Fast lens for indoor use

[Eli]

...Oh, I use the 50mm 1.8 II at times and it often hunts for focus in dim lighting conditions where the 24-70 snaps on to the target almost instantly.

This may have more to do with the way you shoot and focus or the way you set up the AF area selection modes with your 5DM3. How are you focusing and what AF selection mode are you using? I rarely have hunting issues with any of my lenses in lowlight situations, especially with the 24L II or 50L.

That's because your lenses aren't the 50mm 1.8 II.

[JerryKnight]

...Oh, I use the 50mm 1.8 II at times and it often hunts for focus in dim lighting conditions where the 24-70 snaps on to the target almost instantly.

This may have more to do with the way you shoot and focus or the way you set up the AF area selection modes with your 5DM3. How are you focusing and what AF selection mode are you using? I rarely have hunting issues with any of my lenses in lowlight situations, especially with the 24L II or 50L.

With all due respect, you're nuts if you're comparing two professional >$1500 lenses to a ~$100 lens. Even just comparing autofocus performance, they're not in the same class.

I'm really not bad-mouthing the 50mm/1.8. It's fantastic for the money. It's better than 1/15th as good as the L-lenses, but it's still not much of a comparison if price is ignored. When you start to be limited by its shortcomings (including sluggish autofocus) it's time to upgrade, probably to the 50mm/1.4 unless you're planning on the highest level of pro portrait work.

[Mr Bean]

Until I get a 24 f1.4 (soon'ish), I'm finding the 40mm pancake a beaut lens for indoor work. Its sharp wide open, and focusing (on a 5D m3) has been no issue. Probably the only distraction is its a little noisy to focus, but its cheap

[Standard]

With all due respect, you're nuts if you're comparing two professional >$1500 lenses to a ~$100 lens. Even just comparing autofocus performance, they're not in the same class.

I'm really not bad-mouthing the 50mm/1.8. It's fantastic for the money. It's better than 1/15th as good as the L-lenses, but it's still not much of a comparison if price is ignored. When you start to be limited by its shortcomings (including sluggish autofocus) it's time to upgrade, probably to the 50mm/1.4 unless you're planning on the highest level of pro portrait work.

I am not comparing the 50L to any other Canon 50mm lenses. I know without a doubt the quality of an "L" lens (One reason why I don't bother buying a lower end Canon lens to begin with. Not because I can afford it but because I will bypass any upgrade therefore saving cost in the long run). As so many people have continually bashed the value of the "L" version in the recent review of the 50L, saying how overpriced it is and how good the more affordable 50mm 1.4 is in comparison, I was merely extending the benefit of the doubt to its sibling the 50mm 1.8.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12286.0

As for the question I'd directed at the original poster, I was merely trying to help by first eliminating other possible factors before focusing on the limitation of the equipment. Nothing more than that.

[Eli]

With all due respect, you're nuts if you're comparing two professional >$1500 lenses to a ~$100 lens. Even just comparing autofocus performance, they're not in the same class.

I'm really not bad-mouthing the 50mm/1.8. It's fantastic for the money. It's better than 1/15th as good as the L-lenses, but it's still not much of a comparison if price is ignored. When you start to be limited by its shortcomings (including sluggish autofocus) it's time to upgrade, probably to the 50mm/1.4 unless you're planning on the highest level of pro portrait work.

I am not comparing the 50L to any other Canon 50mm lenses. I know without a doubt the quality of an "L" lens (One reason why I don't bother buying a lower end Canon lens to begin with. Not because I can afford it but because I will bypass any upgrade therefore saving cost in the long run). As so many people have continually bashed the value of the "L" version in the recent review of the 50L, saying how overpriced it is and how good the more affordable 50mm 1.4 is in comparison, I was merely extending the benefit of the doubt to its sibling the 50mm 1.8.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12286.0

As for the question I'd directed at the original poster, I was merely trying to help by first eliminating other possible factors before focusing on the limitation of the equipment. Nothing more than that.

This may have more to do with the way you shoot and focus or the way you set up the AF area selection modes with your 5DM3. How are you focusing and what AF selection mode are you using? I rarely have hunting issues with any of my lenses in lowlight situations, especially with the 24L II or 50L.

Honestly, with the wording you've used, the way it's interpreted for me is that you're assuming poor technique before thinking about the limitations of the lens. Instead of opening up with the question, you start with a statement like "This may have more to do with the way you shoot and focus.." And then you said "I rarely have hunting issues with any of my lenses.., especially with the 24L II or 50L.".
That's like someone saying my Toyota Corolla can't reach speeds of xxx, and then you come in and say well it must be your bad driving because my Ferrari can do that fine.


Also note the OP stated that the focus hunting is only a problem with the 50 1.8, his 24-70 snaps on focus almost instantly, so clearly, not a problem of poor technique.

[Standard]

Honestly, with the wording you've used, the way it's interpreted for me is that you're assuming poor technique before thinking about the limitations of the lens. Instead of opening up with the question, you start with a statement like "This may have more to do with the way you shoot and focus.." And then you said "I rarely have hunting issues with any of my lenses.., especially with the 24L II or 50L.".
That's like someone saying my Toyota Corolla can't reach speeds of xxx, and then you come in and say well it must be your bad driving because my Ferrari can do that fine.


Also note the OP stated that the focus hunting is only a problem with the 50 1.8, his 24-70 snaps on focus almost instantly, so clearly, not a problem of poor technique.

Alright. My bad. It was never my intention to mean anything negative, especially to killswitch. Apology to you if you thought I meant differently. Should have worded my thought better. Guess I'll shut up and get back to focusing on my own work...

[Don Haines]

Looking for a fast lens, mainly for indoor(with low light) use. It will be used in family events, indoor parties at night and its usage will range from single to group portraits. Most of the time I will have external flash attached. Right now I take my 24-70 f2.8L in such events but I am looking for something lightweight and fast. It will be paired with a 5d3 and at times 60d. Oh, I use the 50mm 1.8 II at times and it often hunts for focus in dim lighting conditions where the 24-70 snaps on to the target almost instantly. I am on the verge of selling the 50mm 1.8 II.

Thanks in advance.

You can set the camera to continuously hunt for focus.... or just give up. My camera is set to give up if focus can not be found....

I am sitting in a poorly lit room with a 60D, a Sigma 30/1.4, a Canon 50/1.8, and a canon 100L2.8. I have tried this both with selecting the center focus point, and by selecting the far right focus point.

For the 50 F1.8.... focused in a second on about 50 percent of the items, both focus points.
For the 30 F1.4.... focused in about a half to 3/4 of a second on about 3/4 of the items, both focus points.
For the 100 F2.8.. focused on about 90 percent of the items in a quarter of a second with both focus points.

Since it is the same room, same lighting, same camera, same settings, same targets.... I think it is safe to say that the choice of lens does affect autofocus and just like the OP, I had a F2.8 lens outperform a F1.8 lens in low light.

[Zlatko]

Looking for a fast lens, mainly for indoor(with low light) use. It will be used in family events, indoor parties at night and its usage will range from single to group portraits. Most of the time I will have external flash attached. Right now I take my 24-70 f2.8L in such events but I am looking for something lightweight and fast.

Based on your specific requirements, I think:

Canon 24/1.4 is too wide for single portraits
Canon 24/2.8 IS is too wide for single portraits and not fast
Canon 28/1.8 is good but not sharp in corners
Canon 28/2 has buzzy old autofocus
Canon 28/2.8 IS is not a fast lens but works well with flash
Canon 35/2 has buzzy old autofocus
Canon 35/2 IS (the new one) seems to offer the best combination of focal length, aperture, size, weight & image quality
Canon 35/1.4 is excellent but big & heavy
Sigma 35/1.4 is excellent but big & heavy
Canon 40/2.8 is not a fast lens but works well with flash
50mm are not wide enough for some group portraits

[RustyTheGeek]

Sigma 35mm 1.4 or Canon 24L II

Either would be great.

+1    I have the 24L, very nice.  Had the 35L once.  Both great, just depends on how you shoot.  Also, don't rule out a 16-35 f/2.8 zoom.  Very handy indoors unless you need the extra stop of the primes.  Someone mentioned the 28/1.8 USM.  Love that lens too, it was my first prime, it works great esp on FF and it's affordable.

[RS2021]

Someone mentioned the 28/1.8 USM.  Love that lens too, it was my first prime, it works great esp on FF and it's affordable.

+1  on the EF 28mm f/1.8 ....takes flack from some but it is a great fast lens at a reasonable price on FF...highly under-rated.

If you have the funds, then of course 35L is the classic indoors low light lens of choice.

[robbymack]

Bang for your hard earned buck its tough to beat the 50 1.8 but the 1.4 is a decent upgrade, just don't expect to be blown away. I'd say the ideal choice right now would be the new sigma 35mm if it fits the budget. I also think the 28 1.8 is better on ff than it is on crop. At least that was my experience. I sold mine a few months back because for my use a 2.8 zoom in this range is a better fit.

[killswitch]

Honestly, with the wording you've used, the way it's interpreted for me is that you're assuming poor technique before thinking about the limitations of the lens. Instead of opening up with the question, you start with a statement like "This may have more to do with the way you shoot and focus.." And then you said "I rarely have hunting issues with any of my lenses.., especially with the 24L II or 50L.".
That's like someone saying my Toyota Corolla can't reach speeds of xxx, and then you come in and say well it must be your bad driving because my Ferrari can do that fine.


Also note the OP stated that the focus hunting is only a problem with the 50 1.8, his 24-70 snaps on focus almost instantly, so clearly, not a problem of poor technique.

Alright. My bad. It was never my intention to mean anything negative, especially to killswitch. Apology to you if you thought I meant differently. Should have worded my thought better. Guess I'll shut up and get back to focusing on my own work...

It's all good. I tried both 50 1.8 and the 24-70L on the same subject, same lighting conditions, focal length for 24-70 was 50mm, made sure the minimum focus distance was met for both the lens, shot in manual mode, used center focus point to lock and in slightly tricky situation (where contrast is a bit low, dim light). The 24-70L fared better in locking on to the subject (no surprise) than the 50 mil.

[killswitch]

Great suggestions folks. Thanks a lot. So a 35 1.4 seems to be the pick. I think I will also give a 50 1.4 a try. Perhaps rent them out over the weekend.

[bholliman]

I've found the 35mm focal length on a FF camera to be too wide for most of my indoor photography.  Its great for group shots, but unflattering for shots of individuals as you are forced to get close for good framing.

Last weekend I used both my 35L and 50 1.4 on my 6D for pictures at a party and later at a large family event.  Despite the 50 1.4 being inferior to the 35L optically, I generally liked the majority of the 50mm shots better, especially of individuals.

I found myself wishing I had an 85, 100 or 135mm prime for better shots of individuals.  I'm considering selling my 35L and using the money to apply toward a prime in the 85-135 focal length range to use for shooting indoor events and portraits along with the 50 1.4.