Shoot Manual ('M'), ISO 1600, f/5.6, and start with the shutter at 1/500. Watch your histogram (and be careful not to blow out the ice) and adjust your shutter from there.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon Lens- Need some guidance
- Thread starter txhockey9404
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Shoot Manual ('M'), ISO 1600, f/5.6, and start with the shutter at 1/500. Watch your histogram (and be careful not to blow out the ice) and adjust your shutter from there.
Use one of the manual exposure modes ( I like aperture priority, which will let you set the aperture as wide as possible so that you'll correspondingly get the fastest shutter speed possible) and set the ISO to 800, get the 55-250 IS, and enjoy. Ignore advice to spend $1000+ on a lens if that's not even remotely in your budget.
If you can shoot at 1/100 of a second at ISO 400 at f/5.6, you'll be able to take shots at around 1/200 to 1/250 of a second or faster at ISO 800 at f/4.0-5.6, depending on how much you're zooming in. If you're that close already, you can zoom in to the end of the f/4.5 range or f/5.0 range and have a perfectly good shutter speed for shots of kids playing hockey.
The other good suggestion is the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.0. These lenses are more expensive than that 55-250, but they are great lenses that are well built and will last you a long time. You'll be giving up the versatility (and range in this case) of the zoom lens for much better image quality, low light capability, and narrow depth of field capability. These are definitely lenses that you can grow into, whereas the 55-250 is a lens that you may grow out of.
I think you'll be happy with the 50-250 for a while. At the same focal length (50) it is visibly much sharper than the kit 18-50. I'm very happy with mine, although I don't use it for sports, so perhaps my opinion isn't very useful to you.
I wouldn't worry about lack of upgradability, i.e., that you won't be able to use it on a full body camera. I doubt very much you will want to go there any time soon. It's a whole other world, for people who are either professionals or have enough spare cash lying around not to think twice about dropping 2, 5, 10 grand on camera equipment. By the time you reach that point (probably when you've paid off college and the house, are retired and have plenty of time to kill with your photography hobby), you will have gotten your money's worth out of the 50-250, or two or three if you're not careful.
I wouldn't worry about lack of upgradability, i.e., that you won't be able to use it on a full body camera. I doubt very much you will want to go there any time soon. It's a whole other world, for people who are either professionals or have enough spare cash lying around not to think twice about dropping 2, 5, 10 grand on camera equipment. By the time you reach that point (probably when you've paid off college and the house, are retired and have plenty of time to kill with your photography hobby), you will have gotten your money's worth out of the 50-250, or two or three if you're not careful.
Use your highest ISO, your images will have a small amount of color noise (grainy) but if properly exposed it can be easily fixed in post production, although it may not even be necessary.
I cannot remember if your model has ISO expansion in the custom function, if it does, consider using it, it may cut your MP in half so be aware of that.
you will need to be at the very least 1/320, to catch the skaters w/o blur and for the sharpest pics you should be in the middle of your aperture, about f8, this will also give you a generous depth of field. If you are unsure use your shutter priority mode.
I recommend setting your AF to one shot and metering to spot. Find where you will shoot from and take a reading with your internal light meter. Look for something medium (18%) gray, or a person's face will suffice. You could even meter the ice, It should be the very top, but not over the meter.
Things to keep in mind; the 3 ways you can adjust the amount of light; ISO, shutter speed and aperture. Don't forget (now that you have a telephoto) The amount of light that reaches the film (sensor) reduces exponentially as A)you "zoom" and B)move away from the subject. So in short get as close as you can, don't just sit way up in the stands because you can. You have an SLR now...push your way to where you need to be, act like your supposed to be there and people will accept it. Use the Power, feel it flow through you... <-sorry
ok that's enough... i don't wanna put myself out of a job... Good Luck
since the lighting is uniform, you can use M mode without having to be extremely familiar with metering. however, to figure out an initial setting, you'll have to either take some test pictures of players on the ice or meter off a known exposure value. for taking test pictures, just take a picture and check the histogram. just make sure it isn't bunched up on the left side - move it as far right as possible while the brightness of the scene looks right to you (i'm assuming you're shooting in Jpeg).
if you meter off something, you can spot meter the ice and overexpose by 2 stops, or spot meter your palm and overexpose by 1 stop. then, take a test picture to verify the results.
noise is a complex and somewhat overblown issue at this point. basically, in your situation, you have to balance between getting a high enough shutter speed and underexposing - underexposure inherently increases noise, but you need at least 1/500 to reliably freeze action.
You could also shoot in P mode or Av mode (leaving it open as wide as possible) and use EV -2/3 and then adjust pp. Especially if you shoot RAW. I found it gives you a bit of headroom.
I don't know what you use to post produce. I use Lightroom and occasionally Photoshop Elements. I hope you don't mind, but I took one of your hockey pics, dropped it into Picasa (which I use for lightweight imaging viewing on my PC laptop) and hit "I feel lucky" which is auto-correct in Picasa -- and this is what it did. There's headroom in these pics to brighten them a bit without too much impact, though now the blurriness of the players is more evident. As others have said, you'll really want to get the shutter speed up if you can.
If you don't have anything to fix your photos, then try Picasa. It's free and can do basic fixes.
Good luck.
I don't know what you use to post produce. I use Lightroom and occasionally Photoshop Elements. I hope you don't mind, but I took one of your hockey pics, dropped it into Picasa (which I use for lightweight imaging viewing on my PC laptop) and hit "I feel lucky" which is auto-correct in Picasa -- and this is what it did. There's headroom in these pics to brighten them a bit without too much impact, though now the blurriness of the players is more evident. As others have said, you'll really want to get the shutter speed up if you can.
If you don't have anything to fix your photos, then try Picasa. It's free and can do basic fixes.
Good luck.
Attachments
Ok, I've done a bunch of reading, and even reread about half the manual, and I'm understanding it finally!
This is exciting! I took some test shots (still with the kit lens, my new one won't be here for a little while). Anyway, I have more test shots. Different kind though, I wanted to try something different with my new knowledge. All of these were taken midday outside, and I messed with settings to get different effects. All were taken with M mode.
set
This is exciting! I took some test shots (still with the kit lens, my new one won't be here for a little while
). Anyway, I have more test shots. Different kind though, I wanted to try something different with my new knowledge. All of these were taken midday outside, and I messed with settings to get different effects. All were taken with M mode.set
wow that looks great! I just threw them into iPhoto and left them be. Those are completely unedited, as are the newest set. I'm getting a new MBP today as well, so I will use that to do some more editing when I get it all set up.
Ok, I've done a bunch of reading, and even reread about half the manual, and I'm understanding it finally!
This is exciting! I took some test shots (still with the kit lens, my new one won't be here for a little while
set
Couple points - the f/stop on the baseball and football shots are f/29, which is completely not needed. Most casual users will be fine outside with f/5.6 - f/16 and there are reasons for staying away from either extreme. Also, notice with f/29, your shutter speed is 1/25. While that's acceptable (marginally) for handheld, even for non-moving subjects, you'd like to see AT LEAST 1/60, preferably 1/100 or 1/200 if you are outdoors (there are reasons to go slower, but for general pictures, there's not a lot of reason to go below this). Also, when you get your 55-250, you will certainly want to stay above 1/100 and preferable above 1/200 when you are zoomed out. Yes, the IS helps, but it's not perfect.
Right! Forgot I was on a Mac forum! Of course you have iPhoto.
iPhoto can do this as well. I forget the button, but there's an "auto fix" option. But, I've not liked iPhoto's auto fix that much.
For basic exposure control in iPhoto, go into "edit" and then type the "A" button which brings up the adjust menu. See the histogram at the top of the floating adjust menu? In the middle of the histogram, right at the bottom, is a little button you can click and hold to drag it left/right to make the picture lighter or darker. Use this handle (not the "exposure" slider) as it better balances the output.
If all your pictures are equally dark, once you get the lighting you like, you can click "copy" on the adjust menu, and then "paste" in the next photo, and it will paste your exposure adjustment. So, if you have 20 photos that all need to be brightened, you can quickly bring them all up to the same exposure adjustment.
I apologize if you already know this, but if you don't, there's a very important relationship in exposure you need to memorize/understand. f/stop is the aperture size, each "whole" stop on the f/stop scale lets in half or double as much light as the stop up/down.
So, f/2.8 let's in half as much light as f/2.0, 4.0 is half of 2.8, 5.6 is half of 4.0, 8.0 is half of 5.6 and 11 is half of 8.
Every time you cut your aperture in half, you have to halve your shutter speed or double your ISO to get the same exposure. So if you are at f/4 at ISO 400 and shutter speed 1/100 and you move to f/5.6, you have to get another stop out of your shutter speed or your ISO to keep the same exposure. So, you either have to go to ISO 800 or ss 1/50 to keep the same exposure.
The best thing I did for myself was write down the f/stop scale and then kept it as a reference wherever I went. The full stop scale of most common f/stops (from biggest opening to the smallest) is: 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, 22. There are also half and third stops in between, but these are the most common whole stops.
Again, apologies if you already knew this, but if you didn't, it's a critical relationship to remember.
So, f/2.8 let's in half as much light as f/2.0, 4.0 is half of 2.8, 5.6 is half of 4.0, 8.0 is half of 5.6 and 11 is half of 8.
Every time you cut your aperture in half, you have to halve your shutter speed or double your ISO to get the same exposure. So if you are at f/4 at ISO 400 and shutter speed 1/100 and you move to f/5.6, you have to get another stop out of your shutter speed or your ISO to keep the same exposure. So, you either have to go to ISO 800 or ss 1/50 to keep the same exposure.
The best thing I did for myself was write down the f/stop scale and then kept it as a reference wherever I went. The full stop scale of most common f/stops (from biggest opening to the smallest) is: 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, 22. There are also half and third stops in between, but these are the most common whole stops.
Again, apologies if you already knew this, but if you didn't, it's a critical relationship to remember.
if your up to it, you could also try renting lens's to find one that might fit your need as well.
I just rented the 85 f/1.8 from ziplens.com and will be using it on my new 40D for an indoor olympic weightlifting event this weekend. I know thats a lens I will need in the future to own, but since I can't afford it outright (its near 400 bucks) I'm renting it for 60 bucks for the week and the return on the investment will easily outweigh it, since I'm selling prints of this event and the last 3. Familys LOVE pictures of their kids/cousins etc...
if I were you, I'd look @ ziplens.com (great customer support so far) and lensprotogo.com. I would have ordered from lensprotogo, but they didn't have the 85 f/1.8 in stock. I would try out the 100 f/2 for your usage.
Also, looking @ your pictures, try getting closer to the ice if you can, although, might be tough w/ the glass (plastic?) down at that level.
I just rented the 85 f/1.8 from ziplens.com and will be using it on my new 40D for an indoor olympic weightlifting event this weekend. I know thats a lens I will need in the future to own, but since I can't afford it outright (its near 400 bucks) I'm renting it for 60 bucks for the week and the return on the investment will easily outweigh it, since I'm selling prints of this event and the last 3. Familys LOVE pictures of their kids/cousins etc...
if I were you, I'd look @ ziplens.com (great customer support so far) and lensprotogo.com. I would have ordered from lensprotogo, but they didn't have the 85 f/1.8 in stock. I would try out the 100 f/2 for your usage.
Also, looking @ your pictures, try getting closer to the ice if you can, although, might be tough w/ the glass (plastic?) down at that level.
I know you already bought 55-250mm, but for future reference, there are a couple of good websites for Canon lenses:
The Digital Picture
PhotoZone
Both websites don't recommend your 3 original lenses very much, and I realize you have $350 budget requirement. And for that, 55-250 is the lens I would recommend as well.
The Digital Picture
PhotoZone
Both websites don't recommend your 3 original lenses very much, and I realize you have $350 budget requirement. And for that, 55-250 is the lens I would recommend as well.
Thanks guys. I can't wait for my new lens so I can play with it and take some nice shots. I guess I'll have to make do with my shiny new MBP for the time being. . One more question: what is depth of field? I think I have a fairly good understanding of iso, shutter speed, and aperture now thanks to you guys!
. One more question: what is depth of field? I think I have a fairly good understanding of iso, shutter speed, and aperture now thanks to you guys!Thanks guys. I can't wait for my new lens so I can play with it and take some nice shots. I guess I'll have to make do with my shiny new MBP for the time being.
Depth of field is the portion of an image that is sharp, whereas if the focus isn't in that range, it'll be blurry. As you have a further photographic range, such as a telephoto, the longest end of the focal length will always yield the narrowest depth of field, meaning the "depth" of the "field" is smaller. So the main focus will be very sharp, and the background (or foreground if anything is in front) will be blurry. Another term for blurry/dreamy backgrounds is bokeh.
Depth of field is also affected by your aperture. The less light you let in, the wider the depth of field. So if you take a few images of the same subject, first shooting at f5.6, and then raising it to f12 (making sure you expose the image for the right amount of time), and compare the two, you'll notice the background is not as blurry or almost near focus on the f12 shot, so play around with it and see what you get.
no. bokeh is the quality of background blur. it is a characteristic of a lens, such as sharpness or resistance to aberrations.
depth of field is affected by subject distance, focal length, f-stop, sensor size, print size, and viewing distance.
Thanks guys. I can't wait for my new lens so I can play with it and take some nice shots. I guess I'll have to make do with my shiny new MBP for the time being.
If you are really interested in this stuff, there are some web sites that help. Wikipedia is always a good reference. Also there are sites like this one: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
Haha, to be more technical, it is the japanese term for blur/haze. It's more about the diffusion of blur/haze.