A good indoor lens.

[granodemostasa]

it's another afternoon to evening in the city by the bay. I'm going to class, getting out of discussion, when I see a beautiful tree against a lit stone building. The sun is going down... I prepare, set up, click, hold... and when i get back home, I realize it was too slow... the image isn't as sharp, i'm shaking too much.

I meet a group of friends at a restaurant, I take pictures as they come in, but they wink too much when my flash goes off. The light around it isn't bad, but being indoors is a disaster for this lens.

I tell my camera not to flash. I get two results, either it's kinda dark and the guy sitting next to Teresa (my subject) isn't even visible. Or... worse things happen.

In short, I need a faster lens.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=8940

basically. I want one of these two... I'm leaning for the first one, but the second IS an L lens.

what do you all think.

[grawk]

F4 isn't fast enough to be a good indoor lens. You want 2.8 at a minimum.

it's another afternoon to evening in the city by the bay. I'm going to class, getting out of discussion, when I see a beautiful tree against a lit stone building. The sun is going down... I prepare, set up, click, hold... and when i get back home, I realize it was too slow... the image isn't as sharp, i'm shaking too much.

I meet a group of friends at a restaurant, I take pictures as they come in, but they wink too much when my flash goes off. The light around it isn't bad, but being indoors is a disaster for this lens.

I tell my camera not to flash. I get two results, either it's kinda dark and the guy sitting next to Teresa (my subject) isn't even visible. Or... worse things happen.

In short, I need a faster lens.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=12955

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=8940

basically. I want one of these two... I'm leaning for the first one, but the second IS an L lens.

what do you all think.

[JBLoudG20]

F4 isn't fast enough to be a good indoor lens. You want 2.8 at a minimum.

A nice, inexpensive option i sthe 50mm f/1.8 (or 1.4 if you don't mind the added cost). Yeah its a prime, but its real sharp, and fast as postjack's women rejection rate.

[grawk]

I almost always prefer primes. Better lenses, just decide what kind of shooting you're gonna do, and commit.

[granodemostasa]

what do you mean by that?

[granodemostasa]

the thing that bothers me about the fixed lenses is that my camera is a 20d, and i would have to back away considerably more than I would if I were taking at 17 and not 50.

[grawk]

I really like the sigma 20mm ex dg.

[granodemostasa]

Amazon.com: Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX DG RF Aspherical Wide Angle Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

very interesting lens... i'd jump, but I've not used that type of wide angle before. I'm gonna go do some research now..

Amazon.com: Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Electronics

this one also seems promising, and it's the same amount of $

[grawk]

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Aspherical-Angle-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005RKSK/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1197513687&sr=8-1

very interesting lens... i'd jump, but I've not used that type of wide angle before. I'm gonna go do some research now..

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-28mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WU/ref=pd_bbs_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1197514275&sr=8-4

this one also seems promising, and it's the same amount of $

The ex dg isn't distorting, at least not with a 1.5 or greater crop camera. I loved mine, took spectacular pictures. I'm trying to dig up some shots I took with it.

[granodemostasa]

hi, actually. yea, i'm seriously down to these two lenses. with this lens taking the lead for right now... although the cannon is tempting because on amazon it's one day shipping right now.

[JBLoudG20]

Amazon.com: Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX DG Aspherical Macro Large Aperture Wide Angle Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

I'm looking at that for my next lens purchase.

[iceman94]

I started off with a 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 combo...it was pretty awesome. The 17-40/4L won't cut it unless you're going to use flash, but if you're going to do flash properly you should get an external unit, and then bulk goes up like whoa. If you're willing to accept weight/size, you should go with a flash even with a 2.8 lens, you'll get much better image quality once you learn how to diffuse/bounce (I got a ways go to on that one).

I started out with primes, but now I love zooms. I think primes are very good to learn composition on and the cheaper ones are a great deal, but once you miss enough shots you get sick of it. Depends on what you're shooting, of course, but fluid moments like people call for zoom. OMFG I would kill for a properly done Canon 120-300/2.8L IS

Also, BTW, last time I checked the 28/1.8 was a dud. Newer samples might be better (Canon is a bitch at getting a WA correct), but seriously search about the lens beforehand. The Sigmas are interesting, I don't remember much about them. Go in a store and demo focal lengths to see what's most comfortable for you, 20 might be a tad wide. Or not.

[iceman94]

BTW, what ISO are you shooting at? Crank that sucker to 1600+ and expose as spot-on as possible, and with some noise reduction you can do remarkably well. Here's what a 1D Mark II (20D performs similarly noise-wise) can do at ISO 3200, 1/500s, f/2.8 on a 70-200/2.8-

That's in a really crappy arena (Northwestern's Welsh-Ryan), and simulates other indoor conditions well outside of a really dim bar/restaurant. But, there you don't need 1/500s for sports, so you get more headroom.

[JBLoudG20]

I have a feeling, at least for me, 20 would be too wide. 50 was too close for most of my shots, but damn the canon 50/1.8 is so cheap it doesn't hurt to keep it.

[iceman94]

I also fooled around with a 35 for a time, and it was still a bit too tight on a 1.6. I think 24-28 is the sweet spot. Then again, some people love the 17-21 end of the L zoom, and I feel uncomfortable at anything wider than 70.

[granodemostasa]

being a 20d, my 18 is about the length of a 28ish or so on my T2 Rebel. The basic problem i have is that I still have the kit lens, and that thing just isn't doing anything justice (3.5-5.6), so even a 2.8 would do remarkably well for my needs. The lighting in the buldings where i'm shooting is also very bad (bay area buildings are remarkably dark inside).

that being said, I'm talking to a dude (craigslist) in my local area and I could get the sigma 20mm for 350, which seems like a deal to me, and saves me the whole shipping and waiting bit.

[grawk]

BTW, what ISO are you shooting at? Crank that sucker to 1600+ and expose as spot-on as possible, and with some noise reduction you can do remarkably well. Here's what a 1D Mark II (20D performs similarly noise-wise) can do at ISO 3200, 1/500s, f/2.8 on a 70-200/2.8-

That's in a really crappy arena (Northwestern's Welsh-Ryan), and simulates other indoor conditions well outside of a really dim bar/restaurant. But, there you don't need 1/500s for sports, so you get more headroom.

That's hardly a fair comparison. You're taking a high end pro full frame camera, and then taking a crop, and shrinking the result down. Of course you don't see noise. Take it the other way. Crop down to 1:1 pixels on screen at the same 3200 iso and see what your result is I'd bet that there's a lot going on to make that image look that good that the typical amateur with a 20D wouldn't be able to pull off, even with the exact same lens. (I also bet that's a pro lens).

[laxx]

I'm very comfortable shooting at 50mm on my 40D, so I ended up with a 50 f1.4. There's not much said about the Sigma 20 and 28 f1.8's, but the 30 f1.4 is very popular, and was another lense I was debating, but I think I want the Tokina 12-24 f4.

Review the pics you currently take and figure out what's the most used focal length. If you're shooting alot at 17-2x, but cropping when you get home, get a 30/50 prime and just compose better. If you're not cropping your pics, I think you should pick up the 17-55 f2.8 IS. f2.8 isn't enough for low light no flash IMO, but it'll replace your kit lense completely and not just for 1 aspect of photography (indoor shots).

But in the end, I'd say get a flash. I used a 580 EX with the kit lense for a bit and it works remarkably well.

[tiberian]

i had a great time with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS on a digital rebel xti. the 3-stop IS should be able to take care of your indoor photographic needs, if not crank up the iso and use noise ninja...YMMV of course.

[Iron_Dreamer]

As a Nikon guy, I'd say be glad that you can get an F2.8 "normal" zoom that has IS. I am definitely realizing the benefits of VR, and not even on an F2.8 lens. So long as your subjects aren't moving, you'll be set.

[iceman94]

That's hardly a fair comparison. You're taking a high end pro full frame camera, and then taking a crop, and shrinking the result down. Of course you don't see noise. Take it the other way. Crop down to 1:1 pixels on screen at the same 3200 iso and see what your result is I'd bet that there's a lot going on to make that image look that good that the typical amateur with a 20D wouldn't be able to pull off, even with the exact same lens. (I also bet that's a pro lens).

A 1D Mark II is not full-frame, it's a 1.3 crop. The 20D's sensor performs similarly with high ISO- there was a time when a 20D was a choice budget second body to the 1D2. You lose build, autofocus (huge), framerate, and even more crop, but the sensor itself is similar. Furthermore, while the pro lens- a 70-200 f/2.8 L- does have slightly better image quality, the main point about it being pro is that it lets you zoom over the whole range at f/2.8- a cheap prime at f/2.8 is actually quite similar.

What's going on here is postprocessing. Shoot in RAW, set the white balance correctly in the RAW converter, increase contrast by pinching the ends of the histogram, and good use of Noise Ninja. 100% view is NOT an accurate way of seeing what the final print will look like- 50% is a far better way to judge print quality. I've found noise to be more perceptible on-screen rather than in print, too. Also, a lot of people end up just using photos at web sizes anyway, but seriously, I haven't been able to tell much difference between web and 4x6 for the times that I've printed.

Good post-processing also does NOT come in $600 Photoshop- I prefer Bibble, but there are a few good RAW converters out there for a lot cheaper than PS. There is a learning curve, but key basic points that make a huge difference aren't that bad, really. PS is good to have if you want to get serious, but it is by no means necessary.

IS is great, but its easy to let the shutter go down too far and then you can have motion blur- its more hit or miss, but when its hit its really nice. The flash is really the best "quality" way to go, but then you run into the huge camera size, which could just be annoying and a social fail. I forgot about the Sigma 30/1.4- that might also be really sweet.

[grawk]

I disagree with one thing strongly: L glass makes a HUGE difference. Good glass makes more of a difference than sensor, noise, post processing, etc. It is the #1 thing in making an image really pop. There's a reason why 2 lenses with the same specs, one is $200, and one is $1000.

A 1D Mark II is not full-frame, it's a 1.3 crop. The 20D's sensor performs similarly with high ISO- there was a time when a 20D was a choice budget second body to the 1D2. You lose build, autofocus (huge), framerate, and even more crop, but the sensor itself is similar. Furthermore, while the pro lens- a 70-200 f/2.8 L- does have slightly better image quality, the main point about it being pro is that it lets you zoom over the whole range at f/2.8- a cheap prime at f/2.8 is actually quite similar.

What's going on here is postprocessing. Shoot in RAW, set the white balance correctly in the RAW converter, increase contrast by pinching the ends of the histogram, and good use of Noise Ninja. 100% view is NOT an accurate way of seeing what the final print will look like- 50% is a far better way to judge print quality. I've found noise to be more perceptible on-screen rather than in print, too. Also, a lot of people end up just using photos at web sizes anyway, but seriously, I haven't been able to tell much difference between web and 4x6 for the times that I've printed.

Good post-processing also does NOT come in $600 Photoshop- I prefer Bibble, but there are a few good RAW converters out there for a lot cheaper than PS. There is a learning curve, but key basic points that make a huge difference aren't that bad, really. PS is good to have if you want to get serious, but it is by no means necessary.

IS is great, but its easy to let the shutter go down too far and then you can have motion blur- its more hit or miss, but when its hit its really nice. The flash is really the best "quality" way to go, but then you run into the huge camera size, which could just be annoying and a social fail. I forgot about the Sigma 30/1.4- that might also be really sweet.

[iceman94]

I disagree with one thing strongly: L glass makes a HUGE difference. Good glass makes more of a difference than sensor, noise, post processing, etc. It is the #1 thing in making an image really pop. There's a reason why 2 lenses with the same specs, one is $200, and one is $1000.

Good glass does make a big difference. Also remember that the price difference also comes from other things like prestige markup, build quality, and especially either being able to zoom at a constant aperture or having a maximum aperture a stop or two faster than the non-L. But there are non-L primes that match L zooms, and really so what if you can't match, coming close is pretty good for the $.

The main point of me posting the image was an example of noise at high ISO. Maybe not the *most* representative, but still an example of what could be done. I didn't have anything else on hand to post.

[granodemostasa]

I think I'm going to get two lens: the canon 50, and the Sigma 20.