Topic: What's that lens that works great in lowlight for the Canon Rebel XT?

[it-goes-to-eleven]

FWIW, my nikon f1.4 was $60.. Mint, near-mint f1.2's are about $350. The f1.4 is great for no-flash party pics.. Getting another whole stop with a 1.2 would be sweet...

Is that a lens for digital though?  The Canon 50/1.4 is $300 and the 50/1.2 is $1600 - Compared to $80, thats a big jump.

Heee-ellll no!  That was sort of my point... You can do killer low light with film for cheap. And much of the low light digital stuff is not fairly priced. So if you want to do REAL low light for sane prices, film may still be the best option.

[mmmatt]

Matt, thats awesome on the 5D thats a nice camera.  Remember that its a full frame camera though, so if you're going to be buying lenses I'd op for the full frame lenses that will fit the 5D as opposed to the crop lenses.

I ended up selling my sigma and getting a tamron in the same focal range.  I think its a much sharper lens.  There's still the 2.8 factor, but I have never really had that many issues, however, I'm a burst shooter.  I agree with what you're saying tho, and the 135L is a great lens.  If you're looking at portrait lenses the 24-105/f4 is supposed to be a great all around lens, but its f4, so its pretty crappy in low light, however it has IS and L glass, so as long as your subject isn't moving too much, the IS should help the steadiness of your shot.

Ed, did you have the 26-70 or the 24-70 sigma?  Big difference between the two...
    Well 2 things make for a good portrait lens and that is the focal length and speed.  As we all know you need a fairly long lens or a fast lens to blur a background and the 135L is both.  I know the 5d is full frame.  that is one reason that I am justifying the 135mm.  If they made a 100/2 that was L glass I would probably buy that, but they don't and the one they do make is crap.  With a crop sensor the 135 is a bit long for portrait work, and probably even for concert shooting unless you are pretty far back.  With my rebel and 50/1.8 if I am 10' back from stage I still can't get more than a single person in the viewfinder unless I shoot at an angle, but then because of the DOA inherant in the open aperture you can only focus on one person... then if you are shooting a slow speed you basically get a blunch of blurred people around a perfectly focused mic stand!.  Concert photography is NOT easy to do really well.
     If you look at that pic I posted, it was shot with bounce flash @ 34mm/2.8 and I got a touch of blur but not enough for my liking.  In this case with my rebel it was shot at about "normal" on the zoom because of the crop factor.  If you get too crazy with a fast telephoto , you will blur the nose and ears trying to focus on the eyes.  With a crop sensor the 135 would be too big to shoot even a headshot with less than 15 or 20 ft I imagine, unless you can stop down quite a bit.  For the record... the ability to blur with a telephoto is not based on the perspective but on the lens length.  so even though a 85mm on a crop sensor will yield about the the same field of view that a 135 does on a full frame, it doesn't have the same ability to blur.  This blur btw is called "bokeh".

And freelunch is right... if you are willing to shoot manual film cameras you can do low-light cheap.  I just sold an xg1 body with a 50/1.4 for $45.  However, that all being said, film is a PITA.  I've recently started back to college as a photography student and they require us to shoot slide film.  It is very hard to find a place that can even develop slide film.  Many places won't even send it out anymore.  There is a reason that stuff is dirt cheap.  It is all basically worthless.  I just bought a canon 1n film body that is 4 years old with about 10k actuations on it for $250 shipped.  It was a $2500 camera only a few years ago and it is a joy to shoot, but shooting film is a joke.  With flash media dropping in price every day and camera manufactures increasing resolution twice per year you can safely say that film is all but gone.  There will still be medium and large format film in use for a few years but 35mm film is going to fade into the wind mighty soon.  Photo labs are closing left and right because they can't make any money.

Matt

[mmmatt]

Mama don't take my Kodachrome away!

I'm pretty sure she did... I think kodak stopped making kodachrome already didn't they?  or anm I thinking of extachrome...

Matt

[mmmatt]

digital is a different kind of tool and you use it differently.  That being said it will be awhile before we can truly shoot that kind of resolution with digital.

Matt

[Ed.]

Matt, it sounds like you're learning a ton.  Nice job.

I had the 24-70 sigma.  It was alright, but I think the tamron is tighter.  The lens that never leaves my camera is the 17-40 tho, I'm a wide angle landscape nut.  I guess I have a thing for cheesy calendar photography. heh.  The 17-40 is an alright lens, but it still gets a little soft here and there.  I'd like to get the new 16-35L (I think thats the new one) that canon just put out to replace the 17-40, but life just changed a bit for me and it looks like photography is going back to being a hobby instead of a career.

Are you taking a color class?  My first color class we shot slide film in, but this was before digital.  Slide film was expensive back then, and even more expensive to get it developed, but printing color from slide film is much easier than printing color from color negatives.  At least in my experience.

That being said, I don't think I'd ever go back to film.  The resolution and all around picture quality of digital keeps getting better and better.  I have my photos as a screensaver on our tv.  The tv is huge and the pictures look great on it...now I just need to take a picture worth framing and displaying giant size.

[adubphoto]

hey adub,
how do you like your sigma 24-70 2.8?  I recently bought one and I like it, but I haven't been satisfied in low light really.  In daylight or with flash it is very nice.  Here is a shot with flash for anyone interested in that lens http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/mmmatt/jillstudio1.jpg  I was planning on getting the sigma 70-200/ 2.8 but I think I am going to just go with the canon 135/f2L , and then pick up the canon 70-200/4l so I have a little length for outdoors.  As freelunch said 1 stop is a HUGE difference, and with 2.8 you have to burst or wait for the gels to pop.  I need a good portait lens anyways and I'm pretty sure I'm going to jump to the 5d soon so I will be shooting full frame and the 135 should be just about right.  I will probably keep my xti though and use that for concerts and as a backup body.  I also have the 50/1.8 and that is a spectacular lens for the money... the fantastic plastic rules.

Matt

how little light are we talking? I love this lens and it's my primary concert lens, but it's the only lens i've used in that range. what are you not satisfied about in low light?  

[Brian Skalinder]

Is that a lens for digital though?  The Canon 50/1.4 is $300 and the 50/1.2 is $1600 - Compared to $80, thats a big jump.

Heee-ellll no!  That was sort of my point... You can do killer low light with film for cheap. And much of the low light digital stuff is not fairly priced. So if you want to do REAL low light for sane prices, film may still be the best option.

Okay, I'm confused.  I thought, generally speaking, lenses were interchangeable between film and digital SLR assuming the mounting ring's the same size.  Am I missing something?  I should probably just Google...

[Ed.]

Is that a lens for digital though?  The Canon 50/1.4 is $300 and the 50/1.2 is $1600 - Compared to $80, thats a big jump.

Heee-ellll no!  That was sort of my point... You can do killer low light with film for cheap. And much of the low light digital stuff is not fairly priced. So if you want to do REAL low light for sane prices, film may still be the best option.

Okay, I'm confused.  I thought, generally speaking, lenses were interchangeable between film and digital SLR assuming the mounting ring's the same size.  Am I missing something?  I should probably just Google...

You are correct (I think), and even if the mounting ring is different I think you can still get an adapter.  However, I think I remember reading that lenses made for digital are sharper and easier to work with when working with digital.

Its been awhile since I read about that, so my memory is shot.  I also didn't study into it too much because the only film lens I had was the cheap 18-55 that came standard on canon film rebels, and that lens was hardly worth fussing with.

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Some digital camera systems are semi-compatible with film lenses from the past and some are not. I think Nikon is pretty good about it but Canon has no compat at all.. Then there is the whole issue of whether we're talkin' manual focus or autofocus, etc..

In regard to Ed's other comment.. Different colors focus at different lengths depending on the type of glass/plastic lens.  So red may be in focus but the blue is slightly off.. Sort of like how low frequency sound behaves differently than high.  It is hard to get all the colors to focus at exactly the same distance. It turns out that the optimal tradeoffs for focus are slightly different for film vs. optical sensors.  So even if you put great film lenses on a DSLR, the results might suffer a bit..

That's all by memory, so ymmv.

[Ed.]

Freelunch sounds on target.  I think some of the film canon lenses will work, but they're manual focus only...I think that was the catch now that you mention it.

[mmmatt]

Cannon lenses:  in recent years cannon has made fd, ef, and ef-s lenses.  They are all different mounting hardware.  The fd lenses are manual lenses and will only work on pre eos and pre digital cameras.  The ef lenses are fine for all digital and all auto focus 35s.  The ef-s lenses are for crop sensor camera's and won't fit on higher end digital or film cameras.  They are designed for the smaller sendsor and because they don't need as wide of glass they are cheaper to make.  Cannons best lenses are all ef lenses and they work equally well for digital and film.  For the record you can get an adapter to use an fd lens on a digi, but most people who use manual lenses on canon digitals use minolta or nicon because the canon lenses don't work as well when using an adapter.
    As for the concert shooting with an  f2.8 lens... The faster the lens the better it will autofocus in low light and the faster you can set your shutter.  I can shoot the 2.8 @ 70mm at about 1/40 shutter speed (sober) and get good results most of the time but that isn't fast enough to stop the action on the stage and the subjects have some blur if they are moving.  Not enough to make it look cool IMO, but it is enough to take away the sharpness... so, what I do is shoot raw and intentionally underexpose and then bring it up in post.  It works but not ideal.  Depending on how much light is on the stage and how far away you are it is less of a big deal.
     As for school, yeah I'm getting chucked full o knowledge but it is very fun.  I am taking photo 101 which is a basic photo course and for that one we shoot color slide film.  We are required to shoot outdoor color ballanced 100 iso film, and I am using fuji velvia.  Velvia kicks ass.  We are required to have it processed uncut.  That is really the only way they can be assured that we took the shots for the assingment because they are all still stuck together!  Also, there is nothing harder to shoot than slide film.  You have minimal exposure latitude so it does seperate the men from the boys a bit...  even though it is inconvienient as hell.
     My other class is a view camera class.  A view camera is the old fassioned type camera with the flexable bellows.  With a view camera you focus with a cloth over your head and a magnifying loupe.  For that class I shoot 125 iso ilford black and white negative film.  We are also doing our own developing in that class and I just did my first print today.  I learned how to "dodge and burn" and that was pretty cool.

Matt

[Ed.]

dodging and burning, woohoo.

When you print your film, try putting your unexposed paper in a tray of water, than printing, you'll get some cool effects.  There's a lot of cool effects you can get from doing weird stuff when you print.  I miss the days of black and white printing.

[mmmatt]

I miss the days of black and white printing.

And the prints actually last!  B&W printing will be around for a longgg while..

that's probably true.  More for pleasure than necessity, but it doen't take much investment to print plack and white film, and it is really fun.  I'll have to scan some of the stuff I'm doing for school and show you guys what I'm up to in a new thread.  Next assingments are a building exterior for the view camera class and obscure/creative compositions for the 35mm class.  I really struggle seeing the perverbial picture in the haystack unless I build my own haystack, so the requirement to shoot the creative shots with natural light has me a bit stifled.  That being said the snow is finally melting around here and not freezing my ass off may help the juices flow a bit!  50 degreese baby and I'm off to shoot some slides.  WOOT!! 
     Quite the threadjack going on here!  I did just order the 70-200/f4L though... and that is semi-relevant!  It's not a low-light lens but a smokin lens from what I have read and seen.  When you think about it, it is only 1 stop higher than a 2.8, and it is a long peice of L glass for $560.  I'm anxious to take that one for a little stroll around town!  Unfortunately I need that more than the 135L right now, but the 135 is next.
     I will try the water tray ed next time I get something worth printing in a surreal way.  I can imagine that a ripple in the water does some odd things.


Matt

[Ryan Sims]

Bump.

this little lens hood is great. it collapses on the lens and cost like $2. It will keep lens flare down.

It looks like this hood fits on the 52 mm filter.  Is that the case?  I found a couple places online that have this one for sale, but they're all 52mm and bigger.  If I'm going to stray from the filter as recommended earlier in this thread, does anyone have another suggestion?  I really like the collapsible idea, but if that's not available for the 50, I can definitely do something else.  The new credit card with 0% for a year is burning a hole in my pocket and I want to order my camera like crazy! 

Thanks guys.
Ryan