Fast lens VS Image Stabilisation lens

Started 1 month ago | Questions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
midkin New Member • Posts: 4
Fast lens VS Image Stabilisation lens
1

Hello everyone. Been reading the forums for a while now. Time to make my first post.

It’s been a month since I got my M50(mark I), with the kit lens 15-45. I ‘ve been reading a lot since then, about photography and different equipment. I have already taken some nice shots mostly with the use of a tripod.

I am now thinking of buying a new lens and maybe an ND filter. After using the kit lens I found myself needing faster lens. I like walking at nights and getting the M50 with me. But it’s quite annoying that when I want to take a picture I have to spend like 2-5 minutes, getting the tripod out of my backpack, opening it etc and taking some test shots. So I was wondering if there is a len that I can use to take low light pictures without a tripod. I had almost decided buying either Canon 32mm f/1.4 or the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. More in the favour of Sigma because I like to shoot landscapes.

On the other hand I see the excellent results of the canon 11-22mm, but this lens is sadly even slower than my kit lens... I also read that the image stabiliser works very nice giving awesome results even at slow shutter speeds.

So, for low light situations where you want to shoot without a tripod what’s more important? Wide apertures offering faster speeds or the image stabilisation? Should I get the Canon 11-22 or the Sigma 16?

Thanks in advance!

ANSWER:
This question has not been answered yet.
Canon EOS M50 (EOS Kiss M)
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow