How will a nifty fifty help me? 56k warning

[anco85]

Ok guys, I'm still deciding on which D-SLR to get. It was between the D40 and 400D, but after some thinking, it seems the 400D has now pulled into the lead.

I shoot a lot of low light events (read concerts and motorsport) and I've been thinking that I might as well get some faster glass to help me out.

Would it really be worth the money to get the nifty?

Here's some examples of what I have to shoot. All taken with the kit lens on a 400D

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Bok_van_Blerk11_20080414_1143136306.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Bok_van_Blerk8_20080414_1264103720.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Bok_van_Blerk8_20080414_1435724199.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Bok_van_Blerk15_20080414_1772696217.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Bok_van_Blerk1_20080414_1639063867.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Klip_Hard_Concert4_20080504_1830937607.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Klip_Hard_Concert6_20080504_1205057764.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Klip_Hard_Concert8_20080504_1981424063.jpg

http://www.namlish.com/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/Klip_Hard_Concert10_20080504_1010531050.jpg


As you can see, the problems are evident, just curious as to how much of a difference it'd make to my photography and if the price would be justifiable for this type of photography

[droopy1592]

It would be great in those conditions... you'd just need some room to move around.

[anco85]

I've thought of that(after someone mentioned it to me :D )

I do have space to move around, but I like to get up close and personal with the artists. I hover at the 18mm end of the kitty most of the time.

[michaelb]

You need Nick to chime in - he's our local band photographer! :D

I'm actually shocked that you were even able to get these shots with the kit lens - its not that its such a bad lens, but its not meant for any low light work.

The 50 1.8 would be the best option for the money. The 50 1.4 is better focusing, IMO, but the IQ between the 50 1.8 and the 50 1.4 is very similar in my experience.

It might be too long on the 400D, but the 85mm 1.8 is a very good low light lens.

[Rhys]

I had a 50 f1.8 and it was terrible. I dumped it ASAP.

[drama]

The 85 1.8 is a remarkable lens, incredibly fast, brilliant bokeh & light weight
In terms of AF speed & accuracy it leaves the 50 1.8 miles behind

I am not a fan of the 50 1.8, especially in low light situations, it takes ages to focus & tends to be inaccurate, the 50 1.4 is a better option

The Sigma 30 1.4 is also a good low light option but it is not as sharp towards the edge
The Canon 35 1.4L is a very good but also expensive lens

[Rhys]

Heh. Mine wouldn't even focus at midday!

[anco85]

85 is way to long. The sigma 30 sounds promising. Mind expanding on that one a little?

Rhys, sorry to hear about your misfortune, but are you an isolated case?

[Nickcanada]

Very impressive for the kit lens for sure!

Long answer:
If you are really tight for money go for the 50mm 1.8 BUT if you can at all I would suggest the Sigma 30mm 1.4 or the Canon 28mm 1.8. I haven't used either of those two. They both get mixed reviews, some people LOVE them and other people are indifferent or simply don't like them, because of that I decided to go for the expensive 35m 1.4. I've been very happy with it but often times I wonder if I would have been fine with the Sigma 30mm 1.4 or the 28mm 1.8.


Short answer:
If I was you I would buy the Sigma 30mm 1.4. :)

[anco85]

Thank you very much Nick

[michaelb]

Nick's suggestion on the Sigma 30 1.4 is a good one, but there have been reported autofocus issues with this lens on Canon bodies. So if you get one I would get it new with a warranty so you can send it to Sigma for calibration if necessary.

Here's a comparison between the $1000 "gold standard" Canon 35L and the $400 Sigma 30 - the Sigma looks damn good for the money....

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/30v35_2nd

[adam75south]

If I was you I would buy the Sigma 30mm 1.4. :)
i 2nd the sigma 30mm 1.4

i've had no focussing issues and the lens kicks ass...but at $80 i'd go ahead and get the 50mm f/1.8 also.

you can see a lot of low light samples of the sigma in this thread.
http://dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38646

and you can get it for $364 here
http://sigma4less.com/sigma-wide-angle-30mm-f14-ex-dc-hsm-autofocus-lens-for-canon-digital-eos.html
i'd call them to place the order because a lot of the time online orders don't go through same day. and you can sometimes get a better rate on shipping.

[Rhys]

85 is way to long. The sigma 30 sounds promising. Mind expanding on that one a little?

Rhys, sorry to hear about your misfortune, but are you an isolated case?

I don't know. I can only go by me experience which is:
Canon 18-55 (non-IS) poor unless used between f8-f16
Canon 50mm f1.8 poor
Tamron 70-300 sharp when it works but gave ERR99 rather too often.
Tamron 28-75 - not bad but not great.
Canon 17-85 IS - really rather good.
Canon 70-300 IS - so-so.
Tamron 17-35 - so-so on an XT - quite good on a 30D.

[Nickcanada]

My 50mm 1.8 was pretty good actually. It was tough to focus at concerts but I had pretty good success with it, especially in day time conditions.

One thing the review didn't touch on is the colour and contrast of the two lenses. It's probably the only reason I still have the 35mm... not that the Sigma is bad just I think the Canon is that good. :D

[Rooz]

if those are the photos you're getting out of your kit lens with available light then you dont seem to need the super fast aperture anyway. why not the sigma 18-50/2.8 or the tamron 17-50/2.8 ? that gets you both the wide angle you;re looking for aswell as the ability to get in tighter if the need arises.

[anco85]

Rooz, the simple answer is, convenience.

With the kit lens I have to wait for strobes or other lighting to go off and time my shots perfectly. I'd also like to start using flash less as it's a tad to bulky to carry around.

Besides, this kit lens isn't mine, the whole setup belong to the company I work for. I'm planning on buying a body and some lenses that suit me instead of just being stuck with a kitty that's going to frustrate me.

Is the sigma 18-50 constant at 2.8?

[Rooz]

yes, both the tam and the sig are constant 2.8.

you're not gonna get a cheap 1.8 prime at the 18-24mm mark thats for sure. the sigma 30mm 1.4 is the only lens even remotely within that focal length and thats relatively affordable.

[anco85]

With the kit lens I'm way smaller than 2.8 anyway, so that extra few stops might just be what I need.

Sorry for all the questions, but how sharp are the tamron and sigma?

[TheWengler]

The lens reviews on this (http://photozone.de/Reviews/overview) site will answer some of your questions.

[anco85]

Thank you wengler