DSLRUsers.com

Gidday,

I'm looking at getting a prime lens for general low light shots, eg weddings and indoor photography (family etc). It seems that most people here use a 50mm 1.4.

I borrowed a Canon 50mm 1.8 recently for a wedding and wasn't overly impressed, but being a complete amature I really don't know how to get the best from this lens in these lighting situations. Some shots were fine, others poor and the focusing was quite slow (no external flash used).

My options at the moment are:
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 30mm 1.4

I would also use the lens for landscapes / panorama's. I don't know what is drawing me to the Sigma, just from reading the Fredmedia Forumns I guess. The Sigma seems to be twice as heavy as the Canon.

Can anyone give me some good advice for my purchase?

Warwick,

Do you know anybody who has examples of these lenses? If you can borrow an example of each and run a few tests, you';ll get some better information upon which you can make a decision.

Part of your decision making process needs to be consideration of the low-light capabilities, along with a cost-benefit analysis of the price variation between between the faster and slower lenses, and your assessment of whether that extra performance - which isn't really a lot - is worth the added expense.

That said, you also need to consider the resolution of the lenses, and I'd expect that, stopped down to f5.6 - f11, both of the Canon lenses would be stellar performers, but the 1.4 would be the better of the two.

Certainly, that's how it is in the Nikkor world, with the proviso that the 1.8 is a damn good perfromer, and excellent value for money.

Have you considered fast zooms? These days I take most of my indoor/low light pics with the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX, and an SB-800 + LightsphereII diffuser and I'm very happy with the combo, very sharp.

Usually you're going to want to stop down to at least f/2.8 anyway (unless you're an 'extremely low light without flash' kinda guy), so if you can get something which is sharp at f/2.8-f/4, it might also be an option?

Of course the other option is to leave the darkside and come across to Nikon!

Bob.

,

Wocka wrote:I borrowed a Canon 50mm 1.8 recently for a wedding and wasn't overly impressed, but being a complete amature I really don't know how to get the best from this lens in these lighting situations. Some shots were fine, others poor and the focusing was quite slow (no external flash used).

My options at the moment are:
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 50mm 1.4
Sigma 30mm 1.4

I have an EF 50mm/1.8 Mk.I (the old version with the metal mount and the focus distance scale) which is roughly equivalent in optics/speed/etc to the current plastic 50mm/1.8 Mk.II. Optically I would have to say that it's a wonderful lens, but the focus motor is loud and slow (especially in comparison to the ring-USM motors on my other lenses). I've never tried to use it for a wedding.

The EF 50mm/1.4 USM lens is a lot more expensive, but is a wonderful lens. The ring USM is fast and quiet, and the 1/3rd of a stop increase in light can come in handy. Every little bit of light will help the AF, and the faster response of the AF motor can in fact help the accuracy also. Also the ring USM provides you with full-time manual focus override, which (depending on your technique) can help a lot in low-light conditions.

Both of those lenses obviously have an 80mm-equivalent field of view. The Sigma 30mm/1.4 DC HSM has a field of view equivalent to 48mm, which seems quite nice. The HSM is equivalent to Canon's ring USM in that it also gives you full-time manual focus override. Apart from the fact that the Sigma is a DC lens which will not work properly if you later upgrade to a full-frame camera, on the face of it the only difference between the Sigma 30mm/1.4 and the EF 50mm/1.4 is the different focal length.
I haven't used the Sigma myself, but if I was in the market for a normal lens and I had ~AU$700 burning a hole in my pocket I'd give it a serious look.


Obviously in any low-light situation you need to be conscious of what you're trying to focus on: the textures of faces or the edges of jackets can be useful in wedding situations. And as with any photographic situation, don't forget to use an appropriate hood to help with contrast/etc.

Dave,

Thanks for the reply, this is very helpful information.
I can't see myself upgrading to a full frame camera anytime soon. I guess the 50mm allows me to be further away from the subject to take the shot.

I'm not looking at professional wedding photography, just being able to take some noce shots of freinds etc is all I'm after.

Cheers

I have the 50 1.8 and while it is good, it is not that good. My 70-200 2.8 blows it away, optically.

But for the price ($140) it is simply oustanding in the bang for buck equation. It is cheap - plastic build, dodgy and noisey AF etc. But the optics are good for the price.

Since you sound like you have a few more $$$ to throw around then the 1.4 may be worth investigating.

Were you shooting wide-open? The 1.8 does sharpen up quite a bit at f2.5 and onwards.

I agree with Dion in so far as bang for your buck the 50 f1.8 is it . They are dirt cheap .I have one and its the cheapest sharp canon lense you can buy .The main drawback with the 50 is to me its an in between focal length on a 1.6 crop cam .Not short enough for a walk around and not wide enough for landscape .
I haven't heard about the 30 mm sigma but it may be worth checking out if those three are your options as paying the extra bucks for the 50 f1.4 is only really worth it if you have a specifiic use for it .I think you'll find the 50 very limited . Just my two cents worth .