Need advice on indoor low light lens choices.

[KKCFamilyman]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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?

Yes, get the flash.

 

[M.ST]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

My suggestion is to buy those 3 lenses.

 

[CJRodgers]

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]

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

 

[gtog]

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]

Yes, get the flash.

+1

Also, learn to love high-iso

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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]

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]

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.