Can only set aperture to f5.6 - why?

[george cZ]

Hello - I'm an absolute beginner to my canon digital rebel xt - had a sony dsc-s85. I must be having a brain fart - but I was outside, set the camera in Av mode - and wanted to test the photos starting at f2.8 - I went to turn the dial set the aperture to 2.8 but as low as it would go is 5.6? Am I missing something here? If I place it in M mode it will let me adjust... Thoughts? Thanx George cZ

[adam*]

Are you using the kit lens? If so you can't use f/stops as low as 2.8. The lowest is (I think) f/3.5 on the wide end and f/5.6 on the long.

[flying...]

Are you using the kit lens? If so you can't use f/stops as low as 2.8. The lowest is (I think) f/3.5 on the wide end and f/5.6 on the long.

ya...check your lens length...5.6 is minimum for kit lens at tele end...

[george cZ]

Are you using the kit lens? If so you can't use f/stops as low as 2.8. The lowest is (I think) f/3.5 on the wide end and f/5.6 on the long. Why yes I am - I didn't even realise that I could go no lower than 3.5 - duh I wanted to take pictures at a low light of ballet/jazz dancers at the local company. looks like I may need another type lens... Thank you so much George

[kram]

Welcome to the world of lens upgrades :)

[liza]

That's how Canon picks your pocket! :)

[george cZ]

LOL - Well I'm early into Canon - I've had a Sony for years DSCS85 4.1mp - I used a friend of mines Canon XT and quite simply had to have one! I figure just a couple lens down the line and I'll be set - not a professional photographer just an enthusiast. Does anyone have any suggestions for such a lens? portrait 80-200mm? & wide angle 17-40mm?

Thanx

[liza]

If you want f/2.8 lenses, go with a Tamron 17-50 and a Sigma 70-200. Both are decent lenses with good image quality and aren't prohibitively expensive.

[runninmann]

I figure just a couple lens down the line and I'll be set Foolish, foolish man!:)

[philbyuk]

if your on a budget get the 50mm 1.8 mkII nice and cheap good low light lens and a small aperture (good for blurring out the background) its well reccomended round here good sharp shots although focus may be a bit finicky sometime (but ive not had any probs YET!)

[george cZ]

If you want f/2.8 lenses, go with a Tamron 17-50 and a Sigma 70-200. Both are decent lenses with good image quality and aren't prohibitively expensive. Thanx Liza - I'll take a gander! -

[george cZ]

Foolish, foolish man!:)

LOL - Why you say foolish? Camera? indicating just a couple lenses?

Not getting into specifics - but I'm very limited at this point in my life "mobility wise" - Not sure how much longer and taking photos and presenting "a visual" sort of documentary is my goal... plus it makes me happy - which is a +++

;)

Ciao
George

[george cZ]

if your on a budget get the 50mm 1.8 mkII nice and cheap good low light lens and a small aperture (good for blurring out the background) its well reccomended round here good sharp shots although focus may be a bit finicky sometime (but ive not had any probs YET!)

I take it this is the "Canon EF 50mm MKII Lens for all EOS 1:1.8"?
I see several on the used market for a really good price..

George cZ

[philbyuk]

thats correct george..seems like its a must have at the price/performance

[ijohnson]

If it makes you feel better, the largest aperture on your Sony was probably effectively smaller than the 5.6 than you are worried about. You may notice that the depth of field is actually much more shallow than you were able to achieve before.

That said, I don't know anything about the Sony and I don't know the math so I could also be wrong.

Anyone else who knows what I'm talking about want to weigh in?

[RandyMays]

Welcome George. I have the Tamron 28-75. Great consumer grade lens for the price.

Here is my favorite link for lens / camera review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

[Andy_T]

Why yes I am - I didn't even realise that I could go no lower than 3.5 - duh I wanted to take pictures at a low light of ballet/jazz dancers at the local company. looks like I may need another type lens... Thank you so much George

Maybe not.

While a compact P+S might have f/2.8 as fastest aperture, it will normally render usable images only at something to 200 ISO (I don't consider 400 ISO on a P+S usable).

The 350D, on the other hand, can give you good quality @ 1600 ISO (which is 8 times the sensitivity of ISO 200) ... so getting only half the light at g/5.6 vs. f/2.8 might be well compensated.

Of course, you can always put a fast prime (or more expensive fast zoom) on the 350D to really increase light sensitivity even more. Then you will get really good low light capability.

Best regards,
Andy

[george cZ]

Maybe not.

While a compact P+S might have f/2.8 as fastest aperture, it will normally render usable images only at something to 200 ISO (I don't consider 400 ISO on a P+S usable).

The 350D, on the other hand, can give you good quality @ 1600 ISO (which is 8 times the sensitivity of ISO 200) ... so getting only half the light at g/5.6 vs. f/2.8 might be well compensated.

Of course, you can always put a fast prime (or more expensive fast zoom) on the 350D to really increase light sensitivity even more. Then you will get really good low light capability.

Best regards,
Andy

I concur - the quality per the Canon was no comparison to the Sony - It was "over the top" - the DSC S85 was very nice and still is - I use it after my memory card is filled on the canon - and use it mostly for ISO 100 shots out doors - like you - I cringe when I have to adjust it to ISO400 - but hey "It's the photographer taking the picture not the camera" or something like that..

ciao
george

[george cZ]

Welcome George. I have the Tamron 28-75. Great consumer grade lens for the price.

Here is my favorite link for lens / camera review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

Thanx Randy - That looks like a decent lens for my purpose...
I'm going to look/see if I can find any sample photos using the same -

George cZ

[Jon]

LOL - Why you say foolish? Camera? indicating just a couple lenses?

Not getting into specifics - but I'm very limited at this point in my life "mobility wise" - Not sure how much longer and taking photos and presenting "a visual" sort of documentary is my goal... plus it makes me happy - which is a +++

;)

Ciao
George"Just a couple of lenses". To quote Bert Lahr from the Lays' Potato Chip Ad - "I'll have another!".

[runninmann]

LOL - Why you say foolish? Camera? indicating just a couple lenses?

Not getting into specifics - but I'm very limited at this point in my life "mobility wise" - Not sure how much longer and taking photos and presenting "a visual" sort of documentary is my goal... plus it makes me happy - which is a +++

;)

Ciao
GeorgeGeorge, all in fun. It's just that this hobby seems to become engulfing in very short order. When I traded my Pro1 in for the 20d in March, I thought I'd use the 18-55 for several months, then maybe, get a telephoto and I'd be set. Well, six lenses later, I'm already trying to decide when I'm going to buy the next one. I consider myself somewhat of a cheapskate -- I'd much rather count my money than spend it :) -- and by many members' standards, I haven't spent much. But by my standards, it's a small fortune!

[Headcase650]

If you want to stick with just a couple of fast lenses at reasonable prices I would suggest selling the kit lens for 70 or 80 bucks and using that as part of the cost of a 17/18-50mm f2.8 from sigma or tamron then invest in a sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex. This would make a cost effective fast kit that should suite you well for everything except ultra wide or extremly long. This would cover 28mm to 320mm in the traditional 35mm format with a small gap betwean lenses that shouldt bother you much.

[george cZ]

I can agree with the last few statements about the lenses...

Honestly - I did pick up the camera - noticed the feel in the hands - saw the clarity and ease of viewing - felt the power and----- oh gosh- I think I just had an orgasm? :oops: (kidding)

Thought boy I'd kinda like a couple of these type lenses (insert X here).... so back to the foolish foolish man statement... :lol:

Thanx folks -
George

[luant16]

get prime, light, cheap, fast, good for low light photography (especially without tripod), u wont regret...

[george cZ]

get prime, light, cheap, fast, good for low light photography (especially without tripod), u wont regret...

Open to any suggestion you may offer luant16 - :)

George

[Pete-eos]

50mm f/1.8 Mk11 prime is cheap and cheerfull, got a new one half UK retail from Hong Kong, great for learning apateur/low light and with extension tubes can make a reasonable macro lense..

[Clint]

Hows it goin George, nice to see another Georgian on the site. 50-1.8 Great lense, I myself do not have one BUT soon my friend SOON:D !!!!!
Welcome to Canon.

[EOS_JD]

George
I'm similar to most others. Wants and needs are two differnt things. All in my Sig has been bought in the last 15 months!

Regards lenses you've had some good suggestions. I find the field of view on my 50mm lens a little to small so I'd suggest something like the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (I hope to buy one soon). Great for low light and the large apperture allows a very shallow depth of field. It's also faster and better built than the 50 f1.8 (which is also a decent lens).

For a zoom, the 28-75 f2.8 is great value but 28mm on a crop body is again a little limiting. A 17-50 range is probably better option.

The Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens. I bought the Canon 70-200 f4L and wqished I'd got the faster one. Saved and bought the 2.8 IS which is a wonderful lens.

I'm the foolish man that was mentioned above. I thought one or two lenses would be plenty........ I've sold 3 and still have the ones below. And I still want more.

'L'p me :-(

[AlexMa]

Hey George.......

LOL............I upgraded from a Sony DSC-S85.

I thought I had the "bomb" with 4.1 mp when it first came out.

It was a great P&S for me........captured over 13k images with that camera.

Still in working order which my wife uses when I am not around.

The DSLR's are so much faster.

BTW Welcome to the Forum.

[george cZ]

Just lookin at the wide variety of lenses - WOW - and some of the prices?
I'll have offer up my first born as collateral - :lol: The sigma looks like a woo factor -

Yep - I had the ole Sony DSC-S85 - was getting rather comfortable and I thought I was da'bomb at a whopping 4.1 mp ( as he shrugs his belt loops and winks). ;) I have no beef with that camera at all! In fact I still use it - although my kid thinks now that I have the canon he can have it - sorry pal - it's an emotional attachment - Seriously he can use it and learn!

I suppose the saying comes into play here - "it's the person taking the photo not the camera" -

George