Reading mode: Light Dark

7D, 17-55, ISO 3200 and LR make a great combination

Go to last post
Jeff Peterman

Jeff Peterman

Forum Pro
Messages
13,611
Solutions
6
Reaction score
2,555
Location
USA, MD, US
I've been using this combination a lot recently for low light shooting and the more I do, the more impressed I am. The lens is sharp and fast, the camera responsive, and processing the images in LR3 cleans up the ISO 3200 images wonderfully.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 
I've wondered about this -- can you post some pics?
Jeff Peterman said:
I've been using this combination a lot recently for low light shooting and the more I do, the more impressed I am. The lens is sharp and fast, the camera responsive, and processing the images in LR3 cleans up the ISO 3200 images wonderfully.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
 
Jeff Peterman said:
I've been using this combination a lot recently for low light shooting and the more I do, the more impressed I am. The lens is sharp and fast, the camera responsive, and processing the images in LR3 cleans up the ISO 3200 images wonderfully.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
Would be interested to see some of the impages if you care to post. Picture is worth a thousand words. I am keen on the lens too!!! Thinking of getting it so your post and any example pictures is timely
 
I'll have to see what I can do about that. All the shots I'm talking about were at private events and I can't post them here. I'll take a look through my shots and see if I can share anything, or maybe take some shots just for this.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 
I'm looking for sharpness and clarity of closeups after NR.

Hope you can post some
Jeff Peterman said:
I'll have to see what I can do about that. All the shots I'm talking about were at private events and I can't post them here. I'll take a look through my shots and see if I can share anything, or maybe take some shots just for this.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

Click to expand...
 
Jeff Peterman said:
I've been using this combination a lot recently for low light shooting and the more I do, the more impressed I am. The lens is sharp and fast, the camera responsive, and processing the images in LR3 cleans up the ISO 3200 images wonderfully.
Click to expand...
I don't use LR3 but I will agree - the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 7D is an amazing combo for many low-light tasks. Especially for handheld shots with the IS. Good focus quickness and accuracy, good image stabilization, good IQ and reasonably wide aperture leads to good results under difficult low light conditions.

I know of no more versatile low-light lens.

--
Mike Mullen
 
Here is such mine shot, taking from hand at ISO3200 PP in LR2, IS has been used.
Lens 17-55 IS USM.



 
Kasanicky said:
Here is such mine shot, taking from hand at ISO3200 PP in LR2, IS has been used.
Lens 17-55 IS USM.
Click to expand...
pretty good. suggest getting LR3 for better NR

here is my 5di with the new 100L with LR3.3--thin dof even at f4.5 when closeup

 


Handheld, only "light" coming from energy-saving lightbulbs in the ceiling. Lens is the 50mm f/1.8 II.

Model - Canon EOS 7D
ExposureTime - 1/25 seconds
FNumber - 3.20
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 6400
 
nice handheld ss 1/25 iso 6400 shot Keith!
Keith Reeder said:


Handheld, only "light" coming from energy-saving lightbulbs in the ceiling. Lens is the 50mm f/1.8 II.

Model - Canon EOS 7D
ExposureTime - 1/25 seconds
FNumber - 3.20
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 6400
Click to expand...
 
I have never been tempted to buy LR before, but I downloaded the trial to see what the NR was capable of. I have been able to go back and clean up some old shots that were unusable with only a slight loss of detail. The cost of LR would be worth it for noise reduction alone!

There is no magic with noise reduction - but this comes pretty close as far as I am concerned.
 
plugin said:
There is no magic with noise reduction - but this comes pretty close as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
The new demosaicing algorithm in there makes for a vastly-improved starting point for the NR to work on, and it's the effect of the two in tandem that provides the results.

I speak as someone who historically has hated the IQ from pre v.3 versions of Lr (and ACR) but who now regards it as the converter to beat - it really does set a standard that the rest (Bibble 5, Cap One 6) are unable to match, much less beat.

In fact in broad IQ terms the only other converter I even touch these days is Raw Therapee (which is excellent), but when ISOs get beyond 1600 ISO, it's Lr all the way.
 
Keith Reeder said:
plugin said:
There is no magic with noise reduction - but this comes pretty close as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
The new demosaicing algorithm in there makes for a vastly-improved starting point for the NR to work on, and it's the effect of the two in tandem that provides the results.

I speak as someone who historically has hated the IQ from pre v.3 versions of Lr (and ACR) but who now regards it as the converter to beat - it really does set a standard that the rest (Bibble 5, Cap One 6) are unable to match, much less beat.

In fact in broad IQ terms the only other converter I even touch these days is Raw Therapee (which is excellent), but when ISOs get beyond 1600 ISO, it's Lr all the way.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Yeah, LR3 does an amazing job with NR in my opinion. I do have one complaint though, when the luminance NR becomes excessive (70+) it leaves skin looking plasticky and fake. I have never had a reason to go that high, but still something I just noticed.



 
akin_t said:
Yeah, LR3 does an amazing job with NR in my opinion. I do have one complaint though, when the luminance NR becomes excessive (70+) it leaves skin looking plasticky and fake. I have never had a reason to go that high, but still something I just noticed.
Click to expand...
keep it down on that slider. I can't remember ever going above 40.

here is another iso3200 - I like the sharpness and clarity handheld with low ss and relatively light and just a 1 foot minimum focus distance with this set-up

100L, 5di, iso3200, f4.5, ss1/40, handheld, LR3.3

 
MAC said:
keep it down on that slider. I can't remember ever going above 40.

here is another iso3200 - I like the sharpness and clarity handheld with low ss and relatively light and just a 1 foot minimum focus distance with this set-up

100L, 5di, iso3200, f4.5, ss1/40, handheld, LR3.3
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't go above 40 either, was just playing around and noticed that artefact. Anyway nice shot! I've been considering the 100mm f/2.8L IS for that clarity and IS, but I already have the 135mm f/2L ... It seems redundant to own both. I'm sure I'll eventually find a reason to though.

Anyway, some more LR3 NR ... I really love this program! (Second pic is OOF but I still love it)







 
Four reasons for the 100L over the 135 f2 on FF.

1) the 100 mm fov is better for inside shooting with a prime -- if longer -- pull out your 70 -200 f2.8

2) The Minimum focus distance is only about 1 foot on the 100L

3) 4 stop IS for this focal length is mandatory imo for such a lens. You can trump the f2 easily with lower shutter speeds when the folks are not moving as much

4) Macro to boot

Read Andy's DPReview of the 100L on FF, and then you'll want to sell your 135.

The only thing I see the 135 L is better for is in higher action shooting when 4 stop IS doesn't matter. But without flash -- which I'd shoot without flash when possible -- the 100L trumps the 135...IMO
akin_t said:
MAC said:
keep it down on that slider. I can't remember ever going above 40.

here is another iso3200 - I like the sharpness and clarity handheld with low ss and relatively light and just a 1 foot minimum focus distance with this set-up

100L, 5di, iso3200, f4.5, ss1/40, handheld, LR3.3
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't go above 40 either, was just playing around and noticed that artefact. Anyway nice shot! I've been considering the 100mm f/2.8L IS for that clarity and IS, but I already have the 135mm f/2L ... It seems redundant to own both. I'm sure I'll eventually find a reason to though.

Anyway, some more LR3 NR ... I really love this program! (Second pic is OOF but I still love it)







Click to expand...
 
MAC said:
Four reasons for the 100L over the 135 f2 on FF.

1) the 100 mm fov is better for inside shooting with a prime -- if longer -- pull out your 70 -200 f2.8

2) The Minimum focus distance is only about 1 foot on the 100L

3) 4 stop IS for this focal length is mandatory imo for such a lens. You can trump the f2 easily with lower shutter speeds when the folks are not moving as much

4) Macro to boot

Read Andy's DPReview of the 100L on FF, and then you'll want to sell your 135.

The only thing I see the 135 L is better for is in higher action shooting when 4 stop IS doesn't matter. But without flash -- which I'd shoot without flash when possible -- the 100L trumps the 135...IMO
Click to expand...
Oh you don't need to convince me it's a better lens, I'm fully aware it is. I've been debating selling my 135L for the 100L for a while now. It's just I fear that if I sell the 135L, I'll end up buying it again. I know it's considered long on a crop body, but strangely I've become accustomed to the field of view and I've been enjoying it even though it is my least used lens.

I really want the 100L since I've always wanted to try my hand at macro work. However another issue stopping me is the 70-200 f/4L IS ... It just makes more sense to buy this lens before the 100L ... Oh well, I might just rent the 100L and see how it goes. I really don't want to own both the 135L and the 100L but to me it seems that these lenses are really different in application even though they are similar in specifications.

This is what I typically use the 135L for ...







 
akin_t said:
MAC said:
Four reasons for the 100L over the 135 f2 on FF.

1) the 100 mm fov is better for inside shooting with a prime -- if longer -- pull out your 70 -200 f2.8

2) The Minimum focus distance is only about 1 foot on the 100L

3) 4 stop IS for this focal length is mandatory imo for such a lens. You can trump the f2 easily with lower shutter speeds when the folks are not moving as much

4) Macro to boot

Read Andy's DPReview of the 100L on FF, and then you'll want to sell your 135.

The only thing I see the 135 L is better for is in higher action shooting when 4 stop IS doesn't matter. But without flash -- which I'd shoot without flash when possible -- the 100L trumps the 135...IMO
Click to expand...
Oh you don't need to convince me it's a better lens, I'm fully aware it is. I've been debating selling my 135L for the 100L for a while now. It's just I fear that if I sell the 135L, I'll end up buying it again. I know it's considered long on a crop body, but strangely I've become accustomed to the field of view and I've been enjoying it even though it is my least used lens.

I really want the 100L since I've always wanted to try my hand at macro work. However another issue stopping me is the 70-200 f/4L IS ... It just makes more sense to buy this lens before the 100L ... Oh well, I might just rent the 100L and see how it goes. I really don't want to own both the 135L and the 100L but to me it seems that these lenses are really different in application even though they are similar in specifications.
Click to expand...
I own both FF and Crop and actually I would not likely buy the 100L for crop, because of the length of 160 mm fov is outside of the more common portrait range of 50 -135 mm on FF. For Crop, I'd get the 85 f1.8 instead. I would get the 100L for crop as a macro lens though as you said, but it would be down on my list, as you said.

Though the 70-200 f4L IS is nice for outside shooting, for inside shooting on a crop camera it is 1.6 times too long and doesn't have f2.8. I bought the 70-200 f2.8 L for the same money and use light monopod to give me the Image Stabilization when I need it. On a full frame camera, blurring the backdrop with f2.8 is important to me for portrait shooting--with a crop camera you are seeing f4.5 dof --(FF equivalent). Also 70 mm fov becomes important to me indoors for the 70 -200.

YMMV. As I've said -- I bought a used $1K 5d1 for the shorter FOV's and the shallower DOF's that the FF lenses give. 100L is incredible on a 5di - indoors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top