Confused with low light options: fast lens vs VR/IS

southernjessie

southernjessie

Messages
602
Name
SJ
Edit My Images
Yes
Just seeking some views on this subject. I shoot a lot in low light, of still objects, buildings, city scenes and landscapes. I try to use a tripod but sometimes it's not possible to do so.

I see many posts where people prefer fast lenses (e.g. Sigma 35mm f1.4) for low light photography, rather than vibration reduction or optical stability (or VC/OS for other manufacturers).

I've found VR really helpful in low light in the past, but since upgrading to a D600, the general opinion on most forums is to use primes for overall optical quality. I'm considering the Nikon 28 f1.8G and 85 f1.8G, but in low light, when I want to take landscapes when the sun gets lower, would VR suit me better? I know I can boost the ISO, but another feature of VR is that I can use slower shutter speeds and keep the ISO lower.

FYI I have the 50 f1.8G which I really like, but have found that in darker conditions does not give as sharp images as a lens with VR.

For example, I wish to shoot inside a museum and I am not allowed a tripod. I want as much in focus as possible. If I use a fast lens at f1.8 or f1.4 to gather the most light, wouldn't the image be less sharp than using a lens like a Nikon 24-85 VR at f3.5, because with the fast f1.4 lens I'm using a larger aperture so there would be a smaller DOF?

Am I completely wrong in my assumption?
 
For things that move IS won't help, for static objects like buildings, landscapes etc it will

Fast lenses are more useful for things that move, people etc, but do bring their own challenges when working wide open when DoF can be tiny, not ideal for your kind of work.

Edited to add a tripod really is your best bet, as you say there are occasions where they're not allowed, eg Cologne's cathedral, which helpfully is also dark!, but they are few and far between. 99% of my shots are off a tripod. It slows your working down (not an issue if I am using a technical camera!), allows you to perfect your composition and allows the use of slower shutter speeds with low ISO to retain quality and minimise noise.
 
Last edited:
I would look to a camera that had good high ISO,the reasons being fast lens are great but don't always give the dof needed,IS & VR cant be used if your using an tripod.
 
No lens is at its best wide open so being able to stop down a bit and retain handholdability makes VR/OS etc. a handy option. Cleanliness at high ISOs is a massive boon too - many cameras can now deliver perfectly useable shots at ISO values that were all but unthinkable a generation or two ago (in terms of cameras), allowing shots that would have necessitated a tripod a few years ago to be taken on a whim.

As far as primes vs. zooms go these days, some primes are better than some zooms but there are some bloody good zooms available! Some fast options with stabilization too - the Tamron 24-70 VC springs to mind (and is supposed to be pretty damn good with it!) While there's something puristically 'nice' about using a prime, zooms are so much more convenient and versatile that I now only use primes in special circumstances, with low light only being one of them if I want to be relatively unobtrusive. Macro and fisheye are the other 2 I have alongside zooms from 12-300, none of which are super fast although 2 are VR.
 
The best solution is a combination of the two, fast aperture and VR so something like a 24-70 f2.8 VR would give you the best of both worlds, the only penalties being weight and cost.
 
Is there a 24-70 VR yet? I know Tamron do a VC one but not sure there's a Nikko equivalent yet. Closest I can think of from them is the slower 24-120 f/4.
 
One
Nod said:
Is there a 24-70 VR yet? I know Tamron do a VC one but not sure there's a Nikko equivalent yet. Closest I can think of from them is the slower 24-120 f/4.
Click to expand...
One of the 'holy trinity'....Nikon 24-70 f2.8 VR.....for full frame cameras.

EDIT...my mistake.no VR! Sorry....
 
Last edited:
;)

The 24-120 isn't a bad option unless you're a fan of very shallow DoF. Not got a Nikkor 24-70 to do a proper comparison but it is better (and feels nicer in use) than the sigma 24-70 it replaced in my bag.

Of course, the other advantage the faster lenses (f/2.8 zooms, like the "holy trinity" mentioned above) confer is that they tend to be better built than their slower, budget cousins.
 
Image stabilisation and low f/numbers work in different ways. They both allow you to shoot at higher shutter speeds in low light, and high ISO performance is a third option too, but they have different upsides and downsides.

- Image stabilisation reduces blurring caused by camera-shake/movement with longer shutter speeds, but it does nothing to reduce subject movement.
- Low f/numbers allow the use of faster shutter speeds, reducing both camera-shake and subject movement. Depth of field can get very shallow though, that can be either a problem or advantage.
- Good performance at high ISO allows the use of faster shutter speeds and/or higher f/numbers, but at the risk of increased noise.
 
Thanks for all the replies - much appreciated. I don't shoot moving objects just still, but I normally wait until the sun starts to go down. Or I'll be inside buildings without a tripod. I have a Nikon D600 which has great high ISO capabilities but it's better for me to use lower ISO as it gives better dynamic range to work with in post processing.

My question came about because I often read that people say that a certain fast lens (I'll give the example of the Sigma 35 f1.4) is great for low light situations. What I wanted to know is what kind of pics are being taken? Using a wide aperture to create subject isolation and bokeh is fine, even in low light, but I'd assume using f1.4 to take a pic of a whole room in very low light (even with the ISO boosted) wouldn't result in much sharpness due to the extremely small DOF?
 
The answer really is a pocket tripod that collapses to about an inch long. Unfortunately, such things don't exist in the real world! There are some fairly good mini supports available though - have a look in camera shops in the run up to commercialmas and see what your local shop offers. (Much better to have a play before you pay, so you know what you're buying.)
 
Last edited:
southernjessie said:
Thanks for all the replies - much appreciated. I don't shoot moving objects just still, but I normally wait until the sun starts to go down. Or I'll be inside buildings without a tripod. I have a Nikon D600 which has great high ISO capabilities but it's better for me to use lower ISO as it gives better dynamic range to work with in post processing.

My question came about because I often read that people say that a certain fast lens (I'll give the example of the Sigma 35 f1.4) is great for low light situations. What I wanted to know is what kind of pics are being taken? Using a wide aperture to create subject isolation and bokeh is fine, even in low light, but I'd assume using f1.4 to take a pic of a whole room in very low light (even with the ISO boosted) wouldn't result in much sharpness due to the extremely small DOF?
Click to expand...

Image stabilisation is just the thing for that, though be aware that IS doesn't eliminate camera-shake, any more than fast shutter speeds do - they both reduce it to acceptable levels. When you're on the hand-holding limit, with or without IS, the amount of visible shake is both varied and unpredictable and there's safety in numbers. Shoot three or four images at the same time, just click-click-click-click quickly, and at least one of those shots will be usefully sharper than the others.
 
My choice is VR lenses for interior low light shots. I have just come back from a trip to Malta and took a load of shots in the church at Mosta using a Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR. Managed some good shots at very slow shutter speeds. Would never have got the same results with my 24-70 f2.8.
Have also taken photos inside all of the museums in Leicester with the same lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top