Best low light lens for 700D

What would you say is the best low light lens for the 700D?

I've got the 18-55mm stm lens that comes with it but would like something that I can effectively replace this with, something that works well in low light to give me that extra bonus.

I was looking at the Sigma 24mm 1.4 but I'm put off by the fact it doesn't have image stabilisation. I don't use a tripod and I'm more opportunistic. I'm not expect beautiful long exposure night shots but some that that is more capable. I can always rest it on something stable ha.

Thanks all.

This depends on what you're shooting and how you're doing it. You want something to replace your kit lens, but mention a prime lens.

If you don't mind the weight, a 17-50/55 f/2.8 zoom lens from Sigma, Tamron or Canon would be a capable option.
A nice prime lens with image stabilisation would be the Canon 35 mm f/2 IS or Tamron 35 mm f/1.8 VC, the latter being a bit heavier. The 24 and 28 mm f/2.8 IS from Canon are also worth a look, if you want something wider than 35 mm.

aequalis wrote:

This depends on what you're shooting and how you're doing it. You want something to replace your kit lens, but mention a prime lens.

Well I mainly use my camera when I'm travelling somewhere and use it to shoot, buildings, city sights, indoors, nature. I mention the prime lens just because of the f/1.4 for low light.

If you don't mind the weight, a 17-50/55 f/2.8 zoom lens from Sigma, Tamron or Canon would be a capable option.
A nice prime lens with image stabilisation would be the Canon 35 mm f/2 IS or Tamron 35 mm f/1.8 VC, the latter being a bit heavier. The 24 and 28 mm f/2.8 IS from Canon are also worth a look, if you want something wider than 35 mm.

35mm seems to be a favourite among a lot of people but for me on my crop sensor camera it feels to narrow. I would always feel to close.

With the f/2.8 is that much of an improvement in low light over f/3.5? I know it's 1 stop isn't it? But that doesn't mean much to me without visual comparison.

Corbula wrote:

With the f/2.8 is that much of an improvement in low light over f/3.5? I know it's 1 stop isn't it? But that doesn't mean much to me without visual comparison.

It's even just 2/3 of a stop. For example, when you need ISO 2500 at f/3.5 and 1/60 s with your kit lens, you can lower the ISO to 1600 or increase shutter speed to 1/100 s. That's not much, but your kit lens offers f/3.5 only at the wide end. The more you zoom in, the more you will profit from the faster aperture of the lenses I mentioned.

To my knowledge there is no lens, which provides a faster aperture than f/1.8 and image stabilisation at once. For your subjects image stabilisation is more useful since they're usually not moving.

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I think image stabilization is more useful than a wider aperture. Once the crop factor is applied to the aperture a f/1.4 becomes an effective f/2.2, a f/1.8 a f/2.9, f/2.8 a f/4.5 etc. so you lose a lot of the benefit of the wider aperture.

That's only true when talking about depth of field. In terms of light f/1.4 stays f/1.4 and that's what the TO is looking for.

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC HSM Art

This will give you nearly 50mm equivelence .

If you want zoom then

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art

The last post of the TO made me think, that 35 mm on APS-C is too tight. Therefore I guess, 30 mm won't be that much better. The 18-35 mm on the other hand, is a good sugestion, although it lacks image stabilisation.

aequalis wrote:

The last post of the TO made me think, that 35 mm on APS-C is too tight. Therefore I guess, 30 mm won't be that much better. The 18-35 mm on the other hand, is a good sugestion, although it lacks image stabilisation.

That was my feeling yes, but I'm actually considering it at the moment with the options I have for lenses. There is a lot of good photographs at 35mm I just feel that with my current 18-55 I'm usually trying to get more in so usually closer to 18mm.

I'm considering a 35mm though, I guess it will just require a little more effort and stepping further back and things to get the composition I want. The Canon seems to suffer from a lack of sharpness though.

If I didn't need imagine stabilisation I would have already gotten the Sigma f/1.4 but without IS on the lens or the body I have a feeling most of my photographs will be blurry.

Then I would give the Canon 35 mm f/2 IS or the Tamron 35 mm f/1.8 VC a try. Both have a good reputation, but the Canon is cheaper and lighter.

I'm sure you can! But the TO wants a stabilised lens and I guess, image stabilisation would work quite well for your 200 mm lens in low light as well.

aequalis wrote:

Then I would give the Canon 35 mm f/2 IS or the Tamron 35 mm f/1.8 VC a try. Both have a good reputation, but the Canon is cheaper and lighter.

I would choose the Canon of these two. The Tamron shines on full frame, but is a (bit of a) waste of money (and weight) on crop, and the Canon will focus faster and better with off center AF-points.

The IS of the Canon is good, you can easily use a shutterspeed of 1/10.

I Have the sigma 18-35 f/1.8.  I need schutterspeeds of 1/80 with this lens. It is also terrible front heavy. The Canon 35mm is a pleasure to use, the Sigma causes pain in your hands after shooting it for a while. Also: beware of autofocus problems with the Sigma. I bought an M50, one of the reasons was to make this lens focus accurate. IQ is nice, and so is the the ability to zoom out indoors when you just can not back up.

Corbula wrote:

aequalis wrote:

The last post of the TO made me think, that 35 mm on APS-C is too tight. Therefore I guess, 30 mm won't be that much better. The 18-35 mm on the other hand, is a good sugestion, although it lacks image stabilisation.

That was my feeling yes, but I'm actually considering it at the moment with the options I have for lenses. There is a lot of good photographs at 35mm I just feel that with my current 18-55 I'm usually trying to get more in so usually closer to 18mm.

I'm considering a 35mm though, I guess it will just require a little more effort and stepping further back and things to get the composition I want. The Canon seems to suffer from a lack of sharpness though.

If I didn't need imagine stabilisation I would have already gotten the Sigma f/1.4 but without IS on the lens or the body I have a feeling most of my photographs will be blurry.

I have a 200D and my current travel and walkabout lens is a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Art. It's a fantastic lens and to be honest I have had no issue with it's lack of stabilisation. The 18-35mm equates to about 28-56mm so would appear to be suitable for your intended use. No long ago there was no stabilisation, I would suggest if you have any concerns you should practice your stance, there's a number of good articles on how to stand and brace your arms to provide a good platform.

There are always the doom-sayers when Sigma lens are mentioned, I own 2 and have never had any issues. I have the Sigma Dock but have never had to use it for any AF microadjustment.

The reviews on this lens have all been very positive.

Cheers - Shane

Tourlou wrote:

Image stabilisation is no show stopper on lenses shorter than 100mm for me, even 200mm. I can take decent pictures, handheld, with my old 500mm unstabilized lens. I need a tripod at 1000mm though...

Do you not struggle when light starts to become an issue, when the sun is going down and you're relying on city lights?

Corbula wrote:

aequalis wrote:

This depends on what you're shooting and how you're doing it. You want something to replace your kit lens, but mention a prime lens.

Well I mainly use my camera when I'm travelling somewhere and use it to shoot, buildings, city sights, indoors, nature. I mention the prime lens just because of the f/1.4 for low light.

If you don't mind the weight, a 17-50/55 f/2.8 zoom lens from Sigma, Tamron or Canon would be a capable option.
A nice prime lens with image stabilisation would be the Canon 35 mm f/2 IS or Tamron 35 mm f/1.8 VC, the latter being a bit heavier. The 24 and 28 mm f/2.8 IS from Canon are also worth a look, if you want something wider than 35 mm.

35mm seems to be a favourite among a lot of people but for me on my crop sensor camera it feels to narrow. I would always feel to close.

With the f/2.8 is that much of an improvement in low light over f/3.5? I know it's 1 stop isn't it? But that doesn't mean much to me without visual comparison.

The sigma 18-35mm F1.8 seems to fit the measure. Its an incredibly sharp lens at all apertures.

Shanetp wrote:

There are always the doom-sayers when Sigma lens are mentioned,

Everyone should feel free to share there own experience, without becoming a this-sayer or that-sayer. Sorry, i don't like these kind of statements.

I own 2 and have never had any issues.

It is just wonderful that you share your experience just like other share their experiences.

I have the Sigma Dock but have never had to use it for any AF microadjustment.

Some noticed this lens can be inconsistent, in these cases a dock won't help.

The reviews on this lens have all been very positive.

As far it is about image quality >> yes. Talking about AF consistency using optical viewfinders, the majority of reviews are not positively.  My personal experience was also not positive with this aspect of this lens.

With Live View AF it works fine on my 70D, and also on my M50.

Cheers - Shane

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/154975832@N02/

A Canon 24mm F2.8 STM would be good for a wider fixed lens.

I owned the Sigma 17-50mm EX DC OS HSM F2.8 on a nikon D5300 (crop)and the IQ was a major step up from kit lens.

Corners not amazing but okay.

Constant F2.8 was good in most light in galleries and museums and these cameras do ISO 6400 okay.

AF was V fast but after a year did become unreliable but that could have been my fault as just before it suffered a very hard drop.

Obviously F2.8 on crop not for really detailed interiors of cathedrals etc if not using a tripod in which case a faster lens would be better, but the IS is good on that lens too.

Great price, well built, very contrasty and sharp and good colour saturation, AF and IS.

The stm lens has no IS. The 24 with IS has USM in stead of stm. I think you are confusing two different lenses.

thunder storm wrote:

The stm lens has no IS. The 24 with IS has USM in stead of stm. I think you are confusing two different lenses.

I think you need to re-read my post

Cheers