Canon EF 75-300 mm f/4 - 5.6 III

asfixiate · Apr 8, 2008

I was taking a bunch of shots last night of my dog playing with 3 other dogs. You really see the difference of fast glass vs slow glass when you shoot dogs running around. I'm thinking of getting the EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS(used my neighbors) because its around my price range but not until after my wedding.

Now for my question. I noticed during some of the crazy running a lot of the shots were blurry and unusable but some of the shots were quite interesting and cool looking. The blurriness of the legs moving actually worked.

Once I started predicting where they were going to be running the blurriness went away but I would like to purposesly do what I did on accident again.

I can reword as well as provide samples if noone can think of what I'm talking about.

Would the 28-135 prevent the need for predicting where the dogs would end up or should I get an even better lens.

Big Mike · Apr 8, 2008

The 28-135mm isn't really any faster than the 75-300mm (F3.5-5.6 vs F4-5.6)

To freeze movement, you need faster shutter speeds. To get faster shutter speeds, you can either turn up the ISO and/or use a larger aperture. It really help if you have a lens with a large maximum aperture (small F number).
Look into something like the 50mm F1.8, 85mm F1.8, 70-200 F2.8mm.

asfixiate · Apr 8, 2008

I have the 50mm f1.8 but can't really get that close when the dogs are running around. I can also only zoom in so far before it starts looking a bit hairy. The dogs are sometimes 50 feet away when I'm shooting them.

Village Idiot · Apr 8, 2008

asfixiate said:
I was taking a bunch of shots last night of my dog playing with 3 other dogs. You really see the difference of fast glass vs slow glass when you shoot dogs running around. I'm thinking of getting the EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS(used my neighbors) because its around my price range but not until after my wedding.

Now for my question. I noticed during some of the crazy running a lot of the shots were blurry and unusable but some of the shots were quite interesting and cool looking. The blurriness of the legs moving actually worked.

Once I started predicting where they were going to be running the blurriness went away but I would like to purposesly do what I did on accident again.

I can reword as well as provide samples if noone can think of what I'm talking about.

Would the 28-135 prevent the need for predicting where the dogs would end up or should I get an even better lens.

Learning a bit about the technicalities of photography would probably work better than just buying a new lens.

They're blurry because you're using a shutter speed that's too low. Bump up your ISO if you haven't already and that should allow you to use a faster shutter speed which will help with stopping motion.

Big Mike · Apr 8, 2008

I have the 50mm f1.8 but can't really get that close when the dogs are running around. I can also only zoom in so far before it starts looking a bit hairy. The dogs are sometimes 50 feet away when I'm shooting them.

If you want a lens that is long and fast...it might cost as much as a small car :er: These are the type of lenses that pro sports shooters use (at football games etc). They are big, heavy and expensive....but that is sometimes what is required to freeze fast moving subjects that are far away.

As mentioned, you can turn up the ISO to get faster shutter speeds. This does give you more 'digital noise' in your photos...but that's probably better than blur. Try it out and see.

Mystwalker · Apr 8, 2008

Do not think 28-135 will be a "better" solution then the 75-300 you have right now.

I take pictures of my daughter (not as fast as dog). If I were using the 75-300 for movement (dogs, sports, etc) ... I will start with Tv mode. This allows you to choose shutter speed. Start with shutter of 300 and increase until you stop getting that motion blur. Camera will tell you if your max aperture is not enough (read manual) - increase ISO until it is good.

Another way is to shoot in Av mode ... max your aperture (5.6 or 4, whatever). Camera will choose shutter speed. Increase ISO if shutter speed chosen not fast enough.

If you are outside in daytime (not even full noon sun), with ISO 100, I've been able to shoot f/8 with shutter at 1/400 or 1/500. f/5.6, 1/300, ISO 100 should not be a problem

asfixiate · Apr 8, 2008

Thanks everyone. I'll mess with the shutter speed and let everyone know what happens. I had it pretty high and a decent amount of the shots came out once I started predicting where they would be so its possible I was causing a lot of the blur.

To go back to another part of my question. The motion blur in some of the shots actually made it look like that is what I was trying. exaggerating the motion kinda. What is this effect?

Big Mike · Apr 8, 2008

To go back to another part of my question. The motion blur in some of the shots actually made it look like that is what I was trying. exaggerating the motion kinda. What is this effect?

I'm not sure what you would call that effect...but it probably occurred while you were 'panning' with the dogs as they ran...and using a 'slower' shutter speed.

When you pan the camera with the motion of a moving subject, you can get some parts of the subject to be sharper than the background or parts that are moving faster (the feet). This is a technique that you might see used when people shoot sports...especially motor sports where the subjects might be moving by the photographer quite quickly.

It does take practice to get good at it and some things are easier than others.

asfixiate · Apr 8, 2008

A lot of what I do in my profession now I've learned by accident in addition to college. I've been learning photography the same way I've learned what I do. This forum has been very helpful as well. Made it easier to answer questions in minutes which might have taken me hours or days to figure out.