Some help?

[kwik-silva]

Hey, on Saturday I had my first 'photo pass', however I only had the standard Canon Kit Lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) so some of the pictures either had too much noise or had some bits that were blurry.

Anybody got any feedback on the photos themselves (Seth Lakeman - a set on Flickr) or on what lens I should get? I was talking to one of the other guys and they said I should go with something f/2.8 or less?

 

[benhasajeep]

Hey, on Saturday I had my first 'photo pass', however I only had the standard Canon Kit Lens (18-55 f/3.5-5.6) so some of the pictures either had too much noise or had some bits that were blurry.

Anybody got any feedback on the photos themselves (Seth Lakeman - a set on Flickr) or on what lens I should get? I was talking to one of the other guys and they said I should go with something f/2.8 or less?

For band pictures fast glass would ease up on your troubles quite nicely. I would even suggest going to something less than f/2.8. Like a 50mm f/1.4. You can always crop a wide picture to the angle of coverage you need (using a prime lens vs. a zoom). But if the lens is too slow, your always going to have to deal with noise or possible blur. What focal length were you normally shooting at?

 

[Derrel]

I looked thru them. Your 3rd,4th,5th shots turned out okay. A little bit of motion burring on the hands of a guy playing the violin or guitar is acceptable, as long as his face is mostly crisp...feeling,emotion,and expression count a lot.
You did pretty well considering the modest f/stop that lens allows.

You need to balance focal length against lens speed against working distance. An f/2.8 zoom lens like a 24-70 would be helpful, but you could also get by with something much lower priced like a 50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8. Sigma and Tamron make 18-50 and 17-50mm f/2.8 zooms that are affordable, and might be something you'd like to look into.

Consider that at 55mm the kit lenses from all makers are f/5.6. An f/4 lens would allow in twice as much light as f/5.6. And f/2.8 lens would allow in four times as much light as f/5.6. An f/2 lens will allow in EIGHT times more light than one of f/5.6. And f/1.4 lens will allow in sixteen times more light than an f/5.6 lens.

That increased light gathering ability of say, a 50mm f/1.4 lens, will allow the AF system to work in poorer light,and will allow you to shoot at higher shutter speeds to stop motion. With a high-quality lens like a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, you can shoot "loose" and crop-in at the computer. Shooting at around f/2 to f/2.5 gives a small margin for focusing errors, and ensures you have enough depth of field to render a person sharply enough that the image can be blown up or cropped and you'll have what you need in decent focus.

 

[kwik-silva]

For band pictures fast glass would ease up on your troubles quite nicely. I would even suggest going to something less than f/2.8. Like a 50mm f/1.4. You can always crop a wide picture to the angle of coverage you need (using a prime lens vs. a zoom). But if the lens is too slow, your always going to have to deal with noise or possible blur. What focal length were you normally shooting at?

I think it was usually 55mm, using the camera to the max!

I looked thru them. Your 3rd,4th,5th shots turned out okay. A little bit of motion burring on the hands of a guy playing the violin or guitar is acceptable, as long as his face is mostly crisp...feeling,emotion,and expression count a lot.
You did pretty well considering the modest f/stop that lens allows.

You need to balance focal length against lens speed against working distance. An f/2.8 zoom lens like a 24-70 would be helpful, but you could also get by with something much lower priced like a 50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8. Sigma and Tamron make 18-50 and 17-50mm f/2.8 zooms that are affordable, and might be something you'd like to look into.

Consider that at 55mm the kit lenses from all makers are f/5.6. An f/4 lens would allow in twice as much light as f/5.6. And f/2.8 lens would allow in four times as much light as f/5.6. An f/2 lens will allow in EIGHT times more light than one of f/5.6. And f/1.4 lens will allow in sixteen times more light than an f/5.6 lens.

That increased light gathering ability of say, a 50mm f/1.4 lens, will allow the AF system to work in poorer light,and will allow you to shoot at higher shutter speeds to stop motion. With a high-quality lens like a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8, you can shoot "loose" and crop-in at the computer. Shooting at around f/2 to f/2.5 gives a small margin for focusing errors, and ensures you have enough depth of field to render a person sharply enough that the image can be blown up or cropped and you'll have what you need in decent focus.

Cheers, that's actually a lot of help!! Just looked at the Canon 50mm lenses, is there that much of a difference between f/1.8 (£124.99) and f/1.4 (£419.99) ?

 

[o hey tyler]

Cheers, that's actually a lot of help!! Just looked at the Canon 50mm lenses, is there that much of a difference between f/1.8 (£124.99) and f/1.4 (£419.99) ?

Actually, funny you ask. I posed the same question earlier today, as I am getting a 50mm f/1.4 lens in a few days.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...photo-gallery/186651-canon-50mm-f1-4-usm.html

 

[kwik-silva]

Cheers, that's actually a lot of help!! Just looked at the Canon 50mm lenses, is there that much of a difference between f/1.8 (£124.99) and f/1.4 (£419.99) ?

Actually, funny you ask. I posed the same question earlier today, as I am getting a 50mm f/1.4 lens in a few days.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...photo-gallery/186651-canon-50mm-f1-4-usm.html

Cheers The only thing I'm wondering is I don't even have £30, so the 1.4 would take forever to save for

 

[bigtwinky]

Then get the 1.8

I was shooting with the same camera (450D) this past weekend in a very low light club. A friend was the opening act and asked me to take pictures. Never wanting to say no and skip out on practice, I jumped on it however I quickly realised (although I already knew) how limited my camera is at low light....and this was very low light.

The only lens that gave me a half decent result was the 50mm 1.8 (I would of liked to have the 1.4, but dont). I tried with my 28-75 f/2.8 and found that I struggled some. Its also not a Canon, so that might explain it hehe.

I shot at ISO 1600 and ISO 800 when the lights were brighter. Having a camera that can perform better at high ISO (7D anyone?) along with the 50mm f/1.4 would of been great.

Sometimes, you just meet the limitations of your camera and can't do much. You can shoot at ISO 1600 and then run some noise reduction software to clean up the image (Noise Ninja in Photoshop as an example), that would help.

But low light shooting where there is motion involved is why higher end equipment exists (that is why wedding photographers and sports photographers have expensive gear).