DSLR lens suggestions

[jhc77]

I've a Cannon Rebel XS with the standard Cannon 18-55 lens and have for ever. I take pictures everywhere mainly of my kids indoors and out. Dealt with it too long now. Either the flash kills it or if I use no flash the color is off. Messed with ISO, but these are kids were talking here. One is almost 5 and the other is 5 months. Doesn't take long for either to flinch.
Not sure if I should go with a Macro or different route. I know enough how to use it (mostly) to get a good picture out it, just not on the smarts with lens choices.
New camera is not an option right now either. Like to stay around or under $200.
Thanks in advance,
John

[2.ooohhh]

Faster glass is the fix for kids and indoors, the cannon 50mm f1.8 is the best at your budget, though I prefer the f1.4 myself b/c it's got a much better manual focus ring.

 

http://amzn.com/B00007E7JU

[leroy]

What 2.ooohhh said!!! ^^^^^^... We shoot train photos all the time with a nikon d80... I always use a 50 mm F1.8 lens...

 

leroy

[Guest Lester Weevils]

JHC77, do you ever use photoshop or photoshop elements? I use elements nowadays because the modern elements has all the features of my ancient "full photoshop" versions from years ago, and don't need any more advanced features.

 

I'm still using an ancient nikon point and shoot, but the photoshop elements auto-level, auto-contrast, auto-color, generally gets real close, real fast, in most cases, to a proper-balanced picture. If it still needs tweaking, the feature "adjust lighting" is rather amazing, allowing one to independently mute excessive brightness in pieces of a photo, while also optionally brightening dark areas and adjusting mid-range contrast when necessary. It is real fast, unless one gets bogged down tweaking lots of pictures in a session.

 

Just saying, if I ever buy a nice nikon or canon and better lenses, will probably STILL crank the pictures thru photoshop. So if software fixes will cure your ills, might be cheaper than a new lens, if even with the new lens software fixes optimize the pictures. :)

Edited May 5, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[jhc77]

JHC77, do you ever use photoshop or photoshop elements? I use elements nowadays because the modern elements has all the features of my ancient "full photoshop" versions from years ago, and don't need any more advanced features.

I'm still using an ancient nikon point and shoot, but the photoshop elements auto-level, auto-contrast, auto-color, generally gets real close, real fast, in most cases, to a proper-balanced picture. If it still needs tweaking, the feature "adjust lighting" is rather amazing, allowing one to independently mute excessive brightness in pieces of a photo, while also optionally brightening dark areas and adjusting mid-range contrast when necessary. It is real fast, unless one gets bogged down tweaking lots of pictures in a session.

Just saying, if I ever buy a nice nikon or canon and better lenses, will probably STILL crank the pictures thru photoshop. So if software fixes will cure your ills, might be cheaper than a new lens, if even with the new lens software fixes optimize the pictures. :)

I don't have any tweaking software. If the picture looks bad on that 2.5" screen then I'll retake it. I've tried the basic editing stuff that's in Picasa, but I normally am okay with what I shoot.

[tnguy]

I'd suggest learning your camera better. It should not be hard to get a fairly decent picture, without a flash if possible but it's sometimes unavoidable. With that, Lester is right, nothing wrong with fixing things up in post.

 

Remember that our eyes do a lot of correction for us so what looks "OK" to us may look poor on the screen. Also remember that those screens are only for preview and are not accurate in themselves. Indoor lighting is notorious for being "off" which is why pros carry their own lighting with them.

 

A work colleague was big on lightbox http://www.sagelighteditor.com/downloadfree2.html . I've never used it myself.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't have any tweaking software. If the picture looks bad on that 2.5" screen then I'll retake it. I've tried the basic editing stuff that's in Picasa, but I normally am okay with what I shoot.

 

Well, here are some before/after examples from the little nikon point'n'click, photoshop elements 8 (several years out of date). I don't always take pictures this bad, but these are so bad that some graininess shows up after enhancement. Still, IMO the enhancements are more tolerable. A better-quality picture doesn't get noticeably grainy when adjusted. You can click on the pictures to enlarge them.

 

They were all processed "assembly line" method, clicking menu items "auto levels", "auto contrast", "auto color", "Adjust Lighting, hilights and shadows".

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JWinTN]

The nifty fifty is a good lens for the price. If you're going to get a prime, though, I'd get the 50mm 1.4. It's just built better and will give better performance in low light. With that said, the 50 is a little difficult for anything more than portraits indoors, unless you have large rooms to zoom with your feet.

 

I used primes for a long time, and still do quite often, but for kids and a wide variety of situations, I would suggest a 17-50 with at least a constant 2.8 aperture, and then get an external flash with whatever diffuser suits your fancy. You'll get good images in a wide variety of situations. 

 

In fact, until you want to invest a little more, your best bet may be to just go with the external flash, a diffuser, and look at some resources on how to bounce the flash. You could even look at diffusers and bounce cards for the built-in flash to get better images right now. I know some people have rigged index cards and rubber bands to bounce the internal flash.

 

The 40mm pancake lens is another option you could look at.

 

Check B&H and Amazon for used stuff to stay closer to your budget.

[JWinTN]

I don't have any tweaking software. If the picture looks bad on that 2.5" screen then I'll retake it. I've tried the basic editing stuff that's in Picasa, but I normally am okay with what I shoot.

 

The software provided with your camera is quite useful. I haven't used Digital Photo Professional in a while, but it is quite capable for many editing tasks. Shoot RAW to have more flexibility in post.

[peejman]

What they said. Save up a little more cash and get the "nifty" 50mm 1.4. It's a fantastic lens. Keep an eye on B&H used section, KEH, and eBay. They can be had for good prices, but you gotta be quick.

[DaveTN]

The key to photography is light and controlling it. Have you tried a Cannon Speedlight that is compatible with your camera? Does your camera have the ability to trigger a remote flash?

[strickj]

Ugh...

 

The 50mm is fantastic if you can stay within 6 feet of your kids at all times. If you do not plan to keep the kids on a leash to take their pics, then I would suggest the 55x200 for a few bucks more. It will give you the reach that you need to capture your kids outdoors. For indoors, I would compensate for poor lighting with a Yongnuo speedlight mounted on the camera. And forget the modifiers... just keep it pointed up at the ceiling. :)

[JWinTN]

Ugh...

 

The 50mm is fantastic if you can stay within 6 feet of your kids at all times. If you do not plan to keep the kids on a leash to take their pics, then I would suggest the 55x200 for a few bucks more. It will give you the reach that you need to capture your kids outdoors. For indoors, I would compensate for poor lighting with a Yongnuo speedlight mounted on the camera. And forget the modifiers... just keep it pointed up at the ceiling. :)

 

Sometimes there's no ceiling, so a diffuser is handy, and there's many other benefits to primes and fast apertures, not the least of which is better image quality.

 

For $110, the 50mm 1.8 is hard to ignore, especially with the image quality you can get for that price compared to any of the lower-priced zooms. The biggest drawback I've found is that the 50mm focal length on crop-sensor cameras can be a little tight indoors. 

 

The 55-200 focal length isn't as versatile indoors, and outdoors with shorter focal lengths you can usually zoom with your feet. The 55-200 focal length would be good to have for ball games, recitals, and school plays but the aperture range is limiting in low light, especially at full zoom. 

 

He already has an 18-55 and can expand its usefulness with an external flash. JHC77, I still think that's your best bet given your budget. Look for used or refurbished equipment, and you could probably get the 50mm 1.8 and an external flash and improve your capabilities exponentially. Beyond that, it's time to look at investing more money. Canon has some well-built primes at decent prices compared to the zooms that deliver similar image quality.

[jhc77]

The key to photography is light and controlling it. Have you tried a Cannon Speedlight that is compatible with your camera? Does your camera have the ability to trigger a remote flash?

No and dunno. The manual is missing at the moment. I believe it does.
Think I'm going to try the 1.8 first. Messed with it this afternoon on P setting and ran the ISO up to 1600 for fun. Pictures came out alright. Need to look at them on my TV to really see how they turned out. Nice having an SD slot on the 50".

[strickj]

Sometimes there's no ceiling, so a diffuser is handy, and there's many other benefits to primes and fast apertures, not the least of which is better image quality.

 

For $110, the 50mm 1.8 is hard to ignore, especially with the image quality you can get for that price compared to any of the lower-priced zooms. The biggest drawback I've found is that the 50mm focal length on crop-sensor cameras can be a little tight indoors. 

 

The 55-200 focal length isn't as versatile indoors, and outdoors with shorter focal lengths you can usually zoom with your feet. The 55-200 focal length would be good to have for ball games, recitals, and school plays but the aperture range is limiting in low light, especially at full zoom. 

 

He already has an 18-55 and can expand its usefulness with an external flash. JHC77, I still think that's your best bet given your budget. Look for used or refurbished equipment, and you could probably get the 50mm 1.8 and an external flash and improve your capabilities exponentially. Beyond that, it's time to look at investing more money. Canon has some well-built primes at decent prices compared to the zooms that deliver similar image quality.

Well, he has the 18x55 that he can use indoors. I assume he want's to take pics of the kids playing in the yard or a ball games, which is why I suggested the x200. If he's planning on just taking the "be still a minute" portraits then I agree, the 50mm is hard to beat.

[JWinTN]

Well, he has the 18x55 that he can use indoors. I assume he want's to take pics of the kids playing in the yard or a ball games, which is why I suggested the x200. If he's planning on just taking the "be still a minute" portraits then I agree, the 50mm is hard to beat.

 

I see. Good reasoning, and those two lenses would cover a lot of bases in regards to focal length.

 

I have a difficult time putting much value in budget zooms because of the typically slower variable apertures and the hit in image quality compared to primes. I think if you're looking to take the next step toward better IQ, primes are the way to go until you're ready to spend more money on zooms with fast constant apertures. Primes can be relatively inconvenient, but I feel the trade-off is worth it if IQ is the criteria, especially in low- and natural-light situations.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I'm most likely looking at it all wrong, but if one had a high pixel camera body, why not run in wide angle, low f stop mode for about anything with wiggly subjects, and then crop after the fact to get decent composition? Unless a feller needed to print a 300 DPI poster size image, anyway---

 

Edit-- Was referring above to indoor shooting. Outdoors would want zoom or telphoto because even with zillions of pixels, one couldn't get high enough resolution in a cropped image, if taking a wide angle picture of a speck on the horizon. :)

Edited May 6, 2014 by Lester Weevils

[jphillips63]

What mode are you shooting in? If the little green auto box take the camera off that and shoot static photos in av mode and moving shots in TV mode. Also make sure AI servo is on for constant focus. It's also best to know that try and keep your shutter speed above 125 sec if hand held or use a tripod for anything under that. AV controls the aperture of the lens while TV controls the shutter speed.
Also use the histogram graph built in on the camera to view your exposure of each shot taken.

[jphillips63]

Shot in av mode using a canon 1D. Mark IV and 800 mm canon lens



Shot in TV mode with same body and lens

[jhc77]

What mode are you shooting in? If the little green auto box take the camera off that and shoot static photos in av mode and moving shots in TV mode. Also make sure AI servo is on for constant focus. It's also best to know that try and keep your shutter speed above 125 sec if hand held or use a tripod for anything under that. AV controls the aperture of the lens while TV controls the shutter speed.
Also use the histogram graph built in on the camera to view your exposure of each shot taken.

I normally tinker with AV and TV, but when it goes back in the bag, it hits Auto. Wife just wants to point and shoot. I'll mess with AV more tomorrow.