constant f2.8 sigma 18-50 or nikon 16-85 for low light?

fontmoss

fontmoss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
i may get eaten alive but if for arguments sake you didnt want to use a flash (surreptitiously or in a bar for instance) would something like the sigma 18-50 f2.8 yield better results than the 16-85? given the same circumstances etc
 
would something like the sigma 18-50 f2.8 yield better results than the 16-85?

I'd substitute the Sigma for the Tamron 17-50, but yes.

The 16-85 - while a good lens, is f/5.6 at 50mm. Thats two stops slower than the Sigma or Tamron, and in bar you are going to have moving people. For this you need a wider aperture, not VR.
 
ive got the sigma and am happy with it. its not a LOW low light lens but it handles iffy light well imo.

ive got some low light shots on my home computer, i'll upload them later if you want examples.
 
the canon tamron 17-50 that i have is nice for the money
Canon do a image stabilised f2.8 wide mid zoon...maybe nikon do something similar?
 
nikon do an f2.8 i think? but much more cash than tamron or sigma

neil what would you say was a low low light lens?


ive half a mind to get an auto focus fixed (using old manuals right now) for low light situs and keep 18-50 kit lens or trade it out for an 18-105 just for bit more range
 
ah ok but thats gonna be a fixed lens then?


i think
 
yeah, theres 50mm or lower offerings from most lens makers..

bare with me (and my slow upload speeds), im trying to get some low light 2.8 shots with the 18-50 sigma onto flickr for you..
 
thanks very much! yeah ive got a cheap 28 from evil bay to experiment with, got a cheap 50 already, and then i can see which ill spend proper cash on


first i mean ;)
 
 
what camera is that on? thanks very much for taking the time to post
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top