What's the best lens for low light (weddings, museums, etc...)

[lexar123]

I am looking to expand my lens for some low light capability on my Canon t2i. I will have several weddings this summer but also general things like museums, restaurants, etc...

I already have the Canon 15-85, which is a great lens, but not meant for low light and indoor shooting.

I read that Canon 17-55 is fabulous but I don't want to spend that much considering this will not be my main walk around lens but more of a supplement. I am looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which has very good reviews and is ~$400.

There are 2 versions
TAMRON 17-50mm XR f/2.8 Di II
and
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD

The VC is about $100 more but I heard that its not as sharp as the non VC.
I do not typically shoot with a tripod and this is going to be used mainly for indoors and low light so is VC needed for that? Should I go for the VC option? do you think it will make a difference?

There is also the Sigma 17-50 OS.. is that worth the extra $200 over the Tamron?

[Aggy]

The non VC version is the way to go. As you said it's a sharper lens. You won't need VC as much at that focal length anyways. I've been using the tamron 28-75 for the last couple of months after selling my tamron 17-50 and I like the focal length better as I find I don't usually need the wider shots. It depends on what type of shooting you do though.

Are you willing to go the prime route? An 85mm f1.8 or a 50mm f1.4 would be good choices. You'll get better low light shots with primes with their wider apertures, but you probably know that already ;)




I am looking to expand my lens for some low light capability on my Canon t2i. I will have several weddings this summer but also general things like museums, restaurants, etc...

I already have the Canon 15-85, which is a great lens, but not meant for low light and indoor shooting.

I read that Canon 17-55 is fabulous but I don't want to spend that much considering this will not be my main walk around lens but more of a supplement. I am looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which has very good reviews and is ~$400.

There are 2 versions
TAMRON 17-50mm XR f/2.8 Di II
and
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD

The VC is about $100 more but I heard that its not as sharp as the non VC.
I do not typically shoot with a tripod and this is going to be used mainly for indoors and low light so is VC needed for that? Should I go for the VC option? do you think it will make a difference?

There is also the Sigma 17-50 OS.. is that worth the extra $200 over the Tamron?

[thelefteyeguy]

I am looking to expand my lens for some low light capability on my Canon t2i. I will have several weddings this summer but also general things like museums, restaurants, etc...

I already have the Canon 15-85, which is a great lens, but not meant for low light and indoor shooting.

I read that Canon 17-55 is fabulous but I don't want to spend that much considering this will not be my main walk around lens but more of a supplement. I am looking at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which has very good reviews and is ~$400.

There are 2 versions
TAMRON 17-50mm XR f/2.8 Di II
and
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II VC LD

The VC is about $100 more but I heard that its not as sharp as the non VC.
I do not typically shoot with a tripod and this is going to be used mainly for indoors and low light so is VC needed for that? Should I go for the VC option? do you think it will make a difference?

There is also the Sigma 17-50 OS.. is that worth the extra $200 over the Tamron?

unfortunately neither.

your second camera having a 50mm f/1.2 to 1.8 depending on budget or a 85mm f/1.4 would be ideal. The primary camera should be shorter with flash

[neltron3030]

Do you already own a flash?

[lexar123]

I have a 50 f/1.8 prime but do not own a flash.

I don't really light flash shots so much and would rather use natural light. Also museums don't really allow flashes and weddings are usually too big of a room to take action shots with flashes. (for Portraits I have the 50 f1.8)

I was looking at the 430EX but then thought maybe the f2.8 lens would be the way to go instead?

[greenmoon]

Regarding flashes, I think the reason many people hate them is because the built-in flashes in most (all?) DSLR's are complete garbage. External flashes, perhaps with a warming filter over them, may look much better. Speaking of built-in flashes, I had a chance to try out Fuji X100 last year and was amazed at how great its built-in flash worked. It looked completely natural for night-time people photography. No overblown highlights, no deer in headlights look, no weird colours. Moral of the story is not all flashes are created equal, but good ones do exist.

[demi2004]

Don't be afraid to use flash, If you are shooting weddings, you WILL need it. There are only a few photographers in the world that can get away without one,but they really good and shoots hundreds of weddings.
Learn to use flash and you will love it. Take a few courses if you need to. Flash is one of the greatests things you can have,if you know how to use it. I also mostly use natural light,yet some shots do call for some fill flash to make an image better.

Also, 430ex is a nice flash,but it's not very powerful. You need 580EX(canon) if you are serious. Other alternative is a Younguo 560 series flashes. They are ~60bux yet have the same power as Canon 580s. I use those myself.

[hdom]

Flash should help, most people just flash directly and that is why you don't like it.

For museum, a tripod/monopod isn't a bad idea.

[NEMESIS_2008]

Flash does not work well in museums since most artifacts are behind glass, which can cause glare. You will need a good prime like the 50 1.4 or 28 1.8

[stasbasko]

Canon 50 1.8 is pretty good . Install a Magic lantern and some cinema profiles. Canon gives very good look with this obe

[Dwight10]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is good but i think TAMRON 17-50mm XR f/2.8 Di II has good quality with cheaper price than Canon.

[lexar123]

My question is whether the Tamron 17-50 non VC would be good in low light with moving objects and not using tripod? or should I go for the Tamron 17-50 VC or Sigma 17-50 OS?

Does anyone have recommendations?

[MP3_SKY]

Low light, no tripod, moving objects, worse combinations!
I had a Non VC Tamron 17-50 before, it does a good job outdoor with sunlight, but I won't count on it especially at low lighting environment.

[forthewinwin]

Get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4!

It fits the role perfectly. Don't get the Tamron 17-50, the f/2.8 won't give you enough light to use indoors without resorting to high ISO, which will hamper your image quality, unless you absolutely need the zoom range and/or plan to use it primarily outdoors.

I have some old pictures I took with it when I was younger... it's a fun lens to use. The ultra-thin depth of field of f/1.4 can be addicting. Once you learn how to use it well, you'll be addicted to prime lenses... lol

Here are some (not all f/1.4, but all f/2.8 and down):

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/IMG8995-1280/1136460870_n3GA7-M.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-XgtkRGm/0/M/IMG8246-1680-M.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/Nature/Nature/i-ChCGzMW/0/M/IMG9642-M.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-59gWhwL/0/L/IMG9367-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-RqcRMDC/0/L/IMG9327-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-fS8bDWP/0/L/IMG9353-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-ZjhVzpD/0/XL/IMG9357-XL.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-Ss4HD7H/0/XL/IMG8226-XL.jpg

Ok.. aside from this one. This was at f/4.5 I believe.
http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-Lnb4fsS/0/L/IMG1659-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-qLC2Q3q/0/XL/IMG0431-1440-XL.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-dGXFHwv/0/L/IMG2198-1680-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/i-k6h3qV5/0/L/IMG9205-1680-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/IMG7703-1280/1136458961_GkL5N-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/IMG5333-1280/1136457723_8PdP9-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/IMG9084-1280/1136461666_AUji5-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/People/People/IMG9086-1280/1136461821_thDzv-L.jpg

http://forthewinwin.smugmug.com/Nature/Nature/i-FXcH9x7/0/L/IMG0857-L.jpg

[lexar123]

Nice pictures!

I already have a 50 f1.8 and a 15-85 f/3.5-5.6. The pictures you have above can be taken with those lenses very easily.

I am looking for low light (museum, church wedding, party at home etc...) I find 50mm a little to long in the house.... Maybe the 30 is not a bad idea! but I am not so good at primes and was leaning towards the 17-50 zoom.
Do you have any indoor low light pictures of the 17-50?

[stasbasko]

well, for me zooms never works inside, picture is much worse than with primes. i try to shoot with both, but pictures from zooms never wins