Lense advice please. For 70D

[Glezga]

I currently have the below: and not getting what I want from the 18-55 with the 50mm outperforming it in low light and sharpness.

70D 18-55mm IS, EF 75-300mm & 50mm STM

Ive been looking at reviews of the EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM and considering it for my next lense. It’s the low light ability I’m interested in and would replace my 18-55. Is this a good idea or is there something else I should consider.

The 50 does me for most situations just now and I love using it, but I miss the zoom for landscapes and the 18-55 is tricky in low light with a lot of noise.

Im still pretty new to all this – so could be my settings aren’t great.

Is there an allrounder you can suggest, not too expensive one please. The EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 IS USM is going for around £200ish used. I think I could convince myself I need it!

Thanks

Steve

[Daisy M]

In my opinion you have a good set of lens with what you have got, the 75-300 is very versatile and the fifty is a good all rounder. To me as you state you are pretty new to all this and should get to know these group of lens before you move on. Give yourself a year to see where the gaps are in your lens, this will allow you to save for a better lens and become more efficient in what you have got.
Dave

[Glezga]

I hear you loud and clear, I also know your talking complete sense and I know im being impatient and have more to learn than I probably realise. Here comes the but…

Ive taken some nice images with the 18-55 and I just can’t seem to replicate them often enough or at all and that’s the Lense that would mostly suit my purposes. Changing one setting/lense loses somewhere else etc.

Im beginning to think I was just lucky but I also know im not spending nearly as much time “on site” to maximise or properly learn the settings – its just how it is with work etc. so I know im in a hurry to get better but worry ill lose interest if, like a child – I DON’T GET WHAT I WANT lol

I know im in the right company here when I say there is nothing more satisfying that taking a really nice image.

Added to the fact im am rushing during work to take images!, is the fact that the bloody things look great on the LCD.

Your entirely right and I appreciate your advice, I need to slow down and that was the point of picking up a camera. I think, or maybe hope that buying a better Lense will get me over that hurdle. That and the reviews online of that Lense are scathing – I want to blame the lense as its low light capabilities seem to be the issue im having.

Sorry, this is getting long – the 50mm’s quality blew me away, im thinking the same will happen with a better lense?

Steve

[Trev B]

The three P's !!!!!

[NathCarr91]

I have to echo David on this one. Youv got a good set of lenses and I'd be working out what your main goal of photography is and what your main subjects are and buy a lens relative to them.

I'm assuming your 18-55 is f3.5-5.6? I would have thought you're doing shooting at around f8-f13 for landscapes so what Im struggling to understand is, why you're struggling with low light situations at them apertures for landscapes. When you can go wider and If you're trying to get more light into the image, just up your ISO or use a tripod with longer exposure time. (They're cheaper than a lens).
If doing mainly landscapes anyway it's unlikely you're using F1.8 on the 50mm? So are you really going to benefit from the 1 extra stop of light that the 17-55 has?

The 50mm 1.8 is a brilliant lens, and has really good quality optics in it. And to be honest is the only lens I ever really use, I only use my 18 if I want wider images. In 3 years of being a canon user I've purchased only 2 lenses. The 50mm and the 18-55 never found myself stuck.

I'd be in less of a rush to learn everything straight away and really enjoy what you have and play around, the images you've posted here already have been great, so what your doing is working already, so perfect that and then reevaluate. Because you may end up spending money on something you don't like.

Ps. If you have a Wilkinson cameras local to you, they often have hand on canon days where you can go and try the equipment on your own camera and have canon photo walks where you can take the equipment out for the day and try it. Worth looking into that before spending ££££

[@imagesBV]

Which 18-55 do you have ...the very first one was a poor performer.....just offering this if you are concerned about image quality/repeatability.

Otherwise you may have been caught up in the commercial trap that leads you to think you need new gear all the time, comparison is the theif of joy!

I use RF15-35 L and 100-500 L for ultimate quality and extra speed, but I also use a 16mm, 50mm and 24-105mm non-L lenses....much lighter and great quality.

[El Sid]

I suspect a case of want more than need... This is a condition that affects most of us at some point...

I'm not surprised the 50mm outperforms the 18-55. Prime lenses traditionally have always out-performed zooms although the gap is now far smaller than it was - at least at the upper price ranges. Zooms have to be tailored to give an acceptable performance across a wide range of focal lengths whereas a prime like the 50mm can be far more finely tuned as it's only dealing with a single focal length - add to that the fact that the basic design has been around, and been refined, for the best part of a century and it's no surprise it's so good.

Will the 17-55 f2.8 outperform the 18-55? Yes, it's a far more sophisticated, and expensive, lens and has a reputation for being as close to a L spec lens as any EF-s lens has ever gotten. Will it outperform the 50mm? That's more uncertain though I suspect that at typical print sizes you wouldn't be able to see a difference - only pixel peeping might show otherwise. Remember though that however good the lens is it can always be let down by poor technique...

FWIW my first standard zoom was a Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6, very similar to the 18-55 of the time. Performance was acceptable though not outstanding. Eventually it got replaced by the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5, mainly on longer focal length grounds, which from the outset proved a better optical performer - so much so that it remains my main APS standard zoom. It's one worth considering if budget is an issue (the later f2.8-4 is said to be slightly better and has IS as well).

PS the Canon 17-55 is a bit of a monster weightwise at 645g - worth remembering if size and weight might be an issue...

[Glezga]

Thanks guys. I’m out of my depth and need to practice and understand more.

I’m watching too many videos with too many opinions and not practicing enough. Im only recently stepping out of auto regularly and expecting similar results.

I sat down just now to post examples from today using manual mode, the last few days ive been using AV mode. I can’t use any the images I took in AV although they looked great on the LCD. This prompted me to upgrade.

Today I took some using manual – with some editing, I can use them. ive messed with manual before and had mixed results so (the videos) suggested spending time in AV.

Like I said, I sat down to explain a bit more as you all answered thoroughly, but I’m confusing myself – so im out of my depth and need to practice more to better understand. I thought I understood better than I do, like I understand but it hasn’t clicked yet (pun intended)

For example. I took the same set on 9 settings in manual and got 2 or 3 I can use, but they are too dark or too light straight from camera. Early morning, low light and overcast day. At least now I can tell what im looking for on the LCD – it’s a start!

P.S I don’t know what version of the lense I have. EF-S 18-55MM 1:3.5-5.6 IS - im assuming the newest is the STM?

SAMPLES UNEDITED

[El Sid]

Image quality looks OK in terms of sharpness. As might be expected f11 looks a little sharper than f4 but overall the lens looks to be pretty decent.

There are 3 governing factors for exposure

Aperture - the lens is fitted with a diaphragm that can be opened and closed. The more open the aperture is the more light gets in and vice versa. Aperture also controls depth of field which relates to how much of the image looks to be in focus - the larger the aperture the less of the image will appear sharp. Typically we use large apertures to separate the subject from the background - eg in portraiture - and small apertures when we want front to back sharpness - eg landscape. The larger the aperture number the smaller the aperture - ie f4 is larger and lets in more light than f11.

Shutter speed - basically the higher the shutter speed the less light falls on the sensor and the potentially darker the image. One thing to be aware of is that low shutter speeds can result in soft images to to camera shake when hand holding. The rule of thumb used to be set the shutter no slower than 1/focal length of the lens. IS makes things better but a lot depends on how wobbly you are - I certainly can't hand hold at slow speeds like I did when I was young. If in doubt select a higher shutter speed/ISO setting or use support like tripod or bean bag.

ISO - The natural sensitivity of any sensor is a fixed value and usually equates to the lowest setting (usually around 100 for most cameras) with the minimal amount of signal amplification. As you increase the ISO value the processor adds more gain to the sensor signal making the sensor appear more sensitive to light. We use higher ISO when the amount of available light as determined by the lighting conditions, the shutter speed and the aperture value is insufficient to give the exposure we want.

Exposure is therefore determined by all 3 values - change any one and you need to adjust at least one of the others by the same amount to maintain the same exposure value.

Taking your pictures as an example remember also that sky is very much brighter than the ground, in extreme cases the difference may be more than the sensor can cope with. Historically the answer was, and often still is, to use graduated filters that are dark at the top and fading to clear at the bottom. Another option readily available today is to take two or more exposures covering the extremes of the range and blend them in post processing either manually or using software designed for the task. Some cameras (eg my 80D) can even do this in camera albeit with mixed results on occasion...

When you first start exposure seems a nightmare but once you get the hang of the relationship between the factors you will wonder why you ver found it tricky.

[NathCarr91]

I agree with Nigel, once you've got the hand of the 'exposure triangle' you'll wonder why it seemed so tricky.

It might be worth mentioning though, don't feel rushed to be able to shoot in manual. One thing I've seen over the years is that everybody is desperate to shoot in manual as if it's like, once I've mastered manual I'm a photographer kind of thing. Yeah it's handy because it gives you complete control over the exposure, but I would say I use manual probably 20% of the time. Reason being, i know how I want my image to be. Say I'm doing a waterfall and want dreamy looking water, I'm going straight into shutter priority, because that's the only aspect of the image I need to look the way I want it. Or I'm doing a portrait or landscape where Depth of field is my goal, then I'll go in AV and let the camera do the rest. I spend most of my time in AV and only flick over to manual if I really need to.

Do you subscribe to the magazine at all? It's really helped me over the last few years.

[Glezga]

Thanks for taking the time to reply guys and for the advice. I thought I had good understanding of the exposure triangle, obviously not and I’m a bit embarrassed.

My LCD brightness was set to high. Shooting in AV was showing perfect looking images but were very dark on PC. I was getting better images in Manual but was confusing myself. I was taking a lot of images and adjusting the settings – getting a good one and staying close to the same settings for different scenes etc. not that taking lots of images hurts.

Ive been neglecting that when I change one setting, I need to change another to the same value (correctly) – this is the part that hasn’t clicked and In my defence, I’m rushing which is no defence lol. Also relying on the camera to do my job – even in TV etc.

This is likely what happened years ago when I bought my 1^st DSLR and gave up when I didn’t progress. I do have mild dyscalculia but it’s not an issue once I identify the problem. Ive probably came across as impatient and lazy. I am definitely impatient. Waking early to sit on a windy hill before work and getting zilch is also frustrating.

I’ll try master the camera with the 18-55 and then the 75-300. The 50 I have no issues. It’s the best thing yet. Then as mentioned, I can identify the gaps.

Thanks again guys for your time i do appreciate it. but now, I won’t be so slow at coming forward – you have been warned lol

I was just considering subscribing to the magazine. Too many choices and opinions for a beginner online with youtube etc

[NathCarr91]

Don't be embarrassed, every day is a school day! I still make mistakes now and I'm very familiar with my camera and all it's settings.

Just remember to use your meter when changing settings, if that line is at 0 then it's likely you're going to get a decent exposure (not always the case but it's a starting point) and as you progress you'll realize that you might want more exposure or less exposure so will adjust settings accordingly depending on what your scene or subject is.

when shooting in AV or TV though when the meter moves up or down, you're adding exposure compensation to the image (that's a whole other topic) so just keep it at 0 until you feel confident to adjust.

So many videos on YouTube and it's a great place to learn, but my advise would be to find one channel you like and stick with it, as you'll just be overwhelmed with different creators doing different things and having different tips. If you like landscape stuff I'd search for Joshua Cripps photography on YouTube. His earlier content really goes back to basics to help newbies. And his newer stuff helps progress that.
And I really enjoy the magazine, you might think some of the content doesn't matter to you because you're not using a mirrorless camera but all the content can be used on your 70d plus you get access to all the back issues. Which is very helpful as you can find the issues that are out for when your camera was released

[Skyelines]

I you want a a decent video of basic essential camera skills I'd recommeend this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsb-22LjkVI

[El Sid]

My LCD brightness was set to high. Shooting in AV was showing perfect looking images but were very dark on PC. I was getting better images in Manual but was confusing myself. I was taking a lot of images and adjusting the settings – getting a good one and staying close to the same settings for different scenes etc. not that taking lots of images hurts.

In this case the histogram is your friend... I've always tended to have my LCD set quite high as I find the default setting is usually a bit dim in any kind of half decent light. As long as the histogram is not pushed up along the left edge (under exposed) or the right edge (over exposed) it should display acceptably on a PC regardless of how it appears on the back of the camera. I also always have the highlight warning turned on so that I can keep an eye out for blown highlights. As the rear screen is uncalibrated it isn't suitable for exposure determination - always go by the histogram and just use the rear screen for composition checking.

[Glezga]

Thanks for the advice guys, this is the dark mornings ive been trying to capture and having no luck. im not there yet but not a million miles away now!

Nigel, i just discoved the on screen histogram in the video link Skyelines posted

Tullywhisker by Steven McNeill, on Flickr