Camera lenses: I was looking around for a decent 2.8 canon lense for doing some low light photography and the camera dealer recommended a 1.8 as being more sensitive and quicker speeds...

jbslord Loc: Coventry UK

I was looking around for a decent 2.8 canon lense for doing some low light photography and the camera dealer recommended a 1.8 as being more sensitive and quicker speeds as well as being actually cheaper than a 2.8. Buy or don't buy??

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

An F1.8 lens cheaper than an F2.8 lens of the same focal length??? I would be VERY wary of the cheaper lenses quality! Faster glass is always more expensive to producem hence more expensive to buy.

mooseeyes Loc: Sonora, California

MT Shooter wrote:

An F1.8 lens cheaper than an F2.8 lens of the same focal length??? I would be VERY wary of the cheaper lenses quality! Faster glass is always more expensive to producem hence more expensive to buy.

Canon's "nifty fifty" is a f/1.8 lens. Not expensive, a pretty good lens in fact. What really isn't being said here is what is the OP taking photos of, in the indicated low light conditions?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

mooseeyes wrote:

MT Shooter wrote:

An F1.8 lens cheaper than an F2.8 lens of the same focal length??? I would be VERY wary of the cheaper lenses quality! Faster glass is always more expensive to producem hence more expensive to buy.

Canon's "nifty fifty" is a f/1.8 lens. Not expensive, a pretty good lens in fact. What really isn't being said here is what is the OP taking photos of, in the indicated low light conditions?

I am well aware of the "nifty fifties" of several incarnations. What I have trouble figuring out is, what 50mm F2.8 the OP was looking at and why it cost more? Unless it was something like the Sigma 50mm F2.8 dedicated prime Macro, but he said he was looking at a Canon lens. Must be one I am unaware of as the Canon 50mm Macro is a F2.5.

mooseeyes Loc: Sonora, California

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=mooseeyes quote=MT Shooter An F1.8 lens ch... (show quote)

I don't think the OP ever said she was looking at a 50mm lens. Like I suggested, it would be lots of help if we knew what subjects she wanted to photograph in low light. Maybe a 50mm lens would do the trick for her needs? Sure, she could go with the 1.4 50mm, or the 85mm 1.8, or a 135mm 2.8. . .but it is clear she is concerned about money and the only thing that we know is she has a hankering to shoot "something" in low light conditions. Without knowing more, I'll stick with the suggestion of the "nifty-fifty" for the price and lens speed.

heyjoe Loc: cincinnati ohio

the 1.8 is a cheaper made lens,the 1.4 much better and only $300 range

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

MT Shooter wrote:

An F1.8 lens cheaper than an F2.8 lens of the same focal length??? I would be VERY wary of the cheaper lenses quality! Faster glass is always more expensive to producem hence more expensive to buy.

I'm only guessing MT but I guess OP was looking at a mid-range F/2.8 zoom on someones advice.
You see it recommended here all the time for low light. People find something better than a kit lens and next thing you know they are an expert and think its the answer for everything.

The guy in the store quite rightly pointed the OP at a nifty fifty.

Like I said - only guessing but it sounds like a likely scenario to me.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

The nifty fifty is cheap and great. It costs $100 and can be tossed if it is broken and a new one bought. I have one on my dslr and carry a 2x tele-extender for it. lessens weight and gives me most of what i need.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

mooseeyes wrote:

quote=MT Shooter quote=mooseeyes quote=MT Shoot... (show quote)

I never said anything about a 50mm, thats was what you brought into the thread. I said there is no lens that I am aware of that costs more in a F2.8 version than in would in an F1.8 version unless there was a major difference in what that lens did. I don't doubt the OP, I have issues with the retailer. Why would this cause you to start an argument over such a simple statement?

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

jbslord wrote:

I was looking around for a decent 2.8 canon lense for doing some low light photography and the camera dealer recommended a 1.8 as being more sensitive and quicker speeds as well as being actually cheaper than a 2.8. Buy or don't buy??

The 2.8 would have been either a macro or zoom - more money. For low light the 1.8 would be cheaper and better. The camera dealer was right on. - Dave

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Yes, some 1.8's are cheaper than some 2.8's but it could be a very misleading generalization. Brand, focal length, grade.
I am not 100% on this but i do not believe their are many, if any zoom lenses that are made that are greater than 2.8, while their are many prime lenses offered in 1.8, 1.4, fewer in 1.2, and even fewer at 1.0 or less. Although it can sound enticing, not sure it is valid.

Dartmoor Walker Loc: Dartmoor, Devon. England.

sirlensalot wrote:

Yes, some 1.8's are cheaper than some 2.8's but it could be a very misleading generalization. Brand, focal length, grade.
I am not 100% on this but i do not believe their are many, if any zoom lenses that are made that are greater than 2.8, while their are many prime lenses offered in 1.8, 1.4, fewer in 1.2, and even fewer at 1.0 or less. Although it can sound enticing, not sure it is valid.

Just not enough info!!!!!!!!!

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

jbslord wrote:

I was looking around for a decent 2.8 canon lense for doing some low light photography and the camera dealer recommended a 1.8 as being more sensitive and quicker speeds as well as being actually cheaper than a 2.8. Buy or don't buy??

Not enough information jbs. The aperture information is only one part of the lens. We need information on make and focal lengths to give a proper answer..

Photogdog Loc: New Kensington, PA

sirlensalot wrote:

Yes, some 1.8's are cheaper than some 2.8's but it could be a very misleading generalization. Brand, focal length, grade.
I am not 100% on this but i do not believe their are many, if any zoom lenses that are made that are greater than 2.8, while their are many prime lenses offered in 1.8, 1.4, fewer in 1.2, and even fewer at 1.0 or less. Although it can sound enticing, not sure it is valid.

I agree. I keep an EF 24-70mm f2.8L on my 5D MKII most of the time & find it does the job just fine. That said, I've had my eye on the EF 50mm f1.4 for a while. I'd love to get the EF 50mm f1.2L but I really can't justify the $1,100 upgrade in price. (Sigh!!!)

Sreejib Loc: Calcutta, INDIA

jbslord wrote:

I was looking around for a decent 2.8 canon lense for doing some low light photography and the camera dealer recommended a 1.8 as being more sensitive and quicker speeds as well as being actually cheaper than a 2.8. Buy or don't buy??

Hi,
First you have to decide how fast lens are required for you. It's true that f/1.4, f/1.8 is faster than f/2.8. But those lens are fixed focal length, if you consider the 24-70 f/2.8 not only you have got the fast lens as well as variable focal length also.