Just got the 50mm f/1.8 II -- Wow amazing quality for such an inexpensive lens

[996GT2]

Great lens for the price, but if you're looking for great bokeh on a moderate budget then look at the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2. Both have 8 bladed apertures and the ability to create creamy L-like bokeh. I just got my 100 f/2 recently and it's just SO sharp.

 

[angry hampster]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Great lens for the price, but if you're looking for great bokeh on a moderate budget then look at the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2. Both have 8 bladed apertures and the ability to create creamy L-like bokeh. I just got my 100 f/2 recently and it's just SO sharp.

Agreed with that. Of the two, the 100 is a slightly better lens. I've owned both, and the 100 had better control of fringing and CA. Great lenses though..I regularly use my 85 for weddings.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

I took some pictures yesterday under low incandescent light that looked blurred or out of focus. I wasn't sure the proper settings to use so I set my 50mm f/1.8 to 2.8 and let the camera decide on the shutter speed at 1/25. This lens take wonderful pictures in daylight outdoor, but it didn't perform well in low light.

Canon Rebel XSi, aperture priority, 50mm f/1.8 @ 2.8, 1/25 sec, iso 800, no flash

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/6632/img4533k.jpg

The hands weren't still, and the lens took some time to focus (for the camera to beep). Some of my shots came out with a lot of motion blur (the subjects were moving). I think this is because the camera used slow shutter at 1/10 - 1/25 @ f/2.8 (Av mode). Anyway to go around this?

How would I take this picture better and sharper?
Would it possible to take pictures at low light with subjects slightly moving?

 

[jpeyton]

Your mistake was allowing the camera to choose such a low shutter speed.

A good rule-of-thumb for shutter speed on lenses without image stabilization (IS) is that it should be roughly 1/(focal length).

Since your Rebel XSi is a APS-C sensor camera, the field-of-view provided by your camera is equal to a lens with a focal length of 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm

So a good shutter speed for that shot would have been 1/80s. 1/100s would have been even better, if the subjects were moving. So how could you get 1/100s shutter speed?

Simple. 1/100s is 2 stops faster than 1/25s. So compensate for that 2 stop loss of light through your ISO or aperture (or both). For example, setting your camera to ISO 1600 (instead of 800) would compensate for 1 stop. Setting your aperture to f/2 (instead of 2.8) would have compensated for another stop. Or if you wanted to keep your aperture at f/2.8, setting your ISO to 3200 would have given you the same two-stops needed.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Your mistake was allowing the camera to choose such a low shutter speed.

A good rule-of-thumb for shutter speed on lenses without image stabilization (IS) is that it should be roughly 1/(focal length).

Since your Rebel XSi is a APS-C sensor camera, the field-of-view provided by your camera is equal to a lens with a focal length of 50mm x 1.6 = 80mm

So a good shutter speed for that shot would have been 1/80s. 1/100s would have been even better, if the subjects were moving. So how could you get 1/100s shutter speed?

Simple. 1/100s is 2 stops faster than 1/25s. So compensate for that 2 stop loss of light through your ISO or aperture (or both). For example, setting your camera to ISO 1600 (instead of 800) would compensate for 1 stop. Setting your aperture to f/2 (instead of 2.8) would have compensated for another stop. Or if you wanted to keep your aperture at f/2.8, setting your ISO to 3200 would have given you the same two-stops needed.

:thumbsup:
i always knew of the 1/focal length rule, but never had it explained so well

 

[Rufus12]

Here's one I took with this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27793167@N03/3573674196/

 

[akshatp]

Originally posted by: Rufus12
Here's one I took with this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27793167@N03/3573674196/

Nice!

 

[bigpow]

IMO, it's a roulette lens - 50/50 chance of great vs lousy shots.
AF definitely has some issue working at low(er) light condition.

Really soft at wide open, I only dare to use it >2.8 (low light) and >11.0 (normal light).

Here are some shots taken with mine:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpow/3875955277/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpow/3832947026/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpow/3832975022/sizes/l/

I only use it when I visit museums, aquariums etc.
24mm 1:2.8 is my main lens now.

 

[Aharami]

Here's one I took with this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27793167@N03/3573674196/

did you use an extension tube to convert it into a macro lens? or was this picture taken with just the 50mm 1.8?

 

[Aharami]

IMO, it's a roulette lens - 50/50 chance of great vs lousy shots.
AF definitely has some issue working at low(er) light condition.

Really soft at wide open, I only dare to use it >2.8 (low light) and >11.0 (normal light).

Here are some shots taken with mine:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpow/3875955277/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpow/3832947026/sizes/l/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigpow/3832975022/sizes/l/

I only use it when I visit museums, aquariums etc.
24mm 1:2.8 is my main lens now.

links require signing into yahoo
i have a tamron 17-50 f2.8. i wonder if this lens would be sharper at 2.8 than my tamron

 

[bigpow]

Sorry I messed up, I treated Flickr like Photobucket, which of course didn't work.
Here are the correct links:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3875955277_d830814d59_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2633/3832947026_ca8f26a600_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/3832975022_fdc538d27c_b.jpg

 

[Rufus12]

did you use an extension tube to convert it into a macro lens? or was this picture taken with just the 50mm 1.8?

I just used the 50mm 1.8.