f1.4 IS

A

ashaz

Messages
88
Name
ashley
Edit My Images
Yes
does anyone know if there is a f1.4 lens with image stabilisation? ie for dark places where flash is not allowed?
I've got the Canon 17mm-55mm f2.8 IS so unless the 1.4 has IS there seems little point in getting one.
 
Not for Canon, I'm afraid.

The beauty of systems with in body IS is that even your primes benefit but us poor Canon users only have the option of using a tripod or if that's not possible or we need to keep the shutter speed up using the widest possible aperture and boosting the ISO.
 
Remember that f1.4 is going to let in a lot more light and that IS isn't going to help too much with a moving subject... unless you have IS that allows you to pan.

Could you try before you buy?
 
I keep forgetting that moving subjects will not be helped by IS, thanks for reminding me.
Not so easy to try before I buy but buying seems more tempting again.
 
I find that at f1.4 I can normally get acceptable shutter speeds, ie. higher than the focal length of the lens or at least manageable, in even very low light but might have to go to ISO 1600 or 3200.
 
ashaz said:
does anyone know if there is a f1.4 lens with image stabilisation? ie for dark places where flash is not allowed?
I've got the Canon 17mm-55mm f2.8 IS so unless the 1.4 has IS there seems little point in getting one.
Click to expand...
The 1.4 gives a couple of advantages. Speed - 2 stops quicker than a 2.8 and sharpness (or at least you'd hope that when stopped down to 2.8 it would be sharper than the 2.8 at 2.8).

The thing about IS is that it isn't for very fast lenses. If you're at f1.4 and using IS, you need to compensate for in/out movement as DoF at 1.4 will be very small. I suspect this is why you don't get IS on 1.4 lenses...
 
I guess you're thinking about churches and such places where you just want to take shots of the architecture. There's lots you can do to enable you to get away with a slow shutter speed. A monopod is an obvious starting point where a tripod might be frowned on. Prop yourself against a pillar and hold the monopod tight and squeeze the shutter button. Even without image stabilisation you should be able to get away with much lower than the inverse shutter speed rule. Look for places to prop your camera, the back of a pew for instance.
 
eccles said:
I guess you're thinking about churches and such places where you just want to take shots of the architecture. There's lots you can do to enable you to get away with a slow shutter speed. A monopod is an obvious starting point where a tripod might be frowned on. Prop yourself against a pillar and hold the monopod tight and squeeze the shutter button. Even without image stabilisation you should be able to get away with much lower than the inverse shutter speed rule. Look for places to prop your camera, the back of a pew for instance.
Click to expand...


I was thinking about music bands on darkly lit stages as they don't like too much flash taken. I'm ok with stationary subjects. In churches I find a comb(wedge shaped) on a pew gets me a choice of angles so as not to hand hold.
I put some recent pics of a band in this section:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=362294

Pics 2 and 3 in my first post were without flash and not at all sharp though I do quite like no. 2 but more by accident than design. There were several worse that I didn't post because of light limitations.
I have the 450D which only goes up to 1600 ISO. It's great up to 800 but quality takes a huge hit at 1600.
f2.8 on the lens is pretty good(as it should be for the price!!).
 
I shoot with a 1.8 an find it fine

A 1.4 would be totally suitable for gigs - even really dark ones.

I shoot bands and gigs pretty much all week and never have an issue at 1.8 so go get a 1.4 and enjoy

ps I moved from a 2.8 to a 1.8 and the difference blew me away...
 
Mozina said:
I shoot with a 1.8 an find it fine

A 1.4 would be totally suitable for gigs - even really dark ones.

I shoot bands and gigs pretty much all week and never have an issue at 1.8 so go get a 1.4 and enjoy

ps I moved from a 2.8 to a 1.8 and the difference blew me away...
Click to expand...

I think you've convinced me!
 
artyman said:
Practice your technique, I've used as low as 1/4 second back in good the old days before IS lenses.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough for still life but musicians tend to move around all the time. Anything slower than 1/160 and you're risking motion blur, which is why IS/VR is pointless.

I would say if you can't get the ISO up to at least 1600/2000 or even 3200 then you're really going to struggle with poorly-lit venues at f/2.8. Of course f/1.8 and f/1.4 will really help get the light in, focussing gets really tricky for moving subjects with such large apertures, but that's just a case of technique.

Just to say that if you're shooting amateur bands they're a lot less likely to mind you using flash if it's the only way to get good results. Smaller venues often have dreadful blue or red lighting which looks rubbish in photos. As long as flash is used sparingly, and bounced, I wouldn't discount it.
 
martsharm said:
...focussing gets really tricky for moving subjects with such large apertures, but that's just a case of technique.
Click to expand...

Even at f1.4, depending upon focal length and the distance between you and the stage, the DoF could well be deep enough that focusing isn't too much of an issue.
 
arad85 said:
I suspect this is why you don't get IS on 1.4 lenses...
Click to expand...
as you mentioned at f1.4 DoF is very small - in-lens IS systems have a built-in tolerance for the movement of the lens group & the effect of this "parking error" would be a lot more noticeable @f1.4 than at larger apertures.
Also moving larger chunks of glass & lower volume no doubt come into it but I'm pretty sure that it's the DoF/parking error that's the main reason.
iirc there is only 1 in-lens IS lens greater than f2.8 (a Canon @f2.0)?
 
heidfirst said:
as you mentioned at f1.4 DoF is very small - in-lens IS systems have a built-in tolerance for the movement of the lens group & the effect of this "parking error" would be a lot more noticeable @f1.4 than at larger apertures.
Also moving larger chunks of glass & lower volume no doubt come into it but I'm pretty sure that it's the DoF/parking error that's the main reason.
iirc there is only 1 in-lens IS lens greater than f2.8 (a Canon @f2.0)?
Click to expand...

Yep the 200mm f2L IS and it will cost you a pretty penny to use one!!
 
For small stages (pub gigs) I find the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 to be effective on a Canon crop sensor (40D), if you wind-up having to push the ISO further than you're comfortable with a black and white conversion usually helps..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top