Low light lens recommendations?

[esrade]

Looking for recommendations on a low light lens. I have a Rebel XTi and would like a zoom lens in the 18-55 category, like the kit lens, but that can go to f1.8 or so and ideally in the L lens category. I already have a Canon 50mm 1.8 and a Sigma 20mm 1.8. The 50mm is great but just not wide enough for parties and the Sigma's quality is just "eh".

Thanks!

 

[boBQuincy]

I looked at all the wide angle / wide aperture lenses for Canon cameras, and all of them are in the "eh" category for image quality until we get to the expensive L series.
Even Canon's 24 f/1.4 has only "fair" edge performance and lots of vignetting while their 35 f/1.4 does better.

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

[handicap18]

I recently got the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. So far so good. I'll be putting it to some good testing next week at WDW.

Here is one I took last night. Similar to one I posted on the Holildays photo assignment thread:
ISO 1600, 1/125th, f/1.4

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

I don't know how you would feel about a slower lens with Image Stabilization, Canons new 18-55 IS looks like a nice little lens, as long as your not shooting any moving object.

 

[esrade]

These are two of the lenses I am looking at, although for the cost, I will probably need to wait until next year. Does anyone have either of these, or something similar?


Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
$929.00

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
$1,323.90

 

[rtphokie]

You mentioned that you were looking for a zoom lens but you might also consider a fixed lens like the Canon f1.8 55mm, if just because it's so cheap (under $75) yet produce surprisingly good results

From the Haunted Mansion (which is really really dark), Canon Rebel XT, f1.8, 1/200s, ISO1600

 

[esrade]

Already have one of those! But, like I said, it's great for portrait shots or stuff that's further away... not so good for wide angle party shots.

 

[Code]

2 less expensive f/2.8 constant options would be the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 macro. Can't speak from experience on either of these, but it's easy to google for reviews.

 

[SharonLowe]

These are two of the lenses I am looking at, although for the cost, I will probably need to wait until next year. Does anyone have either of these, or something similar?


Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
$929.00

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens
$1,323.90

Don't have either but you might want to look here at the reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=27

Pretty reliable advice over there. You won't find a zoom that goes to f/1.8 though. With your crop factor, seems the 20mm f/1.8 would be ideal for parties. I have that lens and use it with my 1DsMkII full frame and love it - maybe you need to send yours back to Sigma to have a look at it. Otherwise, try a wide prime L lens. The 24mm f/1.4 gets good reviews.

 

[Groucho]

As far as I know, nobody has a zoom lens that's faster than F2.8, except Olympus who recently introduced a short-range F2.0 zoom.

I don't know so much about the Canon one, but generally the OEM's 35mm F2.0s are supposedly to be all pretty good and reasonably priced.

 

[Anewman]

As far as I know, nobody has a zoom lens that's faster than F2.8, except Olympus who recently introduced a short-range F2.0 zoom.

Well depending on how we look at it one might not consider it exactly short range...

I mean even though the lens is listed as 35-100mm, with the 2x crop factor it is equivalent to 70-200mm. Price is just over $2,000.

 

[Code]

I mean even though the lens is listed as 35-100mm, with the 2x crop factor it is equivalent to 70-200mm. Price is just over $2,000.

There's that one too, but Groucho was talking about the 14-35 f/2 that isn't out yet (January release I think), expected to be about $2k also, maybe slightly less.

 

[Groucho]

Code, I think you're probably right in that was the one that I was thinking of - I forgot that they also had a longer-range F2.0 zoom. There are certainly a few interesting lenses in the 4/3rds system, it's unfortunate that they're so darned expensive!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I mean even though the lens is listed as 35-100mm, with the 2x crop factor it is equivalent to 70-200mm

.

That's interesting. The area of the sensor is on the Olympus is roughly 225 sq mm. The area of the sensor on a ff camera is roughly 864 sq mm. In other words, the ff camera has something like double the horizontal and vertical size for gathering light. Coincidentally, the aperture of this lens let's in roughly double the amount of light that a 70-200 f/2.8 lens let's in. So it looks like some physical law is keeping everyone at around the same amount of light per pixel.

I wonder if that means that 1.5x cameras may someday see a 47-133mm f/2.4 lens.