Low light telephoto prime suggestions?

Hey all,

Have a few lenses I'm happy with. I bought the 24-105 IS f/4 over the 24-70 f/2.8 because I wanted the IS more than the f/2.8. I picked up the 70-200 f/4 IS for the same reasons (and because I couldn't quite justify the €800 or so I'd have paid for the f/2.8 version. The weight also played a small factor in this decision).

I'm pleased with these lenses. I rarely venture into really low light situations and when I do I generally have a flashgun at the ready. For the times when flash isn't allowed or the f/4s just won't cut it, I have a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and a Canon 50mm f/1.8.

This collection has served me well and I've rarely (never) been disappointed.

I do note a lack of a fast telephoto though. 50mm is a nice focal length, but it can seem just a bit on the short side of things, depending on what you're doing.

I'm interested in the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2. I'd never justify or spend the amount required to pick up the 85mm 1.2, and I'm unsure if the 135 f/2 L is worth splurging for, instead of the 100mm f/2 (reviews on both seem very good).


So I just thought I'd stick up a thread to see if anyone had some hands-on experience of any of the lenses, or perhaps has used several such lenses, and would like to weigh in with an opinion or suggestion?


Weddings would likely be the intended usage, I'd imagine (low light churches where the f/4s may not quite cut it).

Cheers to anyone with any insight

Borderfox

One thing I have found is the L primes are exceptional and they control noise really well, I have the 85L and had the 135L and both worked hard for me but I only kept the 85L due to not using the 135L enough. The 85 f1.8 is a great lens and very fast to focus, has the usual chromatic abberation problems in high contrast scenes but overall in bang for buck a great addition to a gear bag. I dont have any experience with the 100 f2 so cant comment on it. As an aside to this I choose the 50 f1.4 over the 50L due to the focus shift issues with it.

I have been a lot of churches where even f2.8 wont cut it

Cheers for that, Borderfox.

I'm lucky enough in that the wedding I've got coming up is in a fairly bright church (can get away with f/4 and ISO400). ISO performance is fine up to about 1600 on the 7D anyway (though obviously best kept as low as possible) so f/4 should keep me happy for a while.

In the event of a lower light situation, i imagine it'd have to be so much darker than f/4 that 2.8'd make feck all difference and even if i had 2.8 i'd end up switching to faster primes anyway, hence why im happy with the f/4 gear with a few fast primes.

The 135 i'd imagine, being an L and all, would have the superior image quality, but can I ask, in real world usage, did you notice as much difference between it and, say, the 85 1.8?

All primes seem to get shockingly good reviews. Makes me wonder if some people love them just because they're primes and it's "cool" to love primes. Rarely a negative word said about any of the lenses, but there must be some difference! :P

Borderfox

KKV wrote: »

Cheers for that, Borderfox.

I'm lucky enough in that the wedding I've got coming up is in a fairly bright church (can get away with f/4 and ISO400). ISO performance is fine up to about 1600 on the 7D anyway (though obviously best kept as low as possible) so f/4 should keep me happy for a while.

In the event of a lower light situation, i imagine it'd have to be so much darker than f/4 that 2.8'd make feck all difference and even if i had 2.8 i'd end up switching to faster primes anyway, hence why im happy with the f/4 gear with a few fast primes.

The 135 i'd imagine, being an L and all, would have the superior image quality, but can I ask, in real world usage, did you notice as much difference between it and, say, the 85 1.8?

All primes seem to get shockingly good reviews. Makes me wonder if some people love them just because they're primes and it's "cool" to love primes. Rarely a negative word said about any of the lenses, but there must be some difference! :P

I never used the 135L that much and I had already changed to the 85L by then. I sold it to shipwrights on here. Any of the L primes are such good performers, I can only compare say the 50 f1.4 on the 1.3 crop 1st to the 85L on the 1st and that's a no contest in terms of noise control/focus accuracy and sharpness. I would happily do a wedding with just primes, zooms are ok but for the way I shoot they suit me better.

gloobag

@Borderfox Did you ever use the 135L in a wedding ceremony situation? I have one winging it's way to me as we speak and wondering if I could finally sell my 70-200L.

The Snipe

i've a 200mm 2.8L and its amazing!

Borderfox

I used it at one or two but its that in between type of focal length thats too long when your close and too short when your far away, superb portrait lens though and when you can control the distance to subject it really works well. I love the 70-200 for the church especially with IS on the lens, I would find it hard to not use this lens on any wedding setup. So heavy but it gets so close and I like my shots to be 99% complete in camera so this lens helps with framing.

Not a wedding but taken with the 135L
1/500th f2 ISO 6400 1dmk3, end of the day working and nowhere to go in terms of shutter speed/aperture/iso

Great shot. 6400 ISO looks pretty good on the 1D mk3 I must say. Is the 1D3 a FF or 1.3, out of curiousity?

Noise looks to be minimal (partly due to to the bright exposure I'd imagine though?).

Borderfox

Its a 1.3 crop, noise is well controlled due to an excellent pixel pitch and top notch glass and me!!

Does the lens really play a part though, in noise control?

I don't understand how it could? I can understand better glass can allow for sharper/more detailed photographs, but surely the sensor holds 100% responsibility for the noise of the image?

Borderfox

In my experience it does, the better the glass I have on the less perceived noise I will see especially when shooting jpeg at a show. If I had shot the above picture with the 70-200L then it would have been f2.8 and would have been underexposed and noiser, thats one aspect of it.

Borderfox

Borderfox wrote: »

In my experience it does, the better the glass I have on the less perceived noise I will see especially when shooting jpeg at a show. If I had shot the above picture with the 70-200L then it would have been f2.8 and would have been underexposed and noiser, thats one aspect of it.

Oh I understand that example alright, though that's more to do with being able to lower the ISO setting?

If you have an 18-55 kit lens and a 24-70, both shooting at f/4, 1/100 and at ISO1600, the noise in both would be the same, surely?

Or would the sharper glass retaining more detail in the image result in the noise not being as pronounced?

pete4130

How much is the 85mm or 100mm? If its close to €800 you could have spent that cash on the 70-200 and saved yourself carrying an extra lens around.
Fast glass wins all the time.

pete4130

pete4130 wrote: »

How much is the 85mm or 100mm? If its close to €800 you could have spent that cash on the 70-200 and saved yourself carrying an extra lens around.
Fast glass wins all the time.

I assume that's directed at me?

The 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 generally float around the €300-€350 mark (used, but in 'as new' condition). They're faster than the 2.8 though, so I'd rather have an f/4 and something that can go faster than a 2.8, than have just a 2.8.


Choice is almost;

New Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II - €1,800 (or thereabouts).
VS
New Canon 70-200 f4 L IS + Used Sigma EX 30mm f/1.4 + Used Canon 100mm f/2 - €1,700 (or thereabouts).

Alternatively you could drop the sigma 30mm from the list (I know you're not a fan of Sigma) and include a canon 50mm f/1.8 II for about half the price, saving more money.


If it gets darker than f/2.8, with just the 2.8, you're fecked. However, if your event suddenly gets darker than that, if you change lens (or if you're sensible and have one on a second camera body ready to go) then you're worst fears are soon calmed as you begin to shoot at f/1.4.

Personally, I'd rather the fast prime options. If you don't have two camera bodies, slap a lens case onto your belt so you can change lenses out quickly. 70-200 f2.8 L IS II is one I was looking at for a long, long time before deciding on the f/4 IS. The price is just not justifiable in my opinion.


On top of that, I had a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 before the Canon f/4, and the weight of a f/2.8, whilst something I loved at first, was a novelty that wore off fast. The Canon f/4 feels durable, but it's much, much lighter, which is a welcome change to me.

Borderfox

You would have to sharpen the kits lens image more than the 24-70L and yes lose detail