How is this in low light? I had the 15mm 2.8 and loved it for concerts. Being in lowlight, it needed to be at f/2.8. How is this at f/4?
1480831
Not as good as f2.8 obviously but fisheyes, stabilization and slow enough shutter will do fine if not trying to capture a fast mo ing subject.
1480832
I don't really know...my husband is a realtor and we got the lens to take pics of the smaller bathrooms/laundry rooms, etc. but the customers did not like the pics. So we only used it a few times...sorry I can't be of further assistance.
1480833
You will definitely need a higher ISO to achieve the same results as f4 is a full stop slower than f2.8.
1130012
What are you going to be photographing? I would be the f/2.8 but I concentrate on low light and sports.
626723
This lens is great for low light. The F/2.8 aperture is fast and there is little need for a tripod.
2066794
What about low light performance? I took SD900 to Japan for cherry blossom viewing. Flash is definitely a big no no for taking those kinds of pictures at night, so I used Hi-ISO or ISO 3200 all the way. The night cherry blossom pictures turned out to be amazing. Video was fantastic too. I haven't yet read any comment on how SD800 performed in low light situations. Any experience?
907946
Yes this lense works well in low light because of its apature of 2.8. You still will be workin in a higher ISO so make sure your camera can handle that. As for the type of photos you want, for ill body you will want to be in the 7meter range,, and if you want pictures tighter than that you will want to be closer. Those numbers will change if your camera is a crop censor. Hope this helps
2240578
I have had the 17-85 for a couple months and i already want to upgrade.. i want to sell it. i want the 17-40 f4 really bad. i would say unless dont mind about pictures that lack somewhat sharpness i would go with the 17-40. the 17-85 is hard to use i think.. of course unless you want mine ide sell it to you :)
697544
I think like 4.0 it is really good in low light. A close second to my Alfa a6000
1622230
This is a kit lens (it's often sold with a camera body). Kit lenses are usually just average quality. It's not very fast (f3.5 - 5.6) so in low light you'll be shooting at slower speeds which may result in blur due to moving the camera. A good body like the GH4 will compensate a lot by letting you shoot at a higher ISO (and faster speeds) without getting a lot of noise. It's great to have such a fantastic camera body; it's probably worth putting as good glass on it as you can afford. This lens (IMO) would be like putting $50 tires on a Ferrari. :-)
91515
This lens is great for low light situations especially without fast motion as the autofocus isn't as fast as the Nikon/Canon version. The f2.8 will be great for indoor/poor lit situations!
2242944
It performs well in low light, sometimes throws a shadow, but I think that is my inexperience as a user. Wonderful lens!
2074843
I'm not familiar with the lens you are using but the 16-35 is pretty fast. I prefer the 24 mm 1.4 for low light though
2107315
In certain (most) shooting conditions this lens will blow the 16-50mm out of the water. Zoomed to a comparable focal length (30mm) the 16-50 can only stop down to like 4.2 which limits you to well lit shooting conditions and not much bokeh. In these well lit shooting conditions the 16/50 is decent at it's widest aperture but tends to produce flairs and purple fringing when the light source is bright. This Sigma will shoot fast in relatively low light (indoors at night) and produce a MUCH sharper image at wider apertures in almost any shooting condition. I've shot this next to my Sony 35mm 1.8 and was very surprised at what I could have picked up for considerably cheaper.
1580338
I have Panasonic 7-14 mm and I like it very much. It is very nice wide view lens with very limited distortion but not so fast.In real situation it means that with F4 lens you will need 8 times more light eg than with F1.4 or 100 W bulb vs 800WDifference between f/2 and F1,7 is not that much only about 50% more light (100W vs 150W). I have also Voigtlander 0,95 25 mm lens it would be great for low light high motion scenes but the main problem is that it is only manual focus and maybe you will not be able to catch all photos in focus.
2253131
Not nearly as good as the F2.8. I use this lens on the Nikon D5200. I initially brought the lens for my daughter's lacrosse games. It was excellent during the day games, but not so hot taking action shots during the night games. However, when taking no action shots (i.e. crowd, sideline, etc.) it performed well under the stadium lights. If I felt comfortable enough dishing out the extra $grand and lugging around a much heavier lens I would have gone with the 2.8, but I'm extremely happy with the F4.
509386
I am not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify your question? Do you mean to ask if this is a good lens for low light conditions?
143450
It wouldn't be my first pick for anything other than macro photography. f/3.5 is pretty slow for indoors (it's like looking into a cave), it isn't a zoom, it doesn't have stabilization, and focus is somewhat slow (comparatively speaking). For portraits, I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8. It's a perfectly keen lens for macro, though; you can take pictures of the tiniest things!
812301
Its an excellent lens which works very well in low light. I have not used it for indoor sports shooting though. The IS is great for things that don't move much but won't help freeze the action at all. An f2.8 zoom would be much better than a kit lens.You might also want to consider a fast prime lens like the 50mm f1.8 or 50mm f1.4 or perhaps a 30mm fast prime. These will buy you an extra two stops at a much lower price.