135L and 70-200?

C

cressers

Suspended / Banned
Messages
247
Edit My Images
No
Hey all. Lurker, back again.

I have 17-40 and 50mm and want something longer that works in low light.

To be honest though, I have been reading about the 70-200 f4 and this seems a good deal, but the comments, this is not good in low light.

My question is how low is low light?? Can someone give me an idea how low this could go handheld?

I just cant picture the scenario, if you see what i mean.

Have been thinking of getting the 135L as well, as this seems a good lens, but maybe the 70-200 2.8 would be a better all round option.


Hmmm, input thanked.
 
17-40 at f/4 is reasonable, you can shoot at 1/17th theoretically with acceptable results. Shooting at 1/70th at f/4 is extremely impractical though with the 70-200

You'd be looking at the f/2.8 version of the 70-200 for low-light situations. That, or flash.
 
its all about your shutter speed really, to rule out camera shake you will need 1/200s. I would suggest 1/250+ to freeze action.
 
Is the f/4 IS version a possible consideration?

How low is your low light and how much movement are you expecting from the subject matter?
 
You could work out what you could do with either lens using your 17-40 @ f/4. Just take a reading and whatever shutter speed you get at f/4 double the shutter speed for f/2.8 and double it again for f/2. At least then you'll have an idea of what shutter speeds you'd get in the light levels you'll be using the lens in.

Typical low light, if there is such a thing, normally needs f/2.8 or faster to get a decent shutter speed. But shooting indoors at night with available light then even f/2.8 is pushing it in terms of shutter speed and ISO.
 
Apart from f/number, there are other options to improve your chances in low light. Increase ISO, and use IS/VR. Both these options are either free, or relatively low cost. Fast, wide aperture lenses are an expensive option for most people who don't need them that often.

Of course, if you are constantly struggling against low light, then fast lenses are well worth it, and only primes will take you on the brighter side of f/2.8.

Richard.
 
Thanks everyone. I was using the 17-40 in a church for a family event over xmas. at f4 with no flash.

I was able to hand hold ok, but not freeze the action as people were walking. SO I suppose i have answered my own question, that for a repeat of the situation I would be better with 2.8 or 2.0

I have a 1.6 sensor and so am concerned the 135L may be too long.

I asked the same question here months back, but have been waiting till I used the camera more.
 
I guess it was indoor church in "winter daytime" so not hugely dark. Main issue was lighting as there was a lot of small v bright uplighters, which meant i had to use spot metering, and so was darker than the reality.
 
You could look at the 85mm f1.8. It's one of Canon's cheapest lenses at £250 and gets rave reviews. Some say it's as good as some L glass. Might just suit your camera with the 1.6 crop a treat?

Google for a review and flickr have a group just for this lens. I've been looking carefully at it for just that situation. Low light in churches and the f1.2 version is £1200! ouch.
 
For weddings I generally use my 24-70 f/2.8 on the 1DmkIII and the 135L on the 40D which I switch when I need to reach people a bit further away, generally for candids. But I also use the 135L for a lot of the couple shots as it means I can get some distance from them. I normally take them somewhere quiet and shoot a series of semi-candids, the greater working distance means they relax a bit quicker and can hug, kiss and talk to each other with some privacy.
 
85 - i had one of those but I just didnt get on with it. Too short most the time, and not different enough from the 50mm.

I have been looking around other threads, and it seems 2.8 is needed for indoor as a starting point so I think I will go with the 70-200 f2.8, but not the debate starts if I need IS or not :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top