Wide angle lenses: I do a lot of pictures during church services and several other programs there in the sanctuary. The incandescent lighting is very poor. I have been using my 17-50mm...

Dado

I do a lot of pictures during church services and several other programs there in the sanctuary. The incandescent lighting is very poor. I have been using my 17-50mm F/2.8 Tamron lens on my Nikon D7200. This works pretty well except I still have to use a very high ISO. The 17mm part of the lens is still not quite wide enough. I have to shoot without flash so the quality isn't great. I also shoot RAW and post edit with Adobe CS6. Do I need a new lens, a new camera or just deal with the poor quality end results?

AK Grandpa Loc: Anchorage, AK

If you shoot mostly interiors, I recommend the Tokina 11-16 or 11-20. Also Tamron and Nikon have similar lenses . . .

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Dado wrote:

I do a lot of pictures during church services and ... (show quote)

A wider angle lens won't address lighting issues, you can only use the available light, however it is created. Do you mean wide as in angle, or wide as in aperture?

'Full frame' cameras typically do better in low light, but the system cost - cameras and lenses - can be high. Wide angle lenses tend to have smaller apertures than 'normal' lenses (say 35mm for APS-C and 50mm for 35mm 'full frame'). Sensor quality for low light gets better every few years, but even though patience is a virtue, that may not address your problem. You may need to deal with the cards that you have been dealt, and see what you can do with noise reduction in post.

The laws of physics tend to be paramount in such situations, a wider angle lens than with an aperture bigger than f/2.8 might be hard to find or at least very expensive.

chevman Loc: Matthews, North Carolina

Nikon Nikkor 20mm f1.8G ed prime lens not quite as wide as what you are currently using but it is much faster for low light conditions. Maybe you could rent one to try out before buying. Here is a link to B&H.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&O=&Q=&ap=y&c3api=1876%2C%7Bcreative%7D%2C%7Bkeyword%7D&gclid=CjwKCAiA4vbSBRBNEiwAMorERzPizJCbibymc3ahgmjdwAruPsmPVQ8U1rTpUvjyciBsIknp4sHY4BoCZ9cQAvD_BwE&is=REG&m=Y&sku=1082607

Raz Theo Loc: Music City

Dado wrote:

I do a lot of pictures during church services and ... (show quote)

I occasionally shoot in very similar conditions to those you describe and never use a flash. With my Tokina 2.8 11-20mm I rarely have to go higher than 2000 ISO @ shutter speeds of between 125-200 and noise is never an issue. Even at 4000 ISO, depending on what I want to do with the finished product, noise is not objective (for me). The lens is also unbelievably sharp even in low light conditions and the 11mm to 20mm range is very useful.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Dado wrote:

I do a lot of pictures during church services and ... (show quote)

Do you do noise reduction, possibly selectively when, when post processing?

Dan R Loc: Way Way Way Upstate NY

Dado wrote:

I do a lot of pictures during church services and ... (show quote)

I did some volunteer work for my Church over Christmas. I have Tamron's SP 15-30 and Nikon 's 24-70 F2.8. I actually used the 24-70 for most of the shots, with the execption of a few, which were taken with my 70-200. I was able to use my flash for fill and it made a noticable difference. I was also using a D750 and kept the ISO at 1600 and had no problems. I could have gone higher on the ISO, but didn't need to. If you had a FF and were able to use your flash, I think it would have made a difference. I didn't use my Tamron SP 15-30 because to me it seems when people are towards the left and right edges of the frame, they tend to be a little distored.

Dan

Dado

Yes I do noise reduction too in post editing. Also I shoot 1800-2000 ISO. My pictures are acceptable but wanted other opinions. I may consider the 18mm prime lens but would have to use both my camera during programs rather that be changing lenses during programs. Thanks for your input. Last low light shoot was a men's singing group. Lighting was o.k. until the director turned the lights down for visual effect. Not a good thing for us photographing the performance.

CO

I noticed that there are different versions of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. Some of them have vibration compensation and some of them don't. Which one do you have? If it doesn't have vibration compensation, you might want to get the version with VC. It will allow you to use longer shutter speeds and lower ISO settings when hand holding the camera. Tamron's specs show that it gives an additional four stops.

Is it possible to use a tripod there? You could use longer shutter speeds and lower ISO settings.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Dado wrote:

This works pretty well except I still have to use a very high ISO.

How high of an ISO?

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

How high of an ISO?

quote
"Also I shoot 1800-2000 ISO"
end quote.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

Dado wrote:

Yes I do noise reduction too in post editing. Also I shoot 1800-2000 ISO. My pictures are acceptable but wanted other opinions. I may consider the 18mm prime lens but would have to use both my camera during programs rather that be changing lenses during programs. Thanks for your input. Last low light shoot was a men's singing group. Lighting was o.k. until the director turned the lights down for visual effect. Not a good thing for us photographing the performance.

I shoot clasical music events and with my older cameras that maxed out at ISO 3200 (which wasn't real "good") I was using f2 lens wide open.
With my newer bodies I can now shoot with f2.8 zooms (wide open), however I am shooting a lot at ISO 6400 and very ocassionally at ISO 12800.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Dado wrote:

Yes I do noise reduction too in post editing. Also I shoot 1800-2000 ISO. My pictures are acceptable but wanted other opinions. I may consider the 18mm prime lens but would have to use both my camera during programs rather that be changing lenses during programs. Thanks for your input. Last low light shoot was a men's singing group. Lighting was o.k. until the director turned the lights down for visual effect. Not a good thing for us photographing the performance.

Not to sound simplistic, but you’ve answered your own question. If 17mm isn’t wide enough, you need either a wider lens for your D7200 or a full-frame camera with a lens wider than the 26mm equivalent you now have. And if you’re not satisfied with the image quality at ISO 2000, you need either a lens faster than f/2.8 or a camera with better higher ISO performance. The Tokina AT-X 14-20mm f/2 PRO DX may be worth looking into. Good luck!

repleo Loc: Boston

Since you are prepared to consider a new camera, I'd suggest looking at the Sony A6xxx with a $300 Rokinon 12mm F2.0 NCS CS. The A6500 with its IBIS and would be the best but priciest option. The Rokinon is a great lens - ultra wide without being fisheye and F2 is phenomenal at that width. It is manual focus, but that is very easy on the A6xxx's. It is also available in Fuji mount.

Dado

Thanks for the suggestion but I already have 5 cameras and 6 lenses. I'm beginning to think I should make do with what I have as I'm retired and 80 years old. Appreciate your input.