What the?

I haven't used my 50mm in a while, today I took it out (cousin had a baby) and this orang'ish thing was on every 3rd picture. At first I thought there's something with the ambient light I wasn't. I came out of that room, took more shots and same. I came home, got the 24-105 on and it was fine.

I'm assuming something's wrong with the lens (50mm 1.8) - anyone knows about this?

(SOOC, converted to jpeg/web version)

Woah - that is weird. Try cleaning it maybe? I'm sure that's not it, but it's definitely something with the lens if your other one was fine.

I think so too. If I shot 4 frames - It moved, bottom, middle, top and then disappeared in the 4th.

Typical of an image taken under fluorescent lighting with an incompatible shutter speed. It's not your lens.

I am pretty sure it's not the lens either. I agree with the florescent lighting rationale. I took photos with a flash and had this same effect. I later found out it was the florescent lighting and a slowish shutter speed screwing things up.

I hope you're right (xarqi/Cameraman) - I was about to sell it in a day (getting Sigma 35/1.4 Art) and wasn't using it anyway. Will test more shots and see how it goes. Thanks

Ditto. Slow shutter speed and fluorescent lighting. Not a camera or lens problem.

Yay, thanks guys. I tested it at my place - nothing of this sort anymore. Strangely though, this never happened to me in 4 years :/ - Oh well, had to learn someday

Thank you again.

If you don't have the same florescent lighting like they have at the hospital where you took that picture (assuming you took that in a hospital/birthing room) then you'll never be able to duplicate those results at home.

A slow shutter speed isn't the whole answer. It has to be a shutter speed that keeps the shutter open for exactly an integral number of cycles of the lighting brightness. The brightness variation typically occurs with twice the frequency of the mains power frequency, so, for example, where the mains frequency is 60 Hz, you must use a shutter speed of:
1/120, 2/120 (=1/60), 3/120 (=1/40), 4/120 (=1/30), 5/120 (=1/24), 6/120 (=1/20), etc.

xarqi wrote in post #15900717
A slow shutter speed isn't the whole answer. It has to be a shutter speed that keeps the shutter open for exactly an integral number of cycles of the lighting brightness. The brightness variation typically occurs with twice the frequency of the mains power frequency, so, for example, where the mains frequency is 60 Hz, you must use a shutter speed of:
1/120, 2/120 (=1/60), 3/120 (=1/40), 4/120 (=1/30), 5/120 (=1/24), 6/120 (=1/20), etc.

I know that florescent light flickers so fast you can hardly see it with the naked eye. Is that what you're referring to?

CameraMan wrote in post #15900743
I know that florescent light flickers so fast you can hardly see it with the naked eye. Is that what you're referring to?

Exactly. If we could speed up our perceptions, we'd see such lights cycling from full brightness to total darkness, and back again, and changing colour at the same time.

What happened in the example shot is that as the slit between the two shutter curtains traversed the sensor, there was a time when the lights were passing through their dimmest phase. That part of the sensor didn't see quite the same scene as the rest!

The key is to get all parts of the sensor exposed to the same degree and quality of light, in other words, for an integral number of lighting cycles.

Yup, it's amazing how fast those shutters really are. You can actually catch lights in their dimming phase.

I had the same thing the first time I went through 'real' photos with my 50. Only one or two frames for me did it; but enough that I freaked out thinking something was wrong with my sensor.

Same here but I immediately thought of the florescent lighting being the problem so I moved to an area where there was more window light. I was shooting a wedding reception and was worried that my camera was failing. But all was good in the better lighting.