Low Light Lens..!!

[Ango]

Which low light lens would u recommend? :cool:

[tyrithe]

Which low light lens would u recommend? :cool:

That depends on what you want to do with it. In general, prime lenses work better in lower light than zoom lenses (simplicity, fewer elements to absorb/distort/block light). A lower F-stop number on the lens (For example Canon has a F-1.8 50mm, a F-1.4 50mm and a F-1.2 50mm. The last would in theory be best) implies a larger lens aperture to .. looking for the right word .. "focal length" ratio.

As for specifics, you'd need to possibly be a bit more specific of purpose and camera body.

tyrithe

[drivebyshooter]

In terms of bang-for-buck, I'm pretty sure the Canon 50mm f/1.8 is your best low-light lens - that is, if you've already got a Canon body to mount it on. If not, well...

Basically you should look for a lens with a low f-stop. The lower the number, the wider the aperture is and the more light it lets in. In general, prime lenses can get wider than zooms.

[Nicole]

Which low light lens would u recommend? :cool:

Another vote for the 50mm. Depending on your budget, either the 50mm f/1.8 (around $100) or f/1.4 (about $300).

I've got the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and I think it works really well in low light, and when shooting in RAW, I get even better results because it gives me more room to work with the photo.

[Bail]

I agree with the Canon EF 50mm F1.8.

Only thing you have to remember about the 50mm 1.8 (For canon) is that it's made of plastic. So be careful when handling it. It's also not so protected to the outside elements compared to the "L" lenses.

Basicly any lens with a higher aperture.

[rpoffenberger]

I have a Nikon D50 and just purchased a 85mm f/1.8 lens this week for basketball. I've only used it at one game so far, but it worked great.

[smc1377]

I agree with the Canon EF 50mm F1.8.

Only thing you have to remember about the 50mm 1.8 (For canon) is that it's made of plastic. So be careful when handling it. It's also not so protected to the outside elements compared to the "L" lenses.

Basicly any lens with a higher aperture.
Apparently Canon does make one out of metal in Japan. When I was researching them, they were all going for pretty much $70 or so on eBay, but there was one in particular that someone bid $130 for. So I emailed the bidder to get some insight on why he's willing to pay so much more for a lens that you could pick up online for about $70 and he told me it's cause the particular one he's bidding on was made in Japan as opposed to Malaysia with the major differences being that the glass elements are better and that the casing and mount is metal, not plastic. Don't know the truth to this, but I wouldn't doubt it since he's willing to pay $60 more for it.

[carley]

Ango: Can you let us know which camera body you are using so we can help you more specifically? Thanks!

[Fraggleroxer]

almost any brand of camera is goin to have a prime 1.8 lens. that is the consistences around here. but if u can afford it, there are f2.8 lenses out there in a variety of zoom ranges (such as 70-200) it all depends on what u want to do..

[Ango]

Thanks for all the quick reply and help.

View months ago I bought XT(kitlens)& 50mmf/1.8 when i was back home (Island). Since then I have been using the Kit lens and the 50mm. And could see a big differens in the quality. That's why i wanted to buy a new zoom lens that i could shoot in low light too.

after all the reply i decided to go today to the shop and test the lenses and bought an 18-50mmf2.8. I really liked it.. i hoop that I made a good choice.!???:confused: :)

What do u guys think ?

[henryscat]

without knowing what you are wanting to shoot with this lens or who made the lens, it's hard to judge.
Sounds like a good focal range and a nice F-stop to boot.

[mattdm]

Another vote for the 50mm. Depending on your budget, either the 50mm f/1.8 (around $100) or f/1.4 (about $300).

I've got the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and I think it works really well in low light, and when shooting in RAW, I get even better results because it gives me more room to work with the photo.

A friend of mine has the f/1.4, and while it's cool, it's really rather hard to work with as the depth of field is only a few inches. If you're taking a picture of a face, it's tricky to get both eyes in focus. You can definitely do nice artistic things with it, but it's not really a general-purpose aperture.