# Yet another "what lens?" question



## DianeK (Feb 15, 2012)

Current set up: 60D (yes, I regret not getting the 7D :) with 10-22, 15-85, 100 macro, 70-300L. Main interests are wildlife, birds, landscape, macro so happy with my lens collection. Problem: I am now viewed as "the photographer" in the family so am expected to get general family shots plus we have 2 fast-moving grandkids. Nothing in my lenses is good for indoor/lowlight photos or videos. Was going to ditch the 15-85 and get the 17-55 which on the used market should cost me a net of $300. But, now the rumors of the new primes 24 and 28 have me second-guessing. Adding one of these for the "family" situations would cost me $800 rather than $300 because I would need to keep the 15-85. Any thoughts to share out there??
Diane


----------



## ksuweh (Feb 15, 2012)

I own a 7D & a 17-55. I am very pleased with the 17-55! Image quality is VERY good!! I would say that it is L quality optics. Even at f/2.8 I still find myself bumping the ISO up to an undesirably high range fairly often. I also own a 35 L & that lens is just an AMAZING lens!!! Attached to a APS-C crop-body it is equivalent to a 56mm on a FF. So, it is a good normal focal length lens, it just lacks the versatility of the zoom.


----------



## bvukich (Feb 15, 2012)

Unless you're shooting video, the 28/1.8 is probably a better choice than the 28/2.8IS, and you can use the money saved to get a 430EX II which will also make the fabulous but slow 15-85 usable inside.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2012)

I have the 17-55mm, and it's an excellent lens. But, f/2.8 indoors with ambient home lighting usually means ISO 3200 or even higher. While ISO 3200 is fine on my 5DII, I prefer not to go that high on my 7D. 

Definitely get a 430EX II if you don't have an external flash - you can bounce that off the ceiling for nice lighting.

As for lenses, I'd consider a fast prime. The new 24/28 primes aren't fast, I'd absolutely take the 17-55mm over either of those. The 24mm f/1.4L II would be ideal, but it's expensive. You might consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but since the 60D lacks AF Microadjustment, I'd recommend buying the Sigma (or any fast prime) from somewhere you can easily return it, and test the AF performance right when you get the lens.


----------



## jwong (Feb 15, 2012)

Agree with those that recommend getting the flash first. Fast primes are great when shooting single subjects but multiple subjects is hard because DOF is so thin. If you are doing more group shots, flash is really the only way to go.

I also agree with ksuweh that the 35L is great for indoors. That has replaced the 17-55 as the lens of choice for my low-light indoor shots. I've found that the 35L focuses more consistently than the 50 f/1.4 that I had tested from a friend.


----------



## DJL329 (Feb 15, 2012)

bvukich said:


> Unless you're shooting video, the 28/1.8 is probably a better choice than the 28/2.8IS, and you can use the money saved to get a 430EX II which will also make the fabulous but slow 15-85 usable inside.



+1 for the EF 28mm f/1.8. It's small and fast. Here's a shot I did of a friend's daughter, as she _rolled_ across the floor. No flash; the room was lit only by sunlight.


----------



## dhofmann (Feb 15, 2012)

I don't think I would replace the 15-85 with the 17-55, and here's why: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

To summarize, at 35mm focal length, the 15-85 is much sharper wide open (f/4.5) than the 17-55 (f/2.8). You have to stop down the 17-55 to f/4 to get the same sharpness, but then it's only 1/3 of a stop faster. And you lose 2mm at the short end and 30mm at the long end. So the 17-55 is just not a very useful lens.

The other issue with getting a faster lens is that focusing becomes more difficult.

I agree with the other suggestions to get a flash like the 430 EX II, and learn how to use its swivel and tilt, and use a CTO gel when in the presence of tungsten lighting, and try different flash modifiers.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> I agree with the other suggestions to get a flash like the 430 EX II, and learn how to use its swivel and tilt



Better than that: Get *two* flashes, one on or next to your camera for bounce, one for soft directional light. The picture of the girl from DJL329 looks very nice - but it had sunlight (directional and ambient) - you can simulate this indoor/lowlight with two flashes. And you can give one remote flash to one of your children, and they can run around lighting the scene from different angles


----------



## bvukich (Feb 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> And you can give one remote flash to one of your children, and they can run around lighting the scene from different angles



Funny you mention that. My kids are very amused by off camera flash. The other day I set up for low key portraits, and let them hold the flash themselves. They had a blast posing and putting the flash at different locations, angles etc.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 15, 2012)

bvukich said:


> My kids are very amused by off camera flash.



Well, it's not hard to imagine for me: *I* am amused by off camera flash, too  ... and it's really nice to vary the same (macro) object with different directional flash angles / fec values


----------



## smirkypants (Feb 15, 2012)

Another vote for the 17-55/2.8. I have a collection of faster glass but I wouldn't recommend going much wider than 2.8 for fast moving kids. At more open than 2.0, it's really easy to get the focus wrong on a fast-moving, relatively close object. If, for instance, you're 10 feet away with a 50mm at 1.4 on your 60D, your depth of field is just a few inches and if you catch a hand or something in front of a kid moving fast, your shot it ruined.

Plus, the bigger the aperture, the more important micro-adjustment becomes and your 60D won't let you adjust for the peculiarities of your lens.

Get the 17-55/2.8.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have the 17-55mm, and it's an excellent lens. But, f/2.8 indoors with ambient home lighting usually means ISO 3200 or even higher. While ISO 3200 is fine on my 5DII, I prefer not to go that high on my 7D.
> 
> Definitely get a 430EX II if you don't have an external flash - you can bounce that off the ceiling for nice lighting.
> 
> As for lenses, I'd consider a fast prime. The new 24/28 primes aren't fast, I'd absolutely take the 17-55mm over either of those. The 24mm f/1.4L II would be ideal, but it's expensive. You might consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but since the 60D lacks AF Microadjustment, I'd recommend buying the Sigma (or any fast prime) from somewhere you can easily return it, and test the AF performance right when you get the lens.


I just got my 85mm 1.4 back from sigma the shop sent it back twice until it came back and they were happy with it. they said all sigma do is plud the lens in and do a software calibration within the lens AF . It is pretty good now i still need to do my own AF microadjust but it definately wont be anywhere near as front focusing as it was before. knowing this that IF you get a copy with focus issues its not a big deal to get it sent in and recalibrated. I highly recommend the 85 f1.4 from sigma.
definately agree if you buy a sigma get it from a good store that will do all the leg work sending it back for adjustment.


----------



## DianeK (Feb 16, 2012)

Wow, I was out all day today and just checked in. Thanks for all the replies. 

Ya know, I do have 2 430EXII's and pocket wizards so stills really are not a problem if I get off my behind and set things up  .

So I guess really that boils my concern down to video indoor situations (dear hubby always wants video of the grandkids) where flash is not going to help me and I am not about to get into a full lighting package.

Sooo, I'm sensing a split between the new primes I referenced and the 17-55 in opinions here. If I zero-in on _best for indoor video_ (assuming I will actually set up my flashes for stills), does this modify anyone's opinion here?

Lastly, I am oh so aware of the 60D's shortcoming regarding lack of AFMA :'( :'( and will only buy used or new locally so I can assess any back or front focusing issues. Waiting to snap up a used 7D when the new 5DIII gets announced.


----------



## PixelReaper (Feb 16, 2012)

ksuweh said:


> I own a 7D & a 17-55. I am very pleased with the 17-55! Image quality is VERY good!! I would say that it is L quality optics. Even at f/2.8 I still find myself bumping the ISO up to an undesirably high range fairly often. I also own a 35 L & that lens is just an AMAZING lens!!! Attached to a APS-C crop-body it is equivalent to a 56mm on a FF. So, it is a good normal focal length lens, it just lacks the versatility of the zoom.



+1 35L

I had the 60D and 17-55, and I returned it and bought the 5DII kit with the 24-105 kit + 35L. The cost difference was about $1800 but it was the best choice I ever made.

The 35 L is a low light machine and it is sharp at 1.4, tack sharp at f/2.0 and alien sharp at 2.8. 



neuroanatomist said:


> I have the 17-55mm, and it's an excellent lens. But, f/2.8 indoors with ambient home lighting usually means ISO 3200 or even higher. While ISO 3200 is fine on my 5DII, I prefer not to go that high on my 7D.
> 
> Definitely get a 430EX II if you don't have an external flash - you can bounce that off the ceiling for nice lighting.
> 
> As for lenses, I'd consider a fast prime. The new 24/28 primes aren't fast, I'd absolutely take the 17-55mm over either of those. The 24mm f/1.4L II would be ideal, but it's expensive. You might consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but since the 60D lacks AF Microadjustment, I'd recommend buying the Sigma (or any fast prime) from somewhere you can easily return it, and test the AF performance right when you get the lens.



I too had the 17-55 and as neuro mentioned I had to jack the ISO up on my 60D too high to really stop my kid's action. The 35l is great on my FF but it is a little tighter on the 1.6 crop. you might also consider the 24 1.4 L II. not quite as sharp as the 35 L, but would give you a similar angle on the crop body


----------



## DianeK (Feb 16, 2012)

To dhofmann: Thank you for that link. I've always liked my 15-85, this has confirmed for me to keep it.

Now another gnarly issue has raised it's head. The primes being recommended here are both pricey and non-IS. From my reading, I've been lead to believe that IS is really very desirable for video, which is why I was thinking about the soon to be released 24 or 28. _But_, they are only 2.8, not 1.4 and I'm assuming that most posters here think that 2.8 on a crop is too slow for indoor ambient light. I have set the upper limit on ISO at 1600 on my 60D because of noise and strive to shoot no higher than 400ISO if I can. Hmmm, more to think about...
Diane


----------



## elflord (Feb 16, 2012)

DianeK said:


> Current set up: 60D (yes, I regret not getting the 7D :) with 10-22, 15-85, 100 macro, 70-300L.



You don't have anything faster than f/2.8, so I'd say get a fast prime (f/2 or faster, not one of the new f/2.8 lenses). 

Depending on what focal length you prefer, Canon or Sigma 50 f/1.4, Canon 35mm f/1.4 or 35mm f/2, Sigma 30mm f/1.4. 

I used the 28mm f/1.8 and wasn't very impressed with it.

I wouldn't recommend getting the 17-55 if that's going to be your fastest lens -- your subject matter calls for fast glass. When the kids are running around, you will probably want to shoot with a flash and smaller aperture, but when they slow down a little, it's nice to have shallow dof and be able to get good shutter speeds without a flash. For shallow dof shots, you need to be a bit careful with the AF (use the center AF point and lock it on exactly where you want to focus) 

Given your interest in video, consider keeping the 15-85 (IS is nice to have) and get a fast but inexpensive prime (sigma 30mm f/1.4, canon 35mm f/2) If you're willing to spend more, keep the existing setup and get the 35mm L


----------



## elflord (Feb 16, 2012)

DianeK said:


> To dhofmann: Thank you for that link. I've always liked my 15-85, this has confirmed for me to keep it.
> 
> Now another gnarly issue has raised it's head. The primes being recommended here are both pricey and non-IS.



The following are relatively inexpensive: sigma 30mm f/1.4, canon 35mm f/2, canon 28mm f/1.8. The 15mm-85mm has IS -- if you keep this, it could be your primary video lens.


----------



## DianeK (Feb 16, 2012)

elflord said:


> The following are relatively inexpensive: sigma 30mm f/1.4, canon 35mm f/2, canon 28mm f/1.8. The 15mm-85mm has IS -- if you keep this, it could be your primary video lens.



But the 15-85 is only 3.5-5.6 so now I'm really confused. Do I not need faster for video in indoor ambient light?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

DianeK said:


> But the 15-85 is only 3.5-5.6 so now I'm really confused. Do I not need faster for video in indoor ambient light?



3.5 actually isn't that bad - and the sharpness of the lens doesn't count for video resolution. The problem w/ larger apertures is that the dof is very thin, which means you have to focus-track your subject if it moves. You cannot do this w/ af on eos bodies (well, my 60D at least) since the contrast af is a bad joke, so you have to track your object manually. With anything fast moving and near you, this is only possible with a lot of luck and experience.

And "indoor" doesn't mean much: If you have skylights, the ambient light could be ok, but with one candle in the corner even a 1.8 lens will give you high iso noise.


----------



## elflord (Feb 16, 2012)

DianeK said:


> But the 15-85 is only 3.5-5.6 so now I'm really confused. Do I not need faster for video in indoor ambient light?



What Marsu42 said -- when shooting video, you're not shooting 18 megapixel frames any more. Even a camcorder or point and shoot (slow zoom lens, small sensor) can shoot decent video indoors. It's not practical to shoot a fast lens wide open all the time indoors because depth of field is shallow. When you're shooting video on a DSLR dof seems more shallow than with stills for two reasons -- one is that you're manually focusing, and two is that the subject is not still, so you need more depth of field to allow for some subject motion. With a still shot, you can lock in on an eye and hit the shutter. If you do that in video and the subject so much as turns their head, you are suddenly out of focus.

What a faster lens would buy you is shallow depth of field for stills. This will help you take pleasing portrait shots. You can always use a flash or two to create some light for yourself, but if you're primarily taking people-pictures, you're really limiting yourself if you can't use an aperture setting faster than f/5.6 at portrait focal lengths.


----------



## Tijn (Feb 16, 2012)

DianeK said:


> But the 15-85 is only 3.5-5.6 so now I'm really confused. Do I not need faster for video in indoor ambient light?


Yes, that's recommendable.

Also, a variable aperture is not recommended for video because if you zoom, the video brightness changes. You'd better get a faster lens with a fixed aperture across its whole range, if you want to do serious video. That'd be a +1 for the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.


----------



## elflord (Feb 16, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> To summarize, at 35mm focal length, the 15-85 is much sharper wide open (f/4.5) than the 17-55 (f/28).



But that's not an apples to apples comparison. The 15-85 isn't very "sharp" at f/28 ! 



> You have to stop down the 17-55 to f/4 to get the same sharpness, but then it's only 1/3 of a stop faster.



What matters isn't how far you need to stop down to reach "the same level" of sharpness, but rather where you need to shoot to attain acceptable performance. While "acceptable" is in the eye of the beholder, there is a broad consensus that the 17-55 is quite usable at f/28. 

What you wrote does imply that if you never want to shoot faster than f/5.6, there is no point getting the faster lens, and I'd probably agree with that (in this case). But f/5.6 makes it a pretty slow lens -- that's dof equivalent to f/9 on a full frame, so it basically rules out what would normally be considered large apertures. 



> And you lose 2mm at the short end and 30mm at the long end but gain 2 stops of aperture at the long end. So the 17-55 is just not a very useful lens unless you want a wider aperture than f/5.6.
> 
> The other issue with getting a faster lens is that focusing becomes more difficult unless you stop down, which you can do with a faster lens.



Getting the faster lens doesn't mean that you _have_ to shoot wide open all the time, it gives you the _option_ to use wider apertures. Just as a wide range zoom provides _versatility in focal length_, a faster lens provides _versatility in depth of field_


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2012)

dhofmann said:


> I don't think I would replace the 15-85 with the 17-55, and here's why: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
> 
> To summarize, at 35mm focal length, the 15-85 is much sharper wide open (f/4.5) than the 17-55 (f/2.8). You have to stop down the 17-55 to f/4 to get the same sharpness, but then it's only 1/3 of a stop faster. And you lose 2mm at the short end and 30mm at the long end. So the 17-55 is just not a very useful lens.
> 
> The other issue with getting a faster lens is that focusing becomes more difficult.



If you read the TDP review of the 17-55mm, there's a statement that the ISO 12233 crops of that lens seem less sharp than Bryan thinks they should. Also, you're selecting one focal length. At other parts of the range, the 17-55mm is sharper. Overall, across the zoom and aperture range, basically it's a wash between the two lenses in terms of sharpness. Even if it weren't, sharpness is just one element of lens performance, and offer not the most important (but it is one of the easy ones to measure and gives a number for comparison, so people focus on that, sometimes exclusively). Consider - the $125 50/1.8 II, when stopped down, is sharper that L-series prime lenses costing 20x as much - if that's your main criterion, you should never spend more than $125 on a lens. 

Regardless, to say the 17-55mm is just not very useful simply makes no sense. At the long end of the 15-85, the 17-55 is letting in *4 times more light*. Also, the DoF with the 17-55mm f/2.8 is shallower than you can achieve with the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, for the same framing. The 15-85mm also has much worse vignetting and barrel distortion. So, overall, the 17-55mm has slightly better IQ, and f/2.8, whereas the 15-85mm has a larger zoom range. Both are useful, for partly overlapping uses. The 15-85 is a good outdoor walkaround lens, the 17-55 is better indoors, for action where you need a fast shutter, and for portraits. 

Finally, I really don't get your last comment. How, exactly, does an f/2.8 lens make focusing more difficult? For AF, an f/2.8 lens activates the high-precision center AF point found on most Canon bodies, resulting in more accurate and more precise focusing than you'd get with a slower lens like the 15-85mm. With MF, f/2.8 means a thinner DoF which makes it easier to tell what's in focus and what's not, even if the shot is taken with a narrower aperture. How is that 'more difficult'? I suspect what you mean is that f/2.8 can result in a shallow DoF, meaning parts of the scene you wanted to be in focus are outside the DoF - but that's not the fault of the lens, that's the fault of the person holding the camera not choosing an appropriate aperture. That thin DoF of a wider aperture doesn't have to be used all the time, but having it available is useful.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Feb 16, 2012)

I have no clue when it comes to video but for photos, in low light on a budget I would get a sigma 30 /1.4 or canon 28/1.8 and use it with flash. In low light AF has trouble locking and you might need faster shutterspeeds. Just dial the flash down a bit and use the camera in manual mode; a rather slow shutterspeed of perhaps 1/30 or 1/60 and f/2 or something (at least for the canon). The AF-assist of the flash will help you with focusing, as will the fast lenses. Then if you lack light, the flash will help you. It will also help you freeze action a bit. Then drag the shutter to let ambient light in and set the mood of the scene. Just bounce the flash or use a cord (but then I am not sure about how it will help you get AF locked). Oh and don´t forget to gel the flash to match the ambient light. Practise some and you will find it is rather easy to get the settings right after a few shots.

The canon 28/1.8 is not stellar but when focus is right my copy is sharp in the middle even @f1.8. I don´t think it deserve its bad reputation. 

Then of course you have the 50/1.4 from canon and sigma if you want closer portraits. I was never really pleased with the canon 50 /1.4 on my 30D (focus issues) but on my 5DII it really really rocks! I got the canon instead of the sigma because it was lighter.


----------



## EOBeav (Feb 16, 2012)

50mm prime, either in the f/1.4 or f/1.8, which ever you can fit into your budget.


----------



## Beautor (Feb 16, 2012)

There's been some great lenses suggested here, especially if you're looking for a prime lens. If you're wanting a zoom, but still want to keep your 15-85 (an awesome lens) maybe check out the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non-VC (no IS). While it does lack the image stabilization it is a very sharp lens with a fast aperture for an unbeatable price. I bought mine used for $250 locally, and you could probably find a better deal than that depending on your market. A good review of this lens is here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

This lens would be an inexpensive way to try out a fast aperture zoom without having to break the bank. Then if you feel you want something better you can look at the more expensive ones like the Canon 17-55 F2.8.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

Tijn said:


> Also, a variable aperture is not recommended for video because if you zoom, the video brightness changes.



... which is of course only a problem if you're using the larges aperture. If the 3.5 dof of a 15-85 is too shallow, you'll be using a smaller aperture anyway, so the variable f doesn't count anymore.


----------



## archangelrichard (Feb 19, 2012)

Goto Home Depot (or Sears hardware or Lowes or ...). Get two or three floodlight-reflector-on-a-clamp set ups and 100 to 150 bulbs (they do not need to be too bright). Clamp in convenient locations, they rotate on that clamp so light the room accordingly. Test for brightness (you may need 150 watters)

If this isn't bright enough goto home depot and look at 500 to 1,000 watt halogen worklights (they actually have some on a flexible length of spring that you stand up like a cobra snake or on a tripod (twin head is only $36)

Use 1.8, 2.8 only if you have no other choice; indoor you NEED depth of field, especially to keep fast moving kids (Junior terrorists-in-training) in frame and in focus (f 8 is much better) and zooming to keep up with them is enough trouble - light the room!


----------



## DianeK (Feb 19, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> Goto Home Depot (or Sears hardware or Lowes or ...). Get two or three floodlight-reflector-on-a-clamp set ups and 100 to 150 bulbs (they do not need to be too bright). Clamp in convenient locations, they rotate on that clamp so light the room accordingly. Test for brightness (you may need 150 watters)
> 
> If this isn't bright enough goto home depot and look at 500 to 1,000 watt halogen worklights (they actually have some on a flexible length of spring that you stand up like a cobra snake or on a tripod (twin head is only $36)
> 
> Use 1.8, 2.8 only if you have no other choice; indoor you NEED depth of field, especially to keep fast moving kids (Junior terrorists-in-training) in frame and in focus (f 8 is much better) and zooming to keep up with them is enough trouble - light the room!



No need to go to Home Depot, I can simply raid my husband's workshop ;D. However, busy toddlers and hot halogens on stands may be a recipe for disaster!


----------



## Tijn (Feb 19, 2012)

DianeK said:


> No need to go to Home Depot, I can simply raid my husband's workshop ;D. However, busy toddlers and hot halogens on stands may be a recipe for disaster!


Expect a lot of noise in those images...


----------



## AJ (Feb 19, 2012)

Beautor said:


> maybe check out the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 non-VC (no IS). While it does lack the image stabilization it is a very sharp lens with a fast aperture for an unbeatable price.



Another vote for Tamron 17-50/2.8. I own this lens and like it a lot.

As for hotlights, they're okay-ish for posed photos. But they can't beat a bounced hotshoe flash for general shooting.


----------

