Best low-light option on a beginner's budget

[jjbrock1]

Hi,

I finally got my first DSLR, a Canon 70D. My first discovery is the kit lens (18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS STM) is only so-so in low light.
My second discovery is the pop-up flash ruins my pictures :x

I've been researching and I think I have three options to get better low light shots. Mostly indoors. I'd like to keep my budget under $500.

1. External flash. Of course this will help, but flash is not always great because
a) The ceilings in my home are dark, bounce will not work well.
b) I will have some situations (concerts) where flash is not appropriate.

2. Prime lens. 50mm f1.4 would often be too long for my crop sensor for indoor shots, so perhaps Canon 35mm f2.. but that's a bit over my budget...

3. A faster image stabilization lens, such as Canon 17-50mm f2.8 IS. At over $800, this is well over
my budget, but Tamron and Sigma equivalents can be had at or under $500.

I'm leaning to option 3 as the most versatile of the options, if I can only afford one option now (definitely an external flash later!).

Any opinions or experiences on these choices?

Thanks for your help!

 

[Derrel]

The f/2.8 lens is somewhat "slow", compared to an f/1.4 50mm lens, and is twice as slow as the economical Canon 35mm f/2. The primes will be better optically wide-opne than the zoom is at f/2.8, most likely. If you wanna shoot in "low light", there is seldom more return on anything than there is on standard, basic, high-speed primes like 28,35,50,and 85mm.

For versatility, YES, a zoom lens winds out, and if you can "only" get one thing, a reasonably priced third party 17-50mm lens will be a good place to spend some money. F/2.8 at slower speeds using IS will not stop subject movement until the shutter speeds allow enough shutter speed...IS does not solve one of the key problems--meaning that the shutter speed at f/2.8 is too slow, until the ISO level is astronomically elevated.

With an f/1.4 lens, like say, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4...you're letting in FOUR TIMES as much light at with an f/2.8 lens...

 

[robbins.photo]

Hi,

I finally got my first DSLR, a Canon 70D. My first discovery is the kit lens (18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS STM) is only so-so in low light.
My second discovery is the pop-up flash ruins my pictures :x

I've been researching and I think I have three options to get better low light shots. Mostly indoors. I'd like to keep my budget under $500.

1. External flash. Of course this will help, but flash is not always great because
a) The ceilings in my home are dark, bounce will not work well.
b) I will have some situations (concerts) where flash is not appropriate.

2. Prime lens. 50mm f1.4 would often be too long for my crop sensor for indoor shots, so perhaps Canon 35mm f2.. but that's a bit over my budget...

3. A faster image stabilization lens, such as Canon 17-50mm f2.8 IS. At over $800, this is well over
my budget, but Tamron and Sigma equivalents can be had at or under $500.

I'm leaning to option 3 as the most versatile of the options, if I can only afford one option now (definitely an external flash later!).

Any opinions or experiences on these choices?

Thanks for your help!

My suggestion? External flash and a bounce card. I splurged and bought the super expensive Opteka :

Opteka BC-10 Universal Double-Sided 7.5" X 4" Bounce Card for External Camera Flashes

Cost me 5 dollars, american. Not that money with fish on it. The real mccoy.. lol. Combine that with a decent external flash and you've got plenty of bounce without ceilings, etc. Me I use a yongnuo - the 565 EX, for two reasons. First, because it's a pretty good flash for the money and second because Derrel despises cheap chinese flashes, so really it was a win win there. Lol.. I kid of course.

I'd probably go that route first, it will give you the most versatility with the lenses you already have, and it will also give you the ability to do things like fill flash and such. Then save up and get yourself a good prime as well to even further expand your lowlight capabilities.

Oh, quick expansion on that original thought, I know you mentioned concerts and such but unless you are really, really, really close to the stage you'll probably need a pretty expensive fast zoom to get decent shots there without a flash - I use a Sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 myself, but even used that's going to be more than your $500 budget, so I'd look at getting the flash first and then saving up and getting some good lenses. I paid $700 for mine used but I got a killer deal, they generally run around $800 or so used and usually about $1000 new if I remember correctly.

 

[bratkinson]

Whether in low light, bright light, or everywhere in between, the 'battle' (as I think of it) is always with the exposure triangle.

In low light, the two biggest problems are getting a fast enough ISO speed without getting too much noise, and getting a fast enough shutter speed to stop subject (and camera) movement. I don't know about the OP's 70D, but when I had a 60D, my typical ISO speed was 1600, with 2400 being used sparingly and 3200 only if I was desperate, due to noise. That was a major constraint with no-flash indoor photography for me. As for shutter speeds, stopping subject motion requires 1/125 or faster for minimally moving subjects (slower than walking). While I've been known to shoot as low as 1/10th second, the keeper rate was less than 1 in 25 or worse due to subject blur.

So, with those limitations, one needs quite fast lenses, typically faster (wider aperture) than f2.8. Primes are the most economical solution. I used an Canon 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2L for much of my low light work and shot wide-open or close to it. But then, the tradeoff of shooting wide open is very thin depth of field. Also, at those focal lengths on a crop sensor 60D (and your 70D) I sometimes had to be further back than desired to frame the subject as desired. In retrospect, I should have bought a fast 35mm lens to save me backing up into the hallway a couple of times.

The bottom line is that for low light work, fast glass and fast ISO speeds are required. Getting both of those gets expensive quickly. One of the things I did is buy some used lenses that were in mint condition. That alone saved me about $400 on one lens and over $1000 on another!

 

[brunerww]

Hi jj - you've gotten some excellent advice here. Given your needs and your budget, I would buy:

- a non-USM Canon EF 35mm f2 for $319 (if you don't mind a little autofocus motor noise - only 1 left at this price)

- the Yongnuo YN-565EX recommended above for $120

- the Opteka BC-10 bounce card for $4.47 from the Opteka Outlet via eBay

For a total of $443.47, you'll have the option of a faster indoor lens and/or a bounce flash.

Hope this is helpful!

Bill