need suggestions...varm, laura...anyone please

JT · 10-28-2007, 01:03 PM

Help me! I am getting very frustrated. I've bee trying to take photos of my daughters band competions...at night under stadium lighting and my distance is restricted. Last night I got as close to the action as I'm ever going to get and most of my pictures were blurred. I am using the rebel xt with the kit lens(18-55) I dont use a flash because it would render useless and my pictures would be dark. If I go to the manual setting and play with the aperature my shutter speed isnt fast enough to stop the blur, if I use a faster speed with the aperature as far as I can get it, its dark again. I am shooting at iso 1600 thats as high as I can go. So I figured I need a better lens but theres a thousnad out there......any suggestions? Of course I am on a budget but will comprimise slightlky if it gives me an afforadable option
thanks
jt

ilikemittens · 10-28-2007, 06:11 PM

Hey JT -

Unfortunately with the equipment I have, I'd be having the same problem. My first reaction would be to crank up the ISO which you said you did. I would probably look into finding forums or something that professional concert/performance photographers post in and see what kind of stuff they use. There has to be some good equipment at a reasonable price - people shoot at those types of events both big and small and get great shots. It COULD even be that there's something you can do with what you have now, I just can't think of it because I don't usually find myself shooting under those lighting conditions.

I bet Varm has shot a lot more in lighting like that... maybe he has some good suggestions.

ClydeFrog · 10-29-2007, 06:32 PM

Hey JT, assuming no flash there are four important factors to balancing lighting:

1) Focal length of the lens
2) Lens aperature
3) Lens quality (generally how much glass and how well it's ground)
4) ISO setting

A few basics ... generally keeping everything else the same you will get need less exposure time for larger focal length (more zoomed) shot although the difference will probably not be enough to help you here.

It seems like you have everything else covered here except for aperature. Numerically aperature is the width the shutter opens relative to the focal length. The smaller the aperature number the wider the opening. You're probably already there in auto mode but you want to make sure the camera is using the smallest aperature number possible for this lens. To make sure you need to know your lens specs.

I'm assuming you have the 18-50 sigma lens that's rated for f3.5/5.6 aperature? This rating means you can get an aperature of f3.5 at 18mm and only f5.6 at 50mm. I'm familiar with Canon (I have a 5d) but not the rebel specifically. For mine I can turn the "on" switch past "on" and then when I push the shutter button part way to do a shutter check I can use the thumbwheel to adjust the aperature down and it will automaticaly adjust the shutter speed up to match. If that doesn't work for you you'll have to read your book to see how to set aperature manually.

Anyhow, if that's the right lens I would set the zoom as wide as possible (18mm) and then set the aperature as wide as possible (f3.5) and try some shots at the highest ISO. If you have any filters on the lens take them off.

If you still don't get fast enough exposures (1/30 minimum I'd say) it's time to throw some money at the problem. (Specifically your money.

) I don't mean to harsh on your lens but it's relatively inexpensive so there is probably not a lot of glass there. When I went from an cheap ($100ish) Canon 28-90 f4/5.6 lens to a not cheap ($1200ish) 24-70 f2.8 L-series lens my exposure times were half or less under the same conditions with the better glass.

Unless you're going to be doing a lot of photography a lens like that is probably not a great investment. If you just want a lens to try things out there is a relatively cheap prime lens (i.e. fixed focal length) that may be good for you:

Canon | Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens | 2514A002 | B&H

It's a 50 mm lens with a max f1.8 aperature for ~$75.00. Aperature refers to the diameter of the opening and the amount of light let in is proportional to the area of the opening. Therefore the amount of light is proportional to the square of the aperature. So if I have your current lens right and you have a max aperature of f5.6 at 50mm this lens would let in (5.6)^2/(1.8^2) = 9.7 times more light. (i.e the shutter speed would be almost 10 times faster for the same shot) I don't know if 50mm would be too far zoomed in for your needs but you can check with your current lens.

One final word about aperature is that it affects the "depth of field" of your shot. The wider the aperature the blurrier objects closer and farther from your focus point will be. Here's a sample shot at high (f2.

aperature shot close to the subject ... notice how blurry the background is.

Often this is desired as an artistic effect but it may be unwanted for you. Being farther away from the subject will make the foreground and background less blurry.

Good luck and I hope this helps and wasn't too confusing !!

ClydeFrog · 10-29-2007, 06:37 PM

I forgot to mention that I have that 50mm 1.8 lens and for certain things I've been very surprised at how well it's performed. I was in Northern Michigan a few weeks ago and I took some shots of the Milky Way. Here's a panorama with 8 shots stitched together:

Flickr Photo Download: MI_MilkyWay

It's drastically shrunk from the original but it's still pretty big. You can see some meteorites in the far right of the shot.

I was so pleased I'm considering buying the 28mm f1.8 prime, a 35mm f1.4 prime or the 50mm f1.4 prime. Alas they're quite a bit more money so I'm just considering at the moment!

dudio · 10-29-2007, 06:45 PM

I may be able to help.

Does any of this work require the use of a monitor?

JT · 10-29-2007, 07:59 PM

Thanks for the info that what I figured, thats a good price on the lens there, I was thinking about getting this one...Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens but thats much more expensive I think for now I will get that 50mm one cant beat the price. thanks again.

Hakko · 11-08-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

I forgot to mention that I have that 50mm 1.8 lens and for certain things I've been very surprised at how well it's performed. I was in Northern Michigan a few weeks ago and I took some shots of the Milky Way. Here's a panorama with 8 shots stitched together:

That's a crap load of stars. I was just looking up at the night sky last night and I never see that many stars.

{OF}Erad · 11-08-2007, 03:25 PM

One very silly question, but, are you using a Monopod or Tripod for the camera? I took a lot of pictures underground at Carlsbad cavern without flash. The Monopod helps blurring a bit, but I would recommend a tripod for the best results. Mount the camera on the tripod, and use the self timer to prevent you from wiggling the camrea while pushing the button.

Clyde, nice pictures!