dont have much money left for kit atm. 35, 50 and 135 cover a very nice portrait range, id just like wider for lanscape shots and night sky photos.


----------



## Jotho (Sep 6, 2012)

Never sell the 24-105. Get the 35L, can't be unsatisfied.


----------



## gtog (Sep 6, 2012)

I would agree that the zoom helps with active kids. Some strategically pre-placed lighting may help with your Christmas morning concerns, regardless of whether you get the 24-70 mk II or stay with the 24-105.

As for the primes (perhaps for the less frenzied periods?) the 35 would be nice for groups and such. The 135, while an excellent lens, isn't at its best in tight quarters, particularly if a grandparent needs to see how much a kid is enjoying their gift. If you need tighter than the 50 inside, consider the 85 1.8 (or 100 2.0, depending on the size of your kids).

G


----------



## AJ (Sep 6, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, get the flash.


+1

Also, learn to love high-iso


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 6, 2012)

One stop faster (f/2.8 vs f/4) is not going to make a big difference. Even a f/1.4 lens might be marginal. I usually use my 35mm f/1.4 in low light and crank up the ISO to 3200 or 6400.
At some point, a external flash is going to be needed.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 6, 2012)

You already have a f/1.4 lens, if that is not enough then I am not sure if the other lenses you have mentioned will help you either. the 24-70 is slower than f/1.4 and does not have IS, so not much of a help. If your 50 f/1.4 is not fast enough then 35 f/1.4 will also not be fast enough. Same applies to 135 f/2. Moreover, none of the primes have IS either to support slow shutter speed. Then again at slow shutter speed if you are shooting your friends and relatives there will surely be subject movement blur, where IS is useless. 

Therefore, you definitely need an external flash. 

Not happy with the quality of harsh light? then use it in manual mode and bounce it off the ceiling or wall to soften it. If you are using it in manual mode then any flash (old or new, canon or nikon or anything will do, provided you can manually control the power level).

Never sell the 24-105 on full frame. when you travel or take an outdoor trip it shall always have a better range than any other lens. In fact with Flash you can use it indoors as well.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 6, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> One stop faster (f/2.8 vs f/4) is not going to make a big difference. Even a f/1.4 lens might be marginal. I usually use my 35mm f/1.4 in low light and crank up the ISO to 3200 or 6400.
> At some point, a external flash is going to be needed.



Thanks,

So your saying that to return my 70-200 f4is for the 2.8 version will not give me the performance that I am looking for and a flash will most likely have to be used. Last year I had the 17-55 2.8 with iso 3200 on a 60d still was only 1/30 and really too slow. So I figured 1/60 @ iso 6400 would be better but that was with what the equivalent of the 24-70 ii is. I am just trying to figure out if I will need fill flash to keep a more tolerable iso say 2000 then a flash will be needed whether f1.4,2.8,4.0. Did I get that right. I also don't like really shallow DOF since the goal is to have the kids, present, etc in focus but then will my 430 ex ii be good or the 600 since it has more power and is made for my focus sensor? Sorry for all the questions but I really value everyone's opinion's. I think I will post a pic from last year so I can give a visual example for more accurate advise.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 6, 2012)

Just for fun I added a poll to see what the major coconscious is. If I missed it please just not the lens.


----------



## MaxPower (Sep 6, 2012)

My favorite is not on the list. Im not kidding.
The 40mm is awesome on APS-C.
Its small so it didnt scare people on partys.


----------



## brad-man (Sep 6, 2012)

dstppy said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > kirillica said:
> ...




+1


----------



## discojuggernaut (Sep 6, 2012)

85mm 1.8 on 5D3 is 'wide' enough to work indoors and the AF rocks, especially compared to the lethargic 50mm 1.4.

My 28-70 is in the shop right now getting cleaned, and i had to shoot a small indoors/patio party with only my 135L. Most shots were either tight singles/couples shots or for groups I backed up as far as I could. Half were taken with natural light, half with bounced/direct flash.

A 35mm, 50mm, or a 24-70 would have been nice, but damn I love that 135L and make excuses to use it wherever possible.

Here's the gallery link


----------



## ishdakuteb (Sep 6, 2012)

Menace said:


> My 2 cents worth...
> 
> Sell 24-105L and replace it with the new 24-70L II as you'll gain an extra stop.
> 
> ...



yep, you gain extra stop in aperture, but you will lose 3 tops of IS which means you have the ability to go lower than 1/24. in theory, you should not go below 1/24 with 24-70mm lens, but you can do it with 24-105mm since the lens support 3 stops in IS. however, with 5d mark III in low light, one would not care that much since 5d mark III's ISO is soooo good unless 25,600 or 51,200 (worse case) is not enough for you


----------



## IIIHobbs (Sep 6, 2012)

How did your Disney photos turn out?


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 6, 2012)

Menace said:


> My 2 cents worth...
> 
> Sell 24-105L and replace it with the new 24-70L II as you'll gain an extra stop.
> 
> ...



+1...sell 24-105 & 70-200 f4 replace with 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II, keep 50mm f1.4 until mrk II comes out.


----------



## pwp (Sep 6, 2012)

Keep your current excellent glass and get a 600 EX-RT and learn to use it properly.
Badly used flash is appalling, used skilfully you'd barely know it was there....it's the photographers friend.
Skilfully bounce flash should look indistinguishable from natural light. 

-PW


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 6, 2012)

pwp said:


> Keep your current excellent glass and get a 600 EX-RT and learn to use it properly.
> Badly used flash is appalling, used skilfully you'd barely know it was there....it's the photographers friend.
> Skilfully bounce flash should look indistinguishable from natural light.
> 
> -PW



My local dealer is offering to take back my 70-200 f4 and sell me the 2.8 is ii version for $1899. Does anyone think thats worth it or should I still get the 600ex speedlite instead? It seems so heavy but thats a great deal.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 6, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> How did your Disney photos turn out?



Great everyone was right the 24-105 was on 90% of the time. I will have to post one.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 7, 2012)

IIIHobbs said:


> How did your Disney photos turn out?



Here are a few. Just with the 24-105mm


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 7, 2012)

Here is an example with the exif as a .jpeg

It was a canon 60d with 320 ex flash and17-55 2.8 is. I was in manual. I also found another with the christmas tree same setup with 1/20 f2.8 iso 800. So I guess I already have a better arsenal but just need to know if getting the 70-200 2.8 vs my f4 is better than a newer 600ex speedlite.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 7, 2012)

ishdakuteb said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > My 2 cents worth...
> ...



IS is great for night time landscape, BUT NOT taking people at that slow speed. I prefer min 1/60 or above. with 5D III, f2.8 can handle most low light condition. 

If budget is allowed: sell your 24-105 + 70-200 f4, get 70-200 f2.8 IS II + new 24-70 f2.8.

Combo 70-200 f2.8 IS II + 5D III or 1D X = "a gift from heaven"


----------



## agierke (Sep 7, 2012)

i agree with the notion that a 600EX would get you the most functionality for your dollar with the parameters you stated. replacing the 24-105 or the 70-200 would be nice (both replacements suggested would show improvements but it would be nominal) but the cost to do so would be far greater.

if you simply had to get an additional lens i think the 35mm F1.4L would offer the most benefit to your existing kit. that lens is simply an All-Star in canons line up. can be tricky to use with moving subjects wide open, but well worth it if you have the patience to learn to use it.

back to a speedlight....

+100 to the idea of properly using bounced light for low light situations. i would even suggest that you get a radio trigger system to plug into the speedlight so that you can use the flash off the camera. i attach AB CSRBs to my flashes and trigger them remotely with the CSTs. this would allow you to place the flash anywhere in the room (bounce off the ceiling) and effectively raise the light level of the room in a more natural way.

600EX + CSRB/CST combo would run you @ 725.00 and increase the functionality of ALL your existing lenses (and any future lenses you purchased). keep in mind you would also need to buy a hot shoe adapter (15.00) to attach to the bottom of the speed light so you can plug in the CSRB.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 8, 2012)

agierke said:


> i agree with the notion that a 600EX would get you the most functionality for your dollar with the parameters you stated. replacing the 24-105 or the 70-200 would be nice (both replacements suggested would show improvements but it would be nominal) but the cost to do so would be far greater.
> 
> if you simply had to get an additional lens i think the 35mm F1.4L would offer the most benefit to your existing kit. that lens is simply an All-Star in canons line up. can be tricky to use with moving subjects wide open, but well worth it if you have the patience to learn to use it.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the speed light advice. I will plan on looking at that setup. Would mind pm'ing me the parts your suggesting. I think I am going to evaluate the 35mm after Christmas. I still have the 50 and will work with flash. My only problem is the temptation to spend the extra $850 for the 70-200 2.8 is ii and return my f4is. I don't want the weight but I can't help but wonder if I will upgrade later and if that will make better use of my af system. Any thoughts this is regardless of the speed light I am pretty sure I am getting.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 11, 2012)

I ended up getting the 70-200 2.8. I plan on getting a speed lite next (600 ex). I posted an example of a christmas shot I hope to improve.


----------



## agierke (Sep 11, 2012)

i use Alien Bee products. 

Cybersync Trigger Transmitter (CST) 59.95
Cybersync Receiver (battery) (CSRB) 69.95
Speedlight Foot Adapter 15.95

all the necessary cords come with the transmitters. i use a small piece of velcro to attach the CST to the side of my flash when using 2 flash set up and one is on my camera's hot shoe. if you are using only 1 flash the CST goes on camera's hot shoe and the Speedlight Foot adapter goes on the bottom of the Flash with the CSRB plugged into it. use the foot stand that comes with the flash to place it on a mantle or table top (or screw it into a lightstand in the opportunity is there).

very affordable solution which offers alot of lighting flexibility. i currently have 3 CSTs, 2 CSRBs, 1 CSRB+ and 2 580EXs. I plan on adding 2 more speedlights so that i have a very lightweight 4 light package that i can use if time and logistics dont allow for the use of monoheads.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 12, 2012)

Thanks I will look into that.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 13, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> I ended up getting the 70-200 2.8. I plan on getting a speed lite next (600 ex). I posted an example of a christmas shot I hope to improve.



I hate to say "I told you" on 70-200 f2.8 IS II, before your vacation.

Now I'm telling you AGAIN, sell your 24-105 and get 24-70 mrk II.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> KKCFamilyman said:
> 
> 
> > I ended up getting the 70-200 2.8. I plan on getting a speed lite next (600 ex). I posted an example of a christmas shot I hope to improve.
> ...



Yeah as much as I hate the weight I think your right. I will after I get the 600 ex and get thru the holidays. I need to upgrade my pp computer rig first.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 14, 2012)

KKCFamilyman said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > KKCFamilyman said:
> ...



If you plan to get 24-70 II + 600ex(great flash by the way), I think you should sell your 50mm f1.4, 430ex and 270ex...less gear in the bag. I'm going to sell my 50mm f1.4 after my trip to Hong Kong.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 14, 2012)

You might want to keep the 50mm. It's small and will not inconvenience you so much. However if the situation demands more low light capability, you might miss it so much.


----------



## dbduchene (Sep 15, 2012)

Till I get a canon 16-35 it is my Tamron 17-35 F2.8-4 and also my 15mm 2.8 fisheye. I also have a Sigma 50mm F1.4 that I use sometimes


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Sep 15, 2012)

I am Definetly selling the speed lites and the 24-105 if I get the 24-70 ii and 600ex. I cannot afford to keep everything. I will probably dump the 50 with hopes of getting the 35mm 1.4. Not sure how soon all this will happen.


----------

