New dSLR...now what lenses?

[jennyf92]

Hooray for me! I finally got a dSLR. I have been stockpiling gift certificates for some time now and my DH just gave me the rest I needed for Mother's Day! Isn't he great?

Okay, so I already devoured "Get Me Off Auto" and have begun practicing; however, my shots are not coming out like I want them to. I don't think I have the right lenses for what I want to accomplish. My camera (Canon Rebel XS) came with an 18-55 mm, 1:3.5-5.6 lens. I was hoping some of you could offer some suggestions for the type and/or brand of lens that will accomplish the following:

1)I love the background blur that comes from a wide aperture. It is my understanding that I will need a lens with an f/stop of 1.4. Is this right?

BTW, when practicing, I noticed that when I zoom all the way in, I cannot adjust my aperture below 5. Why is that? Is there anything I can do to change this?

2) I would like to be able to take shots of my children playing sports. I want a lens that can be used from the sidelines and will stop the action.

3) I want a telephoto lens that can be used indoors, in low light situations, so I can take pictures of graduations and recitals, etc. without having to squat up front in the center aisle. (Many of you have probably seen me before. )

Ideally it would be one lens that could do all this. Is that possible?

Also, I have seen advertisements for Image Stabilization lenses recently. Do these really work? Would it be worth investing in one of those for my purposes?

Now, the final question...how much am I looking at spending to fulfill these needs? Yes, needs, not wants.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this. Any information you have is more than what I have, so please respond and let me know your experiences. I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,
Jen

[dugarner]

Hi there! Congrats on your new camera!

I can't recommend the best glass for a Canon because I don't have one. But you don't necessarily need to go all the way down to a 1.4. I've attached a picture that shows why using the 1.4/1.8 exclusively can cause problems. The girl on the far right is pretty in focus, I'm slightly blurry, and the guy next to me is really blurry. Classic problem with the fast lenses! Your focus zone at 1.4 is less than two inches, meaning if you take a picture of someone's face and focus on their nose, there is a good chance that the back half of their cheek and everything deeper will be out of focus. But that's a choice, and there are definitely times when the 1.4/1.8 can give you a beautiful shot that you can't get with a smaller aperture.

The "1:3.5-5.6" on your lens tells you that at 18mm, your widest aperture is 3.5 and at 55mm, zoomed all the way out, your widest aperture is 5.6. You can't change that, unfortunately. If the light is decent, I shoot my daughter's softball games with my 18-70 or 70-300 if it is bright enough outside. And I always shoot in RAW because if I can get a shot in focus but if I have to underexpose, I can still fix it.

Looking forward to seeing other ladies chime in about all this gear.

[sweetpeony]

I have similar lenses to Sarah, Sigma 17 - 70 and 70 - 300. You should be able to get decent bokeh with either.

A good tripod will help as much as good glass.

You might want to check out Scott Kelby's "The Digital Photography Book", the first one in the series. He has "recipes" for the types of shots you want to take.

I use my non-IS 70-300 for sports, with the ISO set up high for indoors.

Have fun playing with your new camera!!

[jennyf92]

If the light is decent, I shoot my daughter's softball games with my 18-70 or 70-300 if it is bright enough outside. And I always shoot in RAW because if I can get a shot in focus but if I have to underexpose, I can still fix it.

How would you underexpose?

[dugarner]

Originally Posted by jennyf92

How would you underexpose?

Jen,

Well, for instance (take this with a grain of salt, I'm such a newbie, not anywhere near proficient in photography). Let's say you were to put your camera on auto and push the button halfway down so it will meter, and the camera says f/5.6 at 1/125 will give you a perfect exposure. Say this is with your 70-300 and you're all the way out at 300mm. "Photo math" tells you that in order to avoid camera shake and a blurry exposure, you want the shutter speed at least at the reciprocal of the focal length. So if you are shooting at 70mm, you want a shutter speed of at least 1/60 or faster. If you're shooting at 200mm, you want a shutter speed of 1/250 or faster. It is not exact; some people can hold at much slower shutter speeds. I have shaky hands and cannot. I know people who can handhold at 70mm with a shutter of 1/30. Not moi. I need 1/125 at that focal length.

So with our metering example, we do the math and you should have the shutter at at least 1/250 in order not to have shake. There are a couple decisions to make (if you're handholding; using a tripod will eliminate most of these variables provided your subject isn't moving).

1) You can shoot at the metered setting knowing that you will have shake and the shot might be blurry but properly exposed, or 2) you can dial in f/5.6 and 1/250. Now, you might eliminate the shake with the faster shutter, but you will lose the light because the shutter won't be open as long. I usually opt for slight underexposure in order to get an in-focus shot.

One remedy is to bump up the ISO. My camera, however, has unacceptable noise even at ISO 400. So I will shoot that particular shot at f/5.6 and 1/250th, and then open my RAW processor and fix the exposure. It's not the best solution, but I am on a very tight budget and can't afford accessory lenses for quite a while. I've had to learn to shoot around what my lenses can do, and cross my fingers and hope I can correct in post-processing.

This thread

http://www.designerdigitals.com/digi...-question.html

has an example I've posted several times showing an extremely underexposed prairie dog and the corrected exposure.

HTH!

Sarah

[jennyf92]

Wow, Sarah! Thank you so much! I think I understand what you are saying. Your prairie dog pictures really showed me that, while it would be nice to not have to post process, I can get great shots without spending my kids' college funds on lenses as long as the shots are in focus!

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it all to me. I am quite excited to start shooting in RAW.

Thanks, again!

-Jen

[esther_a]

That was so well explained Sarah! I hadn't grasped that focal length/shutter speed rule!
Jen, I have learned by trial an error many of the things mentioned above. I love shooting at f2.8 with my Tamron 28-75 lens but the focal length becomes so narrow that I have to be spot on with the focus and that is hard with sports photography! Like Sarah I often underexpose (for RAW not jpg images) just to get a fast shutterspeed and use lightroom to adjust the exposure later. Like Sarah, I find my camera is very noisy at ISO 400 but I use the free (community) version of Noiseware and it does a brilliant job of cleaning up the noise.

[dugarner]

Originally Posted by jennyf92

Wow, Sarah! Thank you so much! I think I understand what you are saying. Your prairie dog pictures really showed me that, while it would be nice to not have to post process, I can get great shots without spending my kids' college funds on lenses as long as the shots are in focus!

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain it all to me. I am quite excited to start shooting in RAW.

Jen, you're welcome---I hope it makes sense! It took me two years to understand just the basics. The reciprocal rule is a rough rule depending on your situation and lighting, but it's a good starting point. And while I can fix these things in post processing, after two years of shooting with kit lenses, I am ready for nicer lenses. They are a benefit, for sure, but if you're on a budget, there are less expensive work-arounds. (I would love to have some really nice lenses at some point!)

I have at least 1,000 shots that I took that might have been ruined (due to my lenses and cheap camera body) had I not post processed. It can definitely be a pain, but from what I understand, Lightroom makes it very easy.

[jennyf92]

You might want to check out Scott Kelby's "The Digital Photography Book", the first one in the series. He has "recipes" for the types of shots you want to take.

Thanks, Maryann. I already picked it up.

And thank you to everyone that replied. I'm on my way...

[RandyP]

Originally Posted by dugarner

One remedy is to bump up the ISO. My camera, however, has unacceptable noise even at ISO 400. So I will shoot that particular shot at f/5.6 and 1/250th, and then open my RAW processor and fix the exposure. It's not the best solution, but I am on a very tight budget and can't afford accessory lenses for quite a while. I've had to learn to shoot around what my lenses can do, and cross my fingers and hope I can correct in post-processing.

Great explination! Another thing to do is play with your EV settings or the +/- settings.

Going to the + side will make the image lighter, to the - side will make the photo darker. What this does is tell the camera to override the metered settings.

I normally shoot on Apature Priority mode, look for the blinkies with every shot (highlight warnings) and then adjust the EV + or - depending on what is needed if anything. This also works great because I'm still looking through the viewfinder and able to adjust the +/- vaules at the same time.

[sweetpeony]

Originally Posted by esther_a

find my camera is very noisy at ISO 400 but I use the free (community) version of Noiseware and it does a brilliant job of cleaning up the noise.

Thanks for the tip, Esther! I'm going to check out Noiseware right now.

[jennyf92]

So much to learn...

[katrinak]

Jenny, make sure you join me for the photography chat on Saturday I think we'll answer more of your questions too!

Great answer Sarah!

[jennyf92]

Originally Posted by katrinak

Jenny, make sure you join me for the photography chat on Saturday I think we'll answer more of your questions too!

I'll do my best. I'll be spending most of the day at my sons' games (and photographing them too!), but I should be back by 3p. Thanks for letting me know about it. Is the 30mm chat a photography chat too? Is there any way to get a transcript of the chats if you can't make them?

Thanks!

[DesignerDigitals]

Originally Posted by jennyf92

Is there any way to get a transcript of the chats if you can't make them?Thanks!

Sorry, no.

[LauraBean]

Hi, Jen! Congrats on your new toy! There is a ton to learn but also a ton of fun to be had, so hang on for the ride.

The kinds of things you're looking for in a lens are going to cost you big bucks, frankly. The lens that came to mind reading your wants is the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which runs about $2,500, or the version without the IS for half that. Image stabilization does indeed work, lessening camera shake from hand holding at lower shutter speeds, but it won't help stop subject motion--so, for sports, not so helpful, but for still subjects, very helpful. You can get shallow depth of field--that background blur--with smaller apertures by using longer focal lengths as well. In truly low-light situations inside, though, even f/2.8 is likely to be slow (not wide enough); but zooms don't get any faster than that. An accessory flash is your friend, where it's appropriate.

I would encourage you to keep playing with the lens you have and don't drop big bucks on a replacement just yet; the 18-55 IS is a pretty darn good lens for the money. Its low-cost companion, the 55-250 IS, is not a fast lens but is, again, quite good for the money. It's my most-used lens.

The other lens--again, low cost--I'd recommend is the 50mm f/1.8. It's fast, will get you that background blur you want, and cheap. It's a terrific learning tool. It was my second lens after the kit lens (my kit lens was the 28-135), and it's a fun one for around $100.

Hope this helps!

[jennyf92]

You can get shallow depth of field--that background blur--with smaller apertures by using longer focal lengths as well.

Hi Laura,

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I don't have the kind of money it seems I might need, so I really appreciate everyone giving me alternative solutions.

In regard to what you said above, when you say smaller apertures, are you referring to a smaller f/stop number? Additionally, what exactly does a longer focal length mean? Does it mean a longer zoom? Distance from subject?

Its low-cost companion, the 55-250 IS, is not a fast lens but is, again, quite good for the money. It's my most-used lens.

In regard to the lens you mentioned above, what is the aperture? What do you use it for? What do you like about it that you use it most often? When you say a lens is fast (or slow for that matter) is that referring to the aperture?

Thanks for your time,
Jen

[katrinak]

Jen, Laura is referring to a wider aperture, smaller f/ number to get the blur (or bokeh). 1.4 is a wider aperture than 5.6, 1.4 lets more light in and provides more blur.

Focal length is the "mm" on your lens and does mean a "longer zoom"

Four things work together for a blurred background, aperture, distance to subject, focal length, and distance between your subject and it's background.

The 50mm f/1.8 is considered a "fast" lens, because it lets more light in, thus providing a faster shutter speed to shoot at. It is a popular lens for many moms, since it lets you shoot indoors in low light conditions.

If you have Get Me off Of Auto, read the Aperture Priority section for a description of how they work together.

I would agree with Laura that the 70-200 f/2.8 sounds like what you want. Cannon just came out with a new version of it, so you might be able to get the older one at a reduced price

Lots of choices!

[jennyf92]

Thanks, Katrina. I'll get there...I hope! I will definitely check out the older 70-200 f/2.8. Thanks for the tip. I think I'll have to pick up the 50mm too since my son's Pre-K graduation is coming up and I don't want any more dark pictures.

You guys are all so knowledgeable! Can I asked what has been (is) your best resource(s) for learning it all? Books/Classes/Websites?

I have already read "Get Me Off Auto" (which I will continue to reread) and Scott Kelby's "Digital Photography 1" book. I know I have to practice, so I liked the style of "Get Me Off Auto." I would like references that are perhaps similar to that. However, I would value any references you could give me so that I can really KNOW this stuff.

Thanks again,
Jen

[katrinak]

I pieced my information together through a variety of different sources and lots of practice and time Jen. I'm glad you like the style of GMOA. I have more tutorials in the store and teach photography classes at Get It Scrapped!.

Keep asking questions, keep practicing, and keep reading and you will discover it all does come together!

[dugarner]

I spent of most of my time looking at photos and reading comments on dgrin.com, the smugmug discussion forum for tips, tricks, etc. I haven't visited there in a while but I used to go every day, and once in a while I tried the photography assignments. Many required equipment I didn't have, so I eventually gave up. But I checked back into the technique threads frequently to see how people were taking the pictures that I liked.

[LauraBean]

I think Katrina answered your aperture questions better than I could have. But, in regard to the 55-250mm, like your 18-55, it's a variable 4.0-5.6 aperture, so zoomed all the way to 250mm it only opens to f/5.6. I use it outside all the time for wildlife: birds, chipmunks, squirrels, bugs, flowers, whatever. Stand 4 feet away from a flower, zoom to 250, aperture at 5.6 - 6.3, and you get that background blur you're looking for with no problem. I also use it for people: I love head shots, tight crops, so this lens is great for that, but at 55mm if I'm far enough away, I can get a full body shot if I want. I also use it inside with a flash; my flash was a really helpful purchase for me, and inside I use it almost all the time, bounced off the ceiling.

I learned a tremendous amount reading web forums like P.O.T.N., a Canon-focused forum, and Digital Photography School, which has short, helpful articles on a wide variety of subjects as well as forum. Doing Project 365, shooting photos every singe day, also helped a lot, as I was practicing what I was learning every day, and boredom with the same old, same old, spurred me to try new things and learn more. Katrina's tutorials will give you a great leg up.

Again: have fun! There is so much to learn, and absorbing it in your head is one thing, putting it into practice another, and having it become automatic is yet another thing. Don't get discouraged if it doesn't all come together right away; just keep shooting, keep reading and asking questions, and you'll keep improving.