# Need some advise: light sensitive lens indoors



## candyman (Nov 8, 2012)

I am looking for a lightsensitive lens for indoors use.
I have some lenses i.e. 135mm f/2 L that are lightsensitive but very often its focal length is too much. 

Personally I like the flexibility of having a zoom when taking photo's indoors since not always I know how much space there is. And, the lens should be easy to handle from size and weight point of view (so my 70-200 f/2.8 is less convenient here)

My budget is max. 1000 euro

The Canon 24-70 MK II L is not an option from pricing point of view. Neither is the Canon 85mm f/1.2 L

I am considering either the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC or the Sigma 85mm f/1.4
I know I know, I already own the 24-105 but this lens is my outdoors walkaround lens. So I don't mind overlap

Can anyone share his/her experience about the Tamron and/or the Sigma?
And, what would you do?


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 8, 2012)

the sigma 85 f1.4

I dont trust tamron at all


----------



## candyman (Nov 8, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> the sigma 85 f1.4
> 
> I dont trust tamron at all



I have read some reviews on both lenses.
What are your pros and Cons on the Sigma from personal use?


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 8, 2012)

the 2nd to front element in the tamron is glued in place with 3 dots of glue, if you dont treat it like an activated mine there are a lot of cases of the element coming loose and rattling around inside. What about a used 24-70 /2.8 mark I? that should only be a tad over your budget. I used a 50mm on my crop-body indoors, and unless you have a lot of room, I found the 80mm equivelent a little too tight. ever think of the sigma/canon 50mm 1.4?


----------



## candyman (Nov 8, 2012)

In fact, I do own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4
I was very pleased using it on my 7D. But it is not so good using it on my 5D MK3. I really look for better qualiy for my FF

I currently see an used Canon 24-70 MK I for sale. But, I remember that people wrote about issues with earlier model. Do you know what range in serialnumbers are the ones to avoid?

And, review claim that the Tamron is better than the Canon 24-70 MKI. But do I really notice when not pixelpeeping?


*EDIT:* oh, I forgot: the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 MK I is listed in group B of lenses for my 5D MK3. Meaning is using only 1 double crosspoint f/2.8 instead of 5. I don't know how much of difference that makes when shooting indoors with low light.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 8, 2012)

I recently spent some time thinking about a light sensitive lens myself, just for strong bokeh portraits and low light photography in normally lit houses, lets say on family meetings etc. I dig the 135mm 2.0 very much because of its great magical bokeh, but 135mm was too long for my taste so it had to go.

If the 135mm is too long for you, I assume you talk about 50 or 85mm then.

On 50mm you could go with the Canon EF 1.8, the Canon EF 1.4 or the Sigma EF 1.4. I would not recommend the Canon 1.8 as it is one of Canon's cheapest glasses with many problems concerning focussing. That leaves Canon and Sigma 1.4. The Sigma has the better image quality at 1.4 but causes a shitload of problems on full frame cameras, I read tons of reports about it's focussing going completely berzerk so you basically can strike that out which leaves only the Canon EF 1.4. While it is without any means a great lens from 2.0 upwards, I personally think it's quality at 1.4 is only average. It isn't really that sharp. Compare to the Sigma here.

As there is no lens that met my expectations and Canon didn't reboot the 50mm as I was hoping, I drove the thought of 50mm away.

That leaves the wide aperture 85mm lenses, in fact in your price range only the Canon 1.8 or the Sigma 1.4. In that case, Sigma's got the slower autofocus but the better image quality, at a much higher price tag. You can compare Canon at 1.8 and Sigma at 1.4 here and see that Sigma performs better on 1.4 than Canon on 1.8.

For me, I chose the Canon 85mm 1.8 because it is simply only a lens I would use between 1.8 and 2.8, because for 2.8 and upwards I got Tamron 24-70 and Canon 100L, especially the latter is hard to beat in image quality means. And for that seldom using, it was not worth the extra cost of the Sigma one.

Oh well, upgrading is always a possibility 



candyman said:


> And, review claim that the Tamron is better than the Canon 24-70 MKI. But do I really notice when not pixelpeeping?



Your money bag certainly does. Also, Tamron 24-70 got a image stabilizer which renders it unrivaled, especially at that price tag. It truly is a great lens with an exceptional build and image quality. My friend had a slight focussing problem with VC turned on, but it got exchanged without problems and now his also sits perfectly.

On the other hand, with a weight of over 600 grams, it is not what you would call lightweight, it is a heavy toy.


----------



## candyman (Nov 8, 2012)

I used the Canon 85mm f/1.8 as well on my 7D. Working great. But while using it on my FF I was fairly disappointed. I didn't like it.

So what about "...the 2nd to front element in the tamron is glued in place with 3 dots of glue, if you dont treat it like an activated mine there are a lot of cases of the element coming loose and rattling around inside " 
?


----------



## bbasiaga (Nov 8, 2012)

What about the 40mm pancake? At 2.8 its just one stop slower than your 135. Unless you're already shooting at iso 12800, you can easily make up that one stop with ISO on the MKIII. The lens is small, light and produces great colors and contrast. And its DIRT CHEAP. 

If you're stuck on a zoom, what is wrong with the 24-105? again, with the ISO peformance of the MKIII I have not seen problems using this lens in most indoor places. Maybe a dark restaraunt or some place with 'mood lighting' would be an issue, but usually you have more control of the lights in your own home. 

Aside from that, you're looking at the new Tamron 24-70VC, or the old Canon 24-70. 

-Brian


----------



## Ryan708 (Nov 8, 2012)

the tamron 24-70 is amazing, optically speaking. Check out lensrentals reviews of lens failures. the tamron is listed pretty heavy for the element falling out. But that is RENTAL after all. I treat all my gear nicely and probably wouldnt have an issue. Resale on non OEM lenses is never great, but that would probably be a keeper anyways. Just my .02


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 8, 2012)

candyman said:


> But while using it on my FF I was fairly disappointed. I didn't like it.



Well, I could also give it back then if it disappoints me... hope not. Don't really want to spend 800€ on that Sigma :-/


----------



## candyman (Nov 10, 2012)

So....I surprised myself.
I checked the Tamron 24-70 in the shop but somehow it could not convince me yet. The Sigma 85mm wasn't available for testing. Bummer.


I decided to keep my Sigma 50mm for now, until something better will show up for this focal length.
Instead I bought the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L Macro. Not exactly the perfect match for my first intention posted here. But, the 100mm is a very good portraitlens and especially good for Macro. We are in Autumn and heading towards winter with rainy days. So, being able to do some indoor macro shooting is for sure going to give me pleasure when the strong rain is keeping me inside.
I see that it is a whole new technique and challenge.


Thanks for all your input.


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 10, 2012)

The 100L is a very great lens, 2.8 is decent indoors without flash. I also decided to not go with the Canon 85mm 1.8, but got the 135 2.0L instead - that's also quite a bit brighter than 2.8 but it's got that great magical bokeh... could not resist.


----------



## rpt (Nov 10, 2012)

bbasiaga said:


> What about the 40mm pancake? At 2.8 its just one stop slower than your 135. Unless you're already shooting at iso 12800, you can easily make up that one stop with ISO on the MKIII. The lens is small, light and produces great colors and contrast. And its DIRT CHEAP.
> 
> If you're stuck on a zoom, what is wrong with the 24-105? again, with the ISO peformance of the MKIII I have not seen problems using this lens in most indoor places. Maybe a dark restaraunt or some place with 'mood lighting' would be an issue, but usually you have more control of the lights in your own home.


My thoughts exactly! Those are the lenses I used. Now since have the 100L macro which is a f2.8, I have one more option for low light.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 10, 2012)

What exactly is a "light sensitive" lens? I don't think I've seen that term in this context before.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 11, 2012)

candyman said:


> I am looking for a lightsensitive lens for indoors use.
> I have some lenses i.e. 135mm f/2 L that are lightsensitive but very often its focal length is too much.
> 
> Personally I like the flexibility of having a zoom when taking photo's indoors since not always I know how much space there is. And, the lens should be easy to handle from size and weight point of view (so my 70-200 f/2.8 is less convenient here)
> ...


If you are wanting a low light lens, consider a inexpensive prime lens. IMHO, f/2.8 is not going to be a extreme low light lens, f/2 barely makes it. 
So, if you want a zoom, add a flash.
Some fast primes that are low priced are 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.


----------



## rpt (Nov 11, 2012)

drmikeinpdx said:


> What exactly is a "light sensitive" lens? I don't think I've seen that term in this context before.


He means small f number...


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 11, 2012)

Small f number, or in other words a high aperture, allowing you to shoot with lower iso or exposure time.


----------



## rpt (Nov 11, 2012)

florianbieler.de said:


> Small f number, or in other words a high aperture, allowing you to shoot with lower iso or exposure time.


Yup! Fast lens...


----------



## candyman (Nov 11, 2012)

drmikeinpdx said:


> What exactly is a "light sensitive" lens? I don't think I've seen that term in this context before.




Sorry, English is not my native language. Sometimes I may express myself not so clear. But RPT and Florianbieler.de explained it correct. Thanks for that!


----------



## robbymack (Nov 11, 2012)

The tamron has a 5 or 6 year warrantee, it's almost not worth worrying about a manufacturing defect here and there you'll discover it long before the period is up. I'm thinking the tamron will be my next purchase once it comes down in price. I have trouble paying 1300 for a third party lens.


----------

