-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (1) =-

mosesport wrote in post #10661394
I must have just gotten a REALLY bad copy of the 50 1.8..

I agree.


For the guys debating the 17-55 and the 24-105:

I have the 17-55mm USM and it's perfect for me. I'm used to that focal length, so I may be biased. Not that I wouldn't turn down a 24-105!


I just bought a T1i as a backup for my T2i, and don't think I ever shared a picture in this thread.

Here are some:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …4/sizes/z/in/ph​otostream/

i suck with the 50mm 1.8 also, unless i'm on a tripod...i get motion blur in low light situations. Something like that concert would have been impossible for me hand held. Teach me your ways!

[QUOTE=Stuntman Mike;10661555]I agree.

For the guys debating the 17-55 and the 24-105:

I have the 17-55mm USM and it's perfect for me. I'm used to that focal length, so I may be biased. Not that I wouldn't turn down a 24-105!

I just bought a T1i as a backup for my T2i, and don't think I ever shared a picture in this thread.

I think it all really comes down to FL. Both 17-55IS and 24-105L are great lenses that run about the same price used. Just depends what FL you use most. I was always on the long end of the 17-55 or else I would have never traded it. If it were only a 17-85 f/2.8 IS I would have stuck with it. How do you like having a t1i as a backup? I was thinking of picking up another rebel for a backup.

mikestarr wrote in post #10661623
i suck with the 50mm 1.8 also, unless i'm on a tripod...i get motion blur in low light situations. Something like that concert would have been impossible for me hand held. Teach me your ways!

I find using fast shutter speeds and not being afraid to bump up the ISO helps alot with the 50 1.8 in low light. I got rid of mine after I upgraded to the 1.4 but just traded that for 85 1.8.

these were taking with IS) 1600 i believe and with the 50mm 1.8 at a 1.8 or maybe 2.2 apature. I dont think they came out that crisp. Is it just me...maybe you can help me figure out what i'm doing wrong

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Those are some awesome pics DaNi, Mitch, and both mikes!

I think as a newbie to photography and playing with my new lens i made a mistake. I probably should not have shot at such a wide open apeture because it left me with a narrow depth of field. Bummer. If i'm off let me know...i'm trying to understand photography and my new 50mm lens better

To me there is too much motion blur and the pics seem a bit grainy. I've only used the 50 in low light so far, i'm guessing i'll see a difference in the daytime but it would be nice to know how to shoot in low light also with it. That was the point of getting it

The 50mm 1.8 actually produces better images of the type you were shooting in the f/4.0 range. I try to reserve the extremely fast (and shallow DOF) for macro type shots.

There's also a good discussion going on about how to get the best focus in this thread.

thanks...now i know a good apeture to use for shots like that. I dunno about the link you sent, i'm not disliking the t2i i'm just having trouble adjusting to the 50mm 1.8. I really like the IS kit lenses i have. Just hard to understand my new lens.

I found the link that originally showed me about this characteristic of this lens. Take a look at the head to head comparison between f/1.8 and f/4 in this review. It's actually quite striking in contrast. Of course when you go to the smaller aperture you'll need to compensate through ISO and shutter speed to get proper exposure.

edit: I just saw your note about the link to the other thread. My intent was to link to a bunch of good advice about focusing. I love the T2i!

You are a wealth of info, thanks again

so do you think in the pics i provided above that is from using the apature that was so wide rather than around f/4?

mikestarr wrote in post #10662363
You are a wealth of info, thanks again

so do you think in the pics i provided above that is from using the apature that was so wide rather than around f/4?

Did you say that you were at ISO 1600? And at f/1.8? What was your shutter speed? If so then stopping down to f/4 would require a higher ISO and/or slower shutter speed. This just may be a situation where you'd need to use flash with that hardware to get a sharper image. I'd do some PP on these to try to get the most out of them at this point. Some unsharp mask maybe?

Finally got a chance to do some shooting, here's the in-laws dog. Used the kit lens.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

DS_Monsoon wrote in post #10663923
Did you say that you were at ISO 1600? And at f/1.8? What was your shutter speed? If so then stopping down to f/4 would require a higher ISO and/or slower shutter speed. This just may be a situation where you'd need to use flash with that hardware to get a sharper image. I'd do some PP on these to try to get the most out of them at this point. Some unsharp mask maybe?

yeah from talking with some other people they said they came out a little blurry not because of the apeture being 1.8 but the slower shutter speed. I was around 1/13 and 1/25 and was shooting in AV mode rather than setting the shutter speed in Manual mode to something like 1/60. I have a hard time equating the fractions of shutter speed to actual time and which one i should be shooting. I thought this shot came out pretty cool looking though

mikestarr wrote in post #10666101
yeah from talking with some other people they said they came out a little blurry not because of the apeture being 1.8 but the slower shutter speed. I was around 1/13 and 1/25 and was shooting in AV mode rather than setting the shutter speed in Manual mode to something like 1/60. I have a hard time equating the fractions of shutter speed to actual time and which one i should be shooting. I thought this shot came out pretty cool looking though

Just think the higher the bottom number the faster the speed. I try to always stay above 1/100 with my 50mm 1.8 when it is handheld. 1/13 and 1/25 is tripod territory to me. I'm a noob though so I maybe wrong.

yeah i guess that is an easy way of thinking abou it. But if i want to do a 30 second exposure what does that equal fraction wise. God i hate math LOL