How fast of a lens is needed for indoor home party photos?

[katsucurry]

Hi,

Although I am thinking about getting a prime 85mm 1.8 Canon or a 50mm 1.4, my question is for a zoom lens.
For those who takes lots of indoor shot or walking in town, how often do you feel you need a F2.8?
For general walking around lens(street shots, light hiking, home/indoor parties), is F4 zoom lens good enough?

Again, I will probably get a prime but that's after getting a zoom.

I'm thinking whether I should get a 70-200 F4 USM IS or 70-200 F2.8 USM IS (Canon)
My camera is Canon 5D Mark II which has pretty good high ISO. (in my opinion)

My current and my only lens is 24-105mm F4L.

Thanks!

[Paul Sumi]

High ISO capability and image stabilization has changed the equation from the past, when "fast" lenses made possible faster shutter speeds needed to stop action in low light situations.  These days you can crank up the ISO and use "slower" lenses and still get faster shutter speeds.

That said, "fast" and "slow" lenses have advantages and disadvantages.  Fast lenses let in more light, giving you a brighter image in the viewfinder.  They also allow for shallower depth of field giving more selective focus.  On the downside, "fast" lenses tend to be bigger, heavier and more expensive than their "slow" equivalents.

I have Canon's 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and it has been a workhorse for me (amateur landscape, architectural, some sports and event photography).  I have played with the 70-200 f/4 and it is smaller, lighter, easier to carry and arguably has a slight edge in sharpness.  The 70-200 f/2.8 lens is NOT a walk-around lens: too big, heavy and obvious.  IMO your 24-105 fits that role much better.

My recommendation to anyone thinking about buying a lens is to borrow or rent one, if possible, for a couple of days.  Forums (fora?) like this one can give you lots of good information and opinons, but in the end you'll learn more by actually trying out the lens yourself.

Paul

[Panopeeper]

The 70-200 f/2.8 lens is NOT a walk-around lens: too big, heavy and obvious

70-200 f/2.8 IS: 1470gr
70-200 f/4 IS: 760gr

The weight difference is huge, close to as much as the 5D2 itself (which is 850gr).

[marcmccalmont]

70-200 f/2.8 IS: 1470gr
70-200 f/4 IS: 760gr

The weight difference is huge, close to as much as the 5D2 itself (which is 850gr).

I second this, I am considering selling my 2.8 for a 4.0!
Marc

[Morgan_Moore]

If you master flash you dont need fast lenses, high ISO or image stabilisation

Shooting wide open is rarely the answer

Of course fast lenses help AF and manual composintion/focus in the dark but considering that increases in lens speed are exponentially related to increases in cash outlay fast lenses may not be appropriate to your budget - They are essentially a luxury

They are also heavier by a big factor

I think a 50 1.4 or 50 1.8 should be in everyones bag though - such speed for the $$$

Another thing to consider is 'do I need zooms' when primes can offer great speed/cost/weight ratios

Use Flash !

S

[Plekto]

This is a perfect reason why I still have some old manual focus prime lenses.  When you need something for this sort of situation, you can often get the job done for little money.  People seem to all but give away good lenses these days if they are from the manual focus era.  If you have more money, you can get good interior lenses for $300 or so.

A general rule of thumb, though, is that the last two stops on most lenses are seriously limited and are even essentially rubbish, depending on the specific lens.  But, say, a F/1.8 will give you 4.0 or so that looks pretty near perfect, while the f/2.8 might require pushing it to f/5.6 to get clean enough results.

http://www.tawbaware.com/sigma_tokina_test1.htm
Note how bad both lenses look at their widest aperture.  If I was making that Sigma lens, I'd market them as f/5.6 or so and lock out the ability to open past that.  To call that lens capable of f/2.8 is a bit too hard to believe.  I guess if you want Holga-esque effects...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5014af.htm
I don't like his site most of the time, but this is a good example - buy this and use it at a maximum of f/2.8.  Let the camera handle the rest - the new DSLRs are pretty good at compensating for a fixed aperture.

[button]

I'm thinking whether I should get a 70-200 F4 USM IS or 70-200 F2.8 USM IS (Canon)
My camera is Canon 5D Mark II which has pretty good high ISO. (in my opinion)

My current and my only lens is 24-105mm F4L.

Thanks!

I have a 5d2 and a 70-200 f4 IS, and I think the combo is spectacular.  If you need a little push, read this review, especially the verdict:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/196-cano...-report--review

If you find the speed of f4 acceptable on your 24-105, then by all means go for the f4 70-200 IS.  Don't underestimate the weight (and cost) savings!

I also have the 85mm 1.8, and it's a steal for its price.  Get both!

John

[katsucurry]

Thanks to everyone for the great tips! I think I'll get the 50 mm prime or the 85 mm prime and try it out.
The F4 IS L is another option. I think I'll get both!

[BernardLanguillier]

My experience shows that for such events, the speed/low light ability of the body's AF is often the critical component if you want those lively pics capturing great mood and expressions. For such results you typically have less than 1 sec between the moment you identify a potentially nice pic and the moment when you need to press the shutter.

I would go for a fast prime, 35f2.0 - 50f1.8 - 85f1.8 lenswise, not only because of speed (some motion blur is actually often an integral part of the atmosphere), but more because you often have little control on the background's quality in such shots and little DoF is basically a must for pleasing results. This again stresses the need for good AF.

Flash is clearly another way to stress your subject over the ambiance but a corba with light softening modifier is a must. I typically dial some flash underexposure to keep enough of the ambiance. WB modifying gels are also important if you intend to maintain your results in the color world, I personnally dislike those day light exposure foregrounds with a very strong incandescent light biases background.

Cheers,
Bernard