f4 IS or f2.8 lens for low light? Which is better?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tobtoh@gmail.com, Dec 14, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.

    Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?

    I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    conditions?
     
    , Dec 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bhup Guest

    best to go for a cheap 50mm f1.8 or even a f1.4 and you will be able to
    hand hold

    --
    All outgoing emails are scanned with Norton Antivirus 2004
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    > conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    > flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    > hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.
    >
    > Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    > is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?
    >
    > I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    > stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    > would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    > conditions?
    >
     
    Bhup, Dec 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Skip M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    > conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    > flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    > hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.
    >
    > Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    > is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?
    >
    > I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    > stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    > would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    > conditions?
    >

    If your subject has the decency to hold still, or to be inanimate, then the
    IS will let you get better, or at least close to, performance compared to
    the f2.8. IS will give you at least 2 stops advantage, and if you're
    careful, 3 stops. So, at the long end, with the 28-135, you're at f5.6, two
    stops slower than the f2.8 lens. Slight advantage to the IS lens. At 28mm,
    you're at f3.5, or only 2/3 stop slower, so there's a big advantage to the
    IS lens.
    BUT! If you're subject is moving, then the extra stop of the f2.8 lens is a
    big advantage. And you have more control over your depth of field, a nice
    touch when shooting portraits.
    What you haven't touched upon is overall image quality. My 24-70 f2.8L is a
    much nicer lens, optically, than my 28-135 IS, but the IS lens outperforms
    it from 71mm to 135, only to be outperformed from 24mm to 27mm... In other
    words, there are other things to consider.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Dec 14, 2005
    #3
  4. Paul Furman Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    >>conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    >>flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    >>hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.

    >
    > If your subject has the decency to hold still, or to be inanimate, then the
    > IS will let you get better, or at least close to, performance compared to
    > the f2.8. IS will give you at least 2 stops advantage, and if you're
    > careful, 3 stops. So, at the long end, with the 28-135, you're at f5.6, two
    > stops slower than the f2.8 lens. Slight advantage to the IS lens. At 28mm,
    > you're at f3.5, or only 2/3 stop slower, so there's a big advantage to the
    > IS lens.
    > BUT! If you're subject is moving, then the extra stop of the f2.8 lens is a
    > big advantage. And you have more control over your depth of field, a nice
    > touch when shooting portraits.


    But if the conditions require more depth in focus, the IS will suit better.


    > What you haven't touched upon is overall image quality. My 24-70 f2.8L is a
    > much nicer lens, optically, than my 28-135 IS, but the IS lens outperforms
    > it from 71mm to 135, only to be outperformed from 24mm to 27mm... In other
    > words, there are other things to consider.
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 14, 2005
    #4
  5. Tobtoh Guest

    Thanks Skip (and Paul) for your comments.

    Most of my shots will be of inanimate objects which is why I've leaned
    towards the IS in the past.

    Whilst my question was in general, i am currently debating between the
    24-70 f2.8L and the 24-105 f4L IS. I'd like the extra range, but was
    concerned about the low light performance. When I was travelling in the
    US, I visted Heast's Castle in California and was trying to take a
    photo in the main hall (really dim lighting, no flash allowed) and even
    with IS I could not get a good hand-held shot. Hence why I was thinking
    about a f2.8 lens ... but then again, based on your explanation, i
    probably wouldn't have been able to take the shot with the 2.8 either.

    Then the next question is whether the image quality of the 24-105 f4L
    IS is much better than the 28-235 IS to warrant me trading up .... :)
     
    Tobtoh, Dec 14, 2005
    #5
  6. Tobtoh Guest

    Thanks Bhup.

    I did consider that option - but the very cheapest prime lens don't
    seem to have as good image quality as the zooms (at least according to
    the various reviews I have read), and the decent primes are a few
    hundred bucks in which case I would rather use that money on getting a
    higher quality zoom.

    Also, I'm trying to keep my lens collection to 3 to make it easier
    during travel ... so I'm focussing on getting a wide-angle zoom
    (something like 16-35/17-40 or thereabouts), 'standard' zoom (something
    like 24-70/24-105/28-135) and telephoto (70-200/70-300).
     
    Tobtoh, Dec 14, 2005
    #6
  7. Skip M Guest

    "Paul Furman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skip M wrote:
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    >>>conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    >>>flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    >>>hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.

    >>
    >> If your subject has the decency to hold still, or to be inanimate, then
    >> the IS will let you get better, or at least close to, performance
    >> compared to the f2.8. IS will give you at least 2 stops advantage, and
    >> if you're careful, 3 stops. So, at the long end, with the 28-135, you're
    >> at f5.6, two stops slower than the f2.8 lens. Slight advantage to the IS
    >> lens. At 28mm, you're at f3.5, or only 2/3 stop slower, so there's a big
    >> advantage to the IS lens.
    >> BUT! If you're subject is moving, then the extra stop of the f2.8 lens is
    >> a big advantage. And you have more control over your depth of field, a
    >> nice touch when shooting portraits.

    >
    > But if the conditions require more depth in focus, the IS will suit
    > better.


    True, if you're not using a tripod, which, admitedly, I seldom do. Which is
    one reason I have an IS lens. But, by "control," I meant in all directions,
    the f2.8 will get just a deep, but at the sacrifice of shutter speed, which
    the IS will compensate for, up to a point.
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Dec 14, 2005
    #7
  8. Skip M Guest

    From what I've seen, the 24-105 IS is a considerable improvement over the
    28-135 IS, which is why, sometime early next year, when the finances have
    recovered a bit, I'm buying the former. I'm still concerned about the lack
    of reach on the "L" IS lens, 30mm can be critical, but it's a stop faster at
    the long end, and has the IS that my 24-70 lacks. Mark bought one of the
    24-105s, and immediately started trying to sell his 24-70. That should tell
    you something about the image quality.
    Here's what Luminous Landscape had to say about your quandary:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "Tobtoh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks Skip (and Paul) for your comments.
    >
    > Most of my shots will be of inanimate objects which is why I've leaned
    > towards the IS in the past.
    >
    > Whilst my question was in general, i am currently debating between the
    > 24-70 f2.8L and the 24-105 f4L IS. I'd like the extra range, but was
    > concerned about the low light performance. When I was travelling in the
    > US, I visted Heast's Castle in California and was trying to take a
    > photo in the main hall (really dim lighting, no flash allowed) and even
    > with IS I could not get a good hand-held shot. Hence why I was thinking
    > about a f2.8 lens ... but then again, based on your explanation, i
    > probably wouldn't have been able to take the shot with the 2.8 either.
    >
    > Then the next question is whether the image quality of the 24-105 f4L
    > IS is much better than the 28-235 IS to warrant me trading up .... :)
    >
     
    Skip M, Dec 14, 2005
    #8
  9. Tobtoh Guest

    Haha - i had just finished typing my earlier reply when I read your
    post in another thread where you said you favoured the 24-105 over the
    28-135 :)

    Thanks for the link! That's exactly the kind of article I've been
    looking for ... I too am a little concerned about the range, but my
    plan is to eventually add a 70-200 or 70-300 to my mix so that should
    take care of that end.
     
    Tobtoh, Dec 14, 2005
    #9
  10. Bhup wrote:

    > best to go for a cheap 50mm f1.8 or even a f1.4 and you will be able to
    > hand hold


    50mm on 300D is probably too long for many indoor shots.

    --
    Stano
     
    Stanislav Meduna, Dec 14, 2005
    #10
  11. Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    > conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    > flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    > hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.
    >
    > Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    > is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?
    >
    > I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    > stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    > would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    > conditions?
    >

    The more light you can get into the sensor, the better the chance you
    will have a good picture. Go for the 2.8 lens.
     
    Ron Hunter, Dec 14, 2005
    #11
  12. In article <>,
    writes
    >I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    >conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    >flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    >hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.
    >
    >Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    >is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?
    >
    >I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    >stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    >would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    >conditions?
    >

    My own view is that you may not be taking the best approach here. I
    enjoy taking pictures of church interiors (using a DSLR, a 35mm film
    SLR, or a rollfilm camera such as my Mamiya 6) and frankly I think that
    hand-held shots at f/2.8 are doomed to disappoint, for two reasons.

    First, the DoF at f/2.8 is inadequate. It is quite important, in any
    decent architectural shot, to get everything sharp (unless you are going
    for some creative, "impressionistic" shot). Second, most church
    interiors are pretty dim, and even at f/2.8 you are likely to find the
    shutter speeds are too low for reliable hand-holding, even using high
    ISO settings and IS. Also, most compacts do not give very good results
    at high ISO settings. Flash is a no-no, not only because it is often
    prohibited, but also because the variation in illumination with distance
    is just unacceptable. (Moving around and "painting with light" can work,
    but only if you can use a tripod, usually itself not allowed.)

    What I prefer to do is to find a suitable surface. For preference, a
    solid horizontal surface such as a font, a chair or a pew should be
    found. Then I use an aperture of f/8 (or maybe f/11 for the Mamiya 6) to
    get an adequate DoF, and usually stick to ISO 100 for best quality. Once
    you get to such long exposures an extra 2 or 4x exposure time is not a
    big deal, unless you get into reciprocity failure with film - most
    modern films are good to 5-10 seconds, and digital sensors do not suffer
    from this defect. 4 seconds at f/8 would be a typical exposure,
    depending of course on the light level. In many ways 4 seconds is a
    better bet than, say, 1/4 second, as it gives any shutter vibrations
    time to die away and not influence sharpness.

    If I cannot find a satisfactory horizontal surface which gives the
    desired view, then I look for a vertical surface such as a wall or a
    pillar. I press the camera back firmly against this and make the
    exposure. If the vertical surface has some tiny ledge on it to give
    vertical location, so much the better, but even without this a firm
    press should give success at least 2 times out of three even for a 4
    second exposure.

    If even that does not work, then I use the floor. Ceilings in particular
    are best captured by laying the camera back-down on the floor and using
    the timer (to allow time to get out of the way). Depending on the
    camera, it may need a small pad to level it. Even a lens cap can serve
    if required. Clearly you have to wait until there are no crowds to get
    in the way and possibly tread on something, but most people are quite
    obliging provided they notice you. A non-too-youthful guy lying on the
    floor tends to be noticed!

    One secret weapon in all of this is the 24mm f/3.5L TS-E lens which is
    my preferred choice for such shots. This is invaluable in avoiding
    converging verticals, and also (less obviously) for removing vast acres
    of floor when I am resting the camera there. If you do like to do a lot
    of church and interior photos, then this lens (not too expensive for
    what it is) would be more use than a bagful of the others mentioned
    earlier in this thread. I would certainly take it, for this work, on its
    own in exchange for every other lens I own put together. The only slight
    drawback, for use on an APS-C sized DSLR (I use a 10D) is that it is not
    quite as wide as I would wish. A 5D (which I will be buying next year)
    will solve that!

    Hope this helps,

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Dec 14, 2005
    #12
  13. Skip M Guest

    "Stanislav Meduna" <> wrote in message
    news:dnoonc$k27$...
    > Bhup wrote:
    >
    >> best to go for a cheap 50mm f1.8 or even a f1.4 and you will be able
    >> to
    >> hand hold

    >
    > 50mm on 300D is probably too long for many indoor shots.
    >
    > --
    > Stano


    But it's great for studio portraiture, being the rough equivalent of an 85mm
    lens on a full 35mm frame camera.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Dec 14, 2005
    #13
  14. Paul Guest

    Ah my friend, you have hit a dilemma. Bigger aperture or IS? The easy
    choice is both, so you have control giving the moment, but as you have asked
    the question then you must be in the situation where you can't justify
    having both.

    Big aperture, you get increased shutter speed, but a shallower depth of
    field.

    IS, you can get a bigger depth of field, but the shutter speed will not stop
    moving subjects as well.

    You can increase ISO, but you get more noise.

    So it comes down to how you want to use it. Inside churches do you take
    mainly wide angle shots, or zoom in on a statue for example? When in dim
    rooms, what are you shooting? People? Wide angle?

    My choice would be Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-70 2,8L, Canon 70-200L IS F2,8, and
    Canon 1.4X converter. With a bit of spare cash, maybe a 300L IS F4 (or 2.8
    if money doesn't worry you). But of course, it is easy to spend other
    peoples money. ;-)

    I am curious where you heard that primes don't have as good image quality as
    zooms. The 50mm 1.8 is a bit light and cheap, but I have never heard anyone
    say that the image quality is poor.



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    > conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    > flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    > hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.
    >
    > Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    > is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?
    >
    > I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    > stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    > would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    > conditions?
    >
     
    Paul, Dec 14, 2005
    #14
  15. no_name Guest

    wrote:

    > I tend to use my DSLR (Canon 300D) quite a bit indoors in low light
    > conditions (eg inside churches, or when travelling, in dim rooms where
    > flash is not permitted). For these situations, I tend to have to take
    > hand-held shots due to time/space constraints.
    >
    > Given this scenario, and assuming all other things are equal on a lens,
    > is it 'better' to go with an f4 IS lens or a f2.8 lens?
    >
    > I've currently got a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the image
    > stabilisation certainly is excellent and proved it's value. However,
    > would a f2.8 lens allow me to take hand-held shots in lower light
    > conditions?
    >


    Stabilization will probably do more for you under your secenario than
    another stop of aperature. If they make an f/2.8 IS lens you might
    consider that (if you can afford it).
     
    no_name, Dec 14, 2005
    #15
  16. no_name Guest

    Skip M wrote:

    > "Stanislav Meduna" <> wrote in message
    > news:dnoonc$k27$...
    >
    >>Bhup wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>best to go for a cheap 50mm f1.8 or even a f1.4 and you will be able
    >>>to
    >>>hand hold

    >>
    >>50mm on 300D is probably too long for many indoor shots.
    >>
    >>--
    >> Stano

    >
    >
    > But it's great for studio portraiture, being the rough equivalent of an 85mm
    > lens on a full 35mm frame camera.
    >


    I don't think the OP is looking for a studio portraiture lens.
     
    no_name, Dec 14, 2005
    #16
  17. no_name Guest

    Tobtoh wrote:

    > Thanks Skip (and Paul) for your comments.
    >
    > Most of my shots will be of inanimate objects which is why I've leaned
    > towards the IS in the past.
    >
    > Whilst my question was in general, i am currently debating between the
    > 24-70 f2.8L and the 24-105 f4L IS. I'd like the extra range, but was
    > concerned about the low light performance. When I was travelling in the
    > US, I visted Heast's Castle in California and was trying to take a
    > photo in the main hall (really dim lighting, no flash allowed) and even
    > with IS I could not get a good hand-held shot.


    Wonder if they'd let you brace yourself against a doorway or something
    for additional steadiness?
     
    no_name, Dec 14, 2005
    #17
  18. Skip M Guest

    "no_name" <> wrote in message
    news:lh1of.881$...
    > Skip M wrote:
    >
    >> "Stanislav Meduna" <> wrote in message
    >> news:dnoonc$k27$...
    >>
    >>>Bhup wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>best to go for a cheap 50mm f1.8 or even a f1.4 and you will be able
    >>>>to
    >>>>hand hold
    >>>
    >>>50mm on 300D is probably too long for many indoor shots.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>> Stano

    >>
    >>
    >> But it's great for studio portraiture, being the rough equivalent of an
    >> 85mm lens on a full 35mm frame camera.
    >>

    >
    > I don't think the OP is looking for a studio portraiture lens.


    No, but he also didn't ask about 50mm fixed focal length lenses, either...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Dec 14, 2005
    #18
  19. Alan Browne Guest

    Tobtoh wrote:
    > Thanks Bhup.
    >
    > I did consider that option - but the very cheapest prime lens don't
    > seem to have as good image quality as the zooms (at least according to
    > the various reviews I have read), and the decent primes are a few
    > hundred bucks in which case I would rather use that money on getting a
    > higher quality zoom.


    Considering the camera resolution, a prime lens, even the ubiquitous
    50mm f/1.8, should outdo almost any zoom lens and is fast. Of course,
    you don't always want that shallow of a depth of field.

    IS should give you an addidional 2 or even 3 stops if you're
    particularly steady. So at 135mm you should get decent shots at 1/30 to
    1/45s.

    The Canon's perform very nicely to ISO 400, so don't ignore that 'gain'
    either unles making very large prints.

    Certainly a stabilized f/2.8 zoom would be great if you can justify it.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 15, 2005
    #19
  20. Mark² Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > From what I've seen, the 24-105 IS is a considerable improvement over
    > the 28-135 IS, which is why, sometime early next year, when the
    > finances have recovered a bit, I'm buying the former. I'm still
    > concerned about the lack of reach on the "L" IS lens, 30mm can be
    > critical, but it's a stop faster at the long end, and has the IS that
    > my 24-70 lacks. Mark bought one of the 24-105s, and immediately
    > started trying to sell his 24-70. That should tell you something
    > about the image quality.


    Are you talking about this Mark (me)?

    If so...yes.
    I am extremely impressed with the 24-105 f4 IS L.
    It now spends the most time on my camera...replacing the 24-70 which
    replaced my 28-135.
    What I find interesting is that after using the 24-70 and 24-105...I now
    return to older snapshots taken with my (now sold) 28-135 IS...and the
    difference in sharpness is VERY clear. I think my eyes got used to the look
    of the 28-135, and stopped noticing it's weaknesses. Now that I'm used to
    the 24-70/105 lenses, the difference is stark.

    I was always worried that if I bought the 24-70 L...Canon would then (and
    only then...) release an IS version, which is what I really wanted. -And as
    Skip knows...that's darn near what happened (you all have me to thank, since
    I'm sure they were only waiting for my 24-70 purchase to release the new
    IS...).

    One big reason I am ready to let my 24-70 go is the lack of mm on the long
    end. I'm finding 70 just too short--especially after growing used to the
    28-135mm long end. Now that I've spent time with the 24-105, I'm finding
    that I'm very comfortable with the range...and that the 30mm difference is
    rarely a big deal, day to day. If I was shooting FF, that might effect this
    opinion...

    The other reason is that as nice as 2.8 is...I find that I dial in smaller
    apertures MOST of the time. While the 2.8 does give a terrific and bright
    viewfinder, I don't as often need/want larger than f4 in that range.
    When I want/need it, I can have it with with either my 16-35 2.8 L...70-200
    2.8 IS L, the 100mm 2.8 macro...OR...the 50mm 1.4!!

    All this means that the 24-70 offers very little that I can't get
    elsewhere...and it doesn't offer IS.
    The ONLY loss on the new lens is 2.8. Everything else is just superb.

    Blah blah blah.
    :)
    So Skip--Once you get the 24-105...(assuming you get a good one) I'd put
    money on it becoming a favorite.
    :)
    -Mark
     
    Mark², Dec 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mike O.

    How low is "low light"?

    Mike O., Jan 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    600
    Michael Meissner
    Jan 4, 2004
  2. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    546
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  3. D

    Sony HC5E low frame rate in low light

    D, May 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    620
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    998
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,136
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page