Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2011, 6:43 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 146
Default Indoor lens suggestion?

Hi, I am looking for a low light capable not too expensive lens..
Current set up,
T2i
430 ex ii
18-55
55-250
50 f1.8
I was in the market for a macro lens, but might postpone it as I find I need this lens more.
What are your thoughts on the sigma 17-50 OS?

Thank you
marubex is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 27, 2011, 7:24 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The Sigma 17-50/2.8 is probably the best stabilized large aperture, standard zoom lens in the sub- $1,000 price range. If you can do without the stabilization (and I see you have a flash, so you very well might) the unstabilized (non-VC) Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better.

BTW, there's also the stabilized Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 that's pretty good. Plus, it's a 1:2.7 macro lens.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2011, 9:24 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Hi marubex

Interesting what you wrote...

In some the 50mm f1.8 would probably be your best 'low light capable' lens at the moment, as it's the one with the largest aperture. I have that lens, and it's a nice lens (especially for the price) - however to me the focus (both slow / noisy and quite inaccurate at times- which can be critical in low light / shallow depth of field) is its weak point.

On the other hand, your 18-55 isn't too bad either (if it has IS - particularly), for indoor (eg architecture).

TCav has given you some good advice. The Canon 17-55mm is praised by many as a good low light zoom (it's got USM, has IS and is sharp). Though of course it costs a lot.

It depends... do you want a zoom 'limited' to f2.8 or a prime (which are available in much larger apertures)? What will you be focussing on - people, objects, architecture? (that will determine your needs, particularly focal length).

I'm waiting (patiently?) for Canon to hopefully put out a new 50mm f1.8 - one that has USM focussing (I've decided some years ago I won't buy any lens that doesn't have USM focussing). To me, that would be a great low light lens (I like the 50mm perspective on a crop camera). On my 7D the current 50mm f1.8 does well... but it's focus isn't bullet proof.

The other criteria for a good (indoor) low light lens are: sharp wide open and good bokeh (with minimal distortions, and CA). If Canon were to release a new lens like that I'd buy it. If it has IS ... all the better! (The Canon 100mm f2.8 macro L hints more medium primes might get IS in the future?!)

I have a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro (non L) - which actually does quite good in medium light. In some ways I prefer it over my Canon 50mm f1.8 because of the focus speed and accuracy. It also makes a decent portrait lens (though a bit long).

Maybe the Canon 60mm f2.8 macro is another lens you could consider... it's sharp, relatively good price, has USM focus, makes both a great macro, v good portrait lens ....

Let us know how you go....

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2011, 3:02 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,748
Default

your setup is what i had I got the sigma 17-70 its great lens for the price
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2011, 1:18 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 146
Default

Thanks for your input. I would be using it for people i guess 80-85% and the rest would be some "scenery" and things that grab my atention lol!
I find the 50 too tight for some of the indoor stuff. So my thinking was a zoom unless your think it won't be much of an improvement over the kit lens (today I had to shoot at ISO 1600 and above). I also have to shoot some other stuff indoor where a tele would be needed, but can't afford a 70-200 f2.8 either in price or weight.
Any recomendations for the needs above would be greatly appreciated...
marubex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2011, 2:37 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

The kit lens isn't bad, though it isn't very fast. Better lenses will be faster, but also more expensive.

Does the kit lens have a zoom range that would work for you if it were faster?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2011, 3:21 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 146
Default

Tcav, yes, I am quite happy with the kit lens for outdoors, and it is really light...
Yes, if it were faster I guess it would be ideal for my indoor in tight places stuff. And would need to compliment it with something longer for "far away" indoor stuff
marubex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2011, 5:59 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marubex View Post
Tcav, yes, I am quite happy with the kit lens for outdoors, and it is really light...
Yes, if it were faster I guess it would be ideal for my indoor in tight places stuff.
Then I'll refer you to my earlier message. But remember: Larger apertures mean more glass which mean bigger and heavier, not to mention more expensive.

BTW, have you tried your kit lens with your flash?

Quote:
Originally Posted by marubex View Post
And would need to compliment it with something longer for "far away" indoor stuff
How big is your house?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 28, 2011, 6:51 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 146
Default

yes, I have tried the kit lens with flash. But there are times when flash is not allowed and that is when I have found my self shooting at pretty high ISO.
Oh, the far away stuff is for school events, and some outdoor night- twilight things.
marubex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2011, 5:51 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marubex View Post
yes, I have tried the kit lens with flash. But there are times when flash is not allowed and that is when I have found my self shooting at pretty high ISO.
Then any of the f/2.8 zooms I mentioned in my earlier post should do the job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marubex View Post
Oh, the far away stuff is for school events, and some outdoor night- twilight things.
For that, you'll need at least a 70-200mm f/2.8.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:16 PM.