I am a DSLR beginner, primarily using it to take hand held shots of individuals/groups indoors and outdoors (casual photography). I moved to DSLR from bridge cameras mainly to take better pictures indoors.
I recently bought the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the canon f/1.4 50mm for my Rebel XT (1.6x crop). I figured I would use the Tamron as a general purpose lens and the canon for indoor flash free shots. I was aware that 50mm f/1.4 (80mm on 1.6x) was pretty limiting but worth it for the flash-free hand held shots.
I tried out both the lenses as soon as they arrived today and I notice that the Tamon at f/2.8 was pretty capable of taking flash-free photography. Given this, I have suddenly begin to question the decision to buy the canon f/1.4 lens and wondering if I should return it and save myself some significant money (I am on a tight budget). I would like to retain it if there is something the canon f/1.4 can do that the Tamron cannot.
One such situation I observed was that I could take a hand held shots of outdoor Christmas lights at nighttime while the Tamron would definitely need a tripod. However, I rarely take such shots and I have the SLIK 700DX tripod for such occasions.
Is there any effects that I would be able to do with the canon f/1.4 that I may find difficult or impossible with the Tamron?
I have the Canon 50 1.4 and the canon 17-50IS. I would much rather shoot with the 17-50 cause of the flexibility. It just isn't worth the lens change 95% of the time. The only time I use the 50 is when I want the depth of field.
So in your case...I would take the 50 back or sell it. Maybe take the money and put it toward a 70-200 f/4. That was a great lens while I had it!
In reality the 50f1.4 is two stops faster than the tamron 17-50f2.8. While I haven't shot the tamron I can tell you that the 50 is a very capable lense. The IS can only help reduce your movement, not your subjects so if you are in low light and you have kids moving around, the prime will allow you to shoot 2 stops faster. It is a lot of flexibility in a kit that takes up very litte room in your bag and for only $300. If you want to take a slight hit on image quality, you could sell your 50f1.4 and get the 50f1.8 for like $80.
I realized this after trying to take hand held shots with the tamron. f2.8 is not enough for low light hand held shots. To get the f/4 sharpnes and proper exposure, the shutter speed was hovering between 1/10 to 1" which was impossible with hand held shots.
However, I am still inclined to return the 50mm f/1.4 and go for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. 50mm on a 1.6x is very limiting. The Sigma however seem to have serious QA issues and seems to be a lottery with regard to focusing. Not to say about 150$ more than the Canon 50mm f/1.4. I am probably going to give the Sigma a shot anyways.
Were you increasing your ISO setting? You should be able to use a f/2.8 lens handheld. Then again, it depends what exactly you mean when you say "low" light.
Yes I can do it if I use ISO 800 (or 1600 in most cases). However the noise is significant and reducing it results in loss of detail. I wanted to have a lens that can do ISO400, 1/100 shutter speeds around 30mm in the light of a single 100watt tungsten bulb in a 15ft by 8ft room.
vijay venkat wrote:
Yes I can do it if I use ISO 800 (or 1600 in most cases). However the noise is significant and reducing it results in loss of detail. I wanted to have a lens that can do ISO400, 1/100 shutter speeds around 30mm in the light of a single 100watt tungsten bulb in a 15ft by 8ft room.
That is a tall order. You can probably get ISO 800, f/2.8 and 1/30s, but even that is a stretch.
Remember that at f 1.4, the 50mm is pretty soft. I have the 50mm 1.8 and I will never really use 1.8. It effectively becomes a 2.8 lens. That being said, I will take the quality of the 50mm at 2.8 over any zoom lens wide open at 2.8. That is where the real advantage is in my opinion - to be able to shoot f 2.8 with amazing quality images.
Look into the 30mm f2 as well. A bit older, but stellar at f2.8. Perhaps the only lens that is going to come close to what you are looking for is the 35mm 1.4L if you can stretch it. Very good at 1.4, exceptional at 2.0 and absolutely blow your socks off at 2.8.
I believe the reference above is to th Canon EF 35 f/2 which has a fine reputation.
I shoot with the EF 50 f/1.4 and have had excellent experience with it. I can shoot all day long at f/2 with outstanding results, inside and outside. Since you're shooting with a cropped camera you may wish to check out the Sigma 30 f/1.4 which translates to 48mm on a cropped Canon. I shot with that lens on a friend's Nikon D200 and was very impressed. It is a lovely lens and a great focal length on a cropped camera. It is a touch more expensive than the 50 f/1.4 however but you might wish to check it out. (I'd certainly second the comment about the EF 35 f/1.4L which is by far my favorite lens for shooting people indoors. It deserves its stellar reputation but costs twice as much as your camera.) Good luck.
vijay venkat wrote:
However, I am still inclined to return the 50mm f/1.4 and go for the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. 50mm on a 1.6x is very limiting.
I have the Sigma 30mm/1.4 for my Canon 30D and sometime, it's still too narrow :-) Sometimes it's too wide (that's why I'm considering the Canon 50/1.4 in addition to it). But it is just fantastic for low-light shooting. Some pictures:
#1
#2
#3
#4
Shot 1, 2 and 4 with ISO 3200, shot 3 with ISO 800. The (german) story behind the pictures can be found at Christbaum Versenken 2007.
