[photofreek]

Does anyone have experience with the 80-160 in low light as in a church??

[phonoline]

you mean for a wedding? I'd rather go with a Nikon or Canon 70-200/2.8 there. Faster and better quality for these kind of situations.

[Adam]

A regular DSLR will probably get the job done better in low light, but if you've got a sturdy tripod, I'm sure the zoom will deliver fine shots.

[Yamanobori]

ISO 1600 is really good on the 645D. It really depends which end of the focal length range you are working at, but a monopod would be a good idea.

[phonoline]

If it's just for a wedding, I'd waive the 645D. You just can't shoot on a wedding with the slow 645D except the portraits and group shots. Mono- or tripod on a wedding day – mm, that's a lot to carry.

[photofreek]

I was thinking of using a flash but I did not know if the FA 80-160 would hunt for focus in low light, hence the question does anyone have EXPERIENCE using this lens, thanks

[phonoline]

It all depends. What do you wanna shoot? Is it a wedding? Do you need to be quick? Are you sure you need auto focus?
Even the fast Nikon D700 with the grand 24-70 or 70-200 has problems focusing in very low light. I am sure the 645D has these probs, too, with the 80-160 or the 45-85.

You should be a little more specific about what you wanna do.

[itshimitis]

This was shot at 160 on the A version at 1600 ISO at maximum aperture and no flash

[Yamanobori]

I was thinking of using a flash but I did not know if the FA 80-160 would hunt for focus in low light, hence the question does anyone have EXPERIENCE using this lens, thanks

Why don't you test the lens and camera at night indoors and at well light exteriors. Then you will know how it will act.

[photofreek]

So far it sounds as if no one has experience with this lens, but alot of opinions that are OFF topic. I do not own this lens I was thinking of buying it as I have the A version, and when I did shoot a wedding and it was low light in a church I had trouble focusing fast, as the participants would be going thru their rituals, and I do not like to stay in one spot for long , so I only asked on this forum to see if anyone had used the FA version so that I could make a decision to purchase the FA or not.

[derAngler]

Maybe you should ask the users "jimpurcell" or "phonoline". They both own the FA-version.

[phonoline]

I received my 80-160 FA just yesterday and have not viewed any pictures in Photoshop, yet, so I can't say much about it. What I CAN say is what I have already said. Using the 645D at a wedding in a church at low light makes no sense to me at all because you gotta be quick and on time. Which you are not with a 645D - not with a FA 75 and surely not with a 80-160 FA.

[Yamanobori]

The 645D is not quick? Funny, I use it for street photography and it seems responsive enough for me. Perhaps it will be fast enough for the OP and perhaps we can help by giving some information. Just sayin'...

[phonoline]

Street photography is totally different from wedding photography. You are more of an observer and don't have to be neccessarily quick "on the street" - at a wedding you have to when it comes to capture THE moment(s), whatever it is: the kiss, the hugs, the laughter, the dancing, the kids fooling around - if you are not quick, the moment's gone.
There is a difference in shooting 7 pictures per second with a Nikon or Canon or 1,1 pictures per second with the 645D. There is a difference in shooting with a 50mm 1.4 (or 1.2) in low light in a church or with a 75mm 2.8. There is a difference in shooting 12-16MP Raws or 39MP-Raws.

[Pål Jensen]

Its a weird world where wedding photography is the ultimate challenge for the photographer. Wedding photography can be (and has been) done with any type of camera sucessfully. Even a Holga..,.
Wedding photography at 1.2 at 7FPS is indeed weird....