Newbie questions about lenses

IUrebekah3RT · Jan 2, 2012

Hello everyone!

I am a newbie, shooting with a Canon T3i. I haven't had it for very long so I am still learning how to use this awesome camera.

I only have the lens that came with the camera (18-55mm).
I have noticed that I cannot get below an aperture of 3.5.

When I try to take shots in my living room which is small but poorly lit at night time when the natural light is gone, my pictures come out very dark. I have my ISO: 3200 (have tried at 6400 as well and is still dark) and aperture 3.5. I have read online to not go below a shutter speed of 1/250 without using a tripod. If I use a shutter speed of 1/250 with the settings I mentioned, the pictures are very dark. I have to take my shutter speed down to 1/60 to make it bright enough but then the picture just doesn't look good.

Have I maxed out my lens capability to take a good picture in this situation? Do I need a lens with a lower aperture? I was looking at the 50mm f/1.8 lens but I wanted a professional opinion before I went purchasing lens that I may not need. Also, I have a small dog that I enjoy taking pictures of so a lens that would accommodate that as well would be fantastic.

Thank you so much for your recommendations.

Rephargotohp · Jan 2, 2012

Honestly, if you don't have enough light, you don't have enough light and it's not going to be quality light anyway, Even if you can shoot at Iso 102,ooo with an f1.8 lens. If you really need that. You probably have bad light anyway..
There are always flashes and there is the outdoors. But great light is great light and that makes great photos

MLeeK · Jan 2, 2012

1/250 is a little bit fast for hand held.
Here are the rules for shutter I used to teach:
If your subject is still life no slower than 1/80 (some teachers say 1/50)
If your subject is alive but not moving around no slower than 1/125
If your subject is a live and moves no slower than 1/250 (toddlers playing)
If your subject runs like the wind no slower than 1/500 (football and faster for other sports)

Otherweise yes, you have maxed out the ability of the lens. The 50mm f/1.8 is one much loved for beginners for many reasons.
1. it's cheap as hell.
2. it's an incredibly sharp lens for how cheap it is
3. it will allow you to shoot in much lower light than the kit lens
4. the aperture won't change on you as you zoom-there is no zoom, there is no change.
5. it is easier to learn the exposure triangle when you have a fixed aperture
6. it gives you a taste of what shooting with a prime is like. Primes are the sharpest of lenses as they do not have to work throughout the zoom so there is no compromise.
There are probably even more reasons, but those are the basic ones!

analog.universe · Jan 2, 2012

Rephargotohp said:
Honestly, if you don't have enough light, you don't have enough light and it's not going to be quality light anyway, Even if you can shoot at Iso 102,ooo with an f1.8 lens. If you really need that. You probably have bad light anyway..
There are always flashes and there is the outdoors. But great light is great light and that makes great photos

I disagree with this... I've got plenty of shots that needed f/1.4, 1/10, and ISO6400 or some such, and the light still looks good. Just because there's not much doesn't mean it's bad. Certainly better than not getting the shot at all.

Rephargotohp · Jan 2, 2012

I've taken plenty of low light shots with great results, Because they have GREAT light. That's not the point. You just see a lot of people want to shoot their kids or something else inside the house and they are not even close to anything they even throws some light on them. Plus they are trying to stop action too.

Look of the majority of Low light shots you see posted, You know the blurry one with the toddler running accross the dark room.

Ahhh. forget it no one will get my point

MLeeK · Jan 2, 2012

I get your point, but you are just making it more difficult to learn how to shoot the exposure triangle and telling them to shoot with flash because the chances are that the light is bad. That's simply not true. AND you have to learn what bad light is. The only way to do it is to see how that light turns out on the image.

Rephargotohp · Jan 2, 2012

Actually, It didn't have to be flash. They could wait until they actually have some decent light coming in the house. But if great light isn't there, then it needs to be created.

My point is, High ISO's and Fast Lenses are not a substitute for finding the light and aren't cure alls.

Ahh, I guess I'm in a bad mood

Rephargotohp · Jan 2, 2012

My appologies to the OP
I'm on a diet and I want to eat Pizza instead of Almonds argggg

Listen to my buddy Leeky, get a 50mm 1.8 II, and learn the exposure triangle as suggested, you'll be fine. Just be aware that your DOF at f 1.8 is really shallow

Happy shootin

Now where the hell are my Almonds!

IUrebekah3RT · Jan 2, 2012

I feel you on the dieting issues.........I'm going on a cruise in February so bikini weather is quickly approaching! hahahaha.

IUrebekah3RT · Jan 2, 2012

Thank you!! I'll be purchasing the 50mm f/1.8 tomorrow!

Rephargotohp · Jan 2, 2012

I look awful in a Bikini

Sorry I was grumpy

enzodm · Jan 3, 2012

IUrebekah3RT said:
Thank you!! I'll be purchasing the 50mm f/1.8 tomorrow!

from the light point of view, if you now are shooting at 1/250s, the lens change will be like shooting at 1/60s (study about exposure triangle). Try lowering shutter speed before spending money, or start using flash.

Proteus617 · Jan 3, 2012

There is also technique to be considered. In certain situations I can handhold at 1/15 with pretty good results.

ConradM · Jan 3, 2012

Don't canons come with IS lenses? Should be able to hand hold a pretty slow shutter speed with those I would think. I can go all the way as low .6 cause my a33 has built in IS.