[Lowell Goudge]

A radical suggestion:
How about upping the ISO? In other words look at a K20D.

It will most likely give you 1,5-2EV. Better SR is another handy bonus in low light photo.

Why? Because thats the only way you can awoid then paper thin DOF in low light.

I do know, that the Limited lenses are tempting. But, this might be a better solution, all things concidered.

Tim

Good point, it depends upon whether the object is stationary or moving.

I kept my *istD just to have 3200 ISO. Many people say why do you need it, the K10 has SR. But SR does nothing to freeze the image.

Same with DOF, the reported better quality at 6400 ISO gives 2 stops of depth of field.

BUT, unless you are really close, I am not sure it is a problem, I have done a lot at 1600 and 3200 ISO with F2.8 lenses and had acceptable image depth as long as I was a ways back (i.e. 70-200 in an auditorium) only time I had difficulty was with a 50mm F1.4 in a small cabaret type bar, shooting wide open from 10-25 feet.

[hinman]

I push the high ISO and my hand-holding to its limits, every time that I get a chance at it. All are hand-holding with my K100D with some at high iso settings

1st 1/2 second shutter shot on first day with kit's lens DA 18-55
1/2 sec, f/4.5, 38mm, iso 200, -1/2 EV


With a slow lens Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5
1/10 sec, f/4.5, 35mm, iso 400, -7/10Ev, hand-held with SR


With Tokina 19-35 f/3.5-4.5
1/8 sec, f/4.0, 30mm, iso 400, -7/10Ev, hand-held with SR


With Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 manual
1/25 sec, f/2.8, 25mm, iso 800, 0 Ev


With Vivitar 24mm f/2.8 manual
1/3 sec, f/5.0, 24mm, iso 800, 0 Ev


With a p&s without SR or IS feature, fuji f30 -- my best p&s in low light in high iso
1/4 sec, iso 400, 0 Ev

And I have tried some extreme cases with 1.0sec shutter on my FA 50 f/1.4 and I wish I had tried iso 3200. The aperture was set wrong, carried over from previous shot! This one is done in iso 1600 but not acceptable result as I meant to capture the trailing lights from the performer.

with Pentax fa 50 f/1.4
1 sec, f/8, 50mm, 1600, 0 Ev

Pushing for the high ISO and bring along a tripod will help greatly. And I am on the extreme cases of pushing my own limits with hand-holding whenever I find a shooting opportunity.

Hin

[Fototim]

One mre argument in faviour of upping the usuable ISO.
When concidering the speed of the two zooms OP asready has.
Ltd 31 gives +1,3EV
FA 35/2 gives +1EV
Ltd 77 gives +1,3EV

K20D will give 1,5-2 with both zooms.
And SR comes at top on this. All things concidered, upgrading seems like a more costeffecient solution. One more thing. It is faster to shoot with one single lens, than to switsh lenses constantly at a gig (I know, I have switced lenses a lot, in low light photography)

This said. There are thousands of good arguments towards buying better lenses. So do whatever you prefer.

Tim

[jgredline]

A radical suggestion:
How about upping the ISO? In other words look at a K20D.

It will most likely give you 1,5-2EV. Better SR is another handy bonus in low light photo.

Why? Because thats the only way you can awoid then paper thin DOF in low light.

I do know, that the Limited lenses are tempting. But, this might be a better solution, all things concidered.

Tim

in my simpleton mind, these were pretty much my thoughts.

[jgredline]

Here is a question that I have been pondering. Seems like a good place to ask.
Lets take for example a 50/f1.4 and a 50/f2.8.
Now from what I understand the F number is the lens speed (small number = more light)
so the 50/f1.4 is a quicker lens than the 50/f2.8...My question is this. What if both lenses were set to F/4.0 ...Would they now be the same speed or will the 50/f1.4 still be quicker?

By the way, I have the 77 Limited and the few times I have used it, it works pretty well in low light..

[egordon99]

Yes, if both lenses were set to f/4.0, you would get the same shutter speed (assuming the same lighting). That's the WHOLE point of using f-stops

(not ENTIRELY true, look up T-stops used in cinematography, but for still photography, it's close enough)

Here is a question that I have been pondering. Seems like a good place to ask.
Lets take for example a 50/f1.4 and a 50/f2.8.
Now from what I understand the F number is the lens speed (small number = more light)
so the 50/f1.4 is a quicker lens than the 50/f2.8...My question is this. What if both lenses were set to F/4.0 ...Would they now be the same speed or will the 50/f1.4 still be quicker?

By the way, I have the 77 Limited and the few times I have used it, it works pretty well in low light..

When did you pick up the 77mm? I've used carpents' copy and it was really nice!

[qdoan]

A radical suggestion:
How about upping the ISO? In other words look at a K20D.

It will most likely give you 1,5-2EV. Better SR is another handy bonus in low light photo.

Why? Because thats the only way you can awoid then paper thin DOF in low light.

I do know, that the Limited lenses are tempting. But, this might be a better solution, all things concidered.

Tim

I did up the ISO. The only way I got off decent shots was in TAv Mode - ISO 1200-1600, and even then shutter speed 1/20 - 1/25, @ f2.8 with SR on.

With the 50mm, I was able to get many more useable shots at 1/60 @ F2.0 with SR on.

[qdoan]

K20D will give 1,5-2 with both zooms.
And SR comes at top on this. All things concidered, upgrading seems like a more costeffecient solution. One more thing. It is faster to shoot with one single lens, than to switsh lenses constantly at a gig (I know, I have switced lenses a lot, in low light photography)

This said. There are thousands of good arguments towards buying better lenses. So do whatever you prefer.

Tim

This is also a tempting option. I'm well aware that its much faster shooting with a single lens than to switch constantly, hence my 2 K10s. Usually one wide zoom and one tele zoom.

[jgredline]

Yes, if both lenses were set to f/4.0, you would get the same shutter speed (assuming the same lighting). That's the WHOLE point of using f-stops

(not ENTIRELY true, look up T-stops used in cinematography, but for still photography, it's close enough)

This is what I thought. Thanks

When did you pick up the 77mm? I've used carpents' copy and it was really nice!

2 months ago. I used it to shoot some pics at the school auditorium and it worked out really well in that poorly lit room. I have found that using it for portraits is amazing.

By the way. You have some of the nicest photos I have seen. You always have good color and sharpness..

[Fototim]

With the 50mm, I was able to get many more useable shots at 1/60 @ F2.0 with SR on.

Assuming you can get close enough, you will get sharp pictures at 24mm at 2,8 with same shutterspeed.

Assuming the subject does not move fast and you are steady, you may be able to push it even further. A monopod can give a lot of help too. With a good shooting techique probably one more step than with SR alone.

In shorts, there are many roads leading to Rome. Faster lenses is just one of them.

Tim

[qdoan]

Thank you for the tips! I'll surely keep them in mind the next time around. Using my settings at 2.8, the telephoto lens did much better. For some reason, the 24-70 is just too soft wide open. Many have suggested that I get the Tamron 28-75 to replace it.

This particular instance wasnt one where I wanted to get up close, as it was a funeral visitation/memorial. Kinda rude to be in people's faces there...

[jgredline]

I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is pretty much permanent on one of my bodies. I usually shoot with it at f/2.8 and it is sharp all the way through.
I will post some pics when I get home using this lens.

[hinman]

Thank you for the tips! I'll surely keep them in mind the next time around. Using my settings at 2.8, the telephoto lens did much better. For some reason, the 24-70 is just too soft wide open. Many have suggested that I get the Tamron 28-75 to replace it.

This particular instance wasnt one where I wanted to get up close, as it was a funeral visitation/memorial. Kinda rude to be in people's faces there...

I have the Tamron 28-75 and I find the lens to be sharp wide open. It is still new in my gear set but I have got to love it as it is my most expensive zoom. Besides upping the ISO, I suggest investment into a good tripod, monopod and a mini-tripod. You fastest lens is going to be your any lens + a tripod. There is a forum member somewhere else that I greatly admire -- Godfrey in dpreview, photo.net and he has great documentary in pentaxian.com. His online signature quoted as "My fastest lens is my tripod" or something in that order. It is quite true, and you can stay with iso 100 and go for the long shutter without SR on a tripod. For mini-tripod, I recommend Ultrapod II from REI, it is about $15.0, you can read more on my recommendation on Ultrapod II in

ABC Wednesday -- Ultrapod II Tripod - Hin's Tech Corner

and I have an inexpensive carbon fiber tripod that I don't use much that I get from Amvona store in eBay, look for tripod in my outdated Pentax gear blog post, it cost me less than $100.

Inexpensive gear with Pentax - Hin's Tech Corner

My most proud of ownership is my FA 50 f/1.4 for low light work and that lens is just as good for portraits for indoors as well as night shooting and daylight shooting not needing a wide angle.

with cropping for a wider angle




shot thru glass in f/2.0

But I have to say that I don't enjoy carrying a tripod with me all the time, all shots posted are done in hand-held with my K100D. Though not used, I have my ultrapod II with me in my camera bag, my next best investment is on a monopod which I intend to use with night shooting as well as panning shots for capturing movements.

Thanks,
Hin

[kris]

people misunderstand when it comes to low light lenses

a fast lens will give you a bright viewfinder so you can work better in the dark

but actualy SHOOTING at a wide open aperture requires lots of skill and thinking ahead since your depth of field will be razor thin

using any normal prime below 2.8 will give you half-blured images, or in the case of shooting 1.4 you can go so far as to have the persons nose seem out of focus and their eyes in focus if they are facing you at an angle.


once you actualy buy a fast lens you will realize that to get the proper shot you will bump your aperture up to 3 or 4 atleast for most "normal" things


this is a fair warning.

Gooshin, thank you for the reminder about the limits of depth of field in available light. like many i'm attracted to the f/1.4 number but forgot that connection. i'll keep your 'warning" in mind when looking for a prime.
Kris

[christinelandon]

Here is a question that I have been pondering. Seems like a good place to ask.
Lets take for example a 50/f1.4 and a 50/f2.8.
Now from what I understand the F number is the lens speed (small number = more light)
so the 50/f1.4 is a quicker lens than the 50/f2.8...My question is this. What if both lenses were set to F/4.0 ...Would they now be the same speed or will the 50/f1.4 still be quicker?...snip.

While both of the 50s will be equally fast (in terms of aperture), the f/1.4 will probably autofocus more quickly in really low light than the f/2.8. There's all kinds of speed in this world...