I'm relatively new to photography. I've always been

i used to worry about iso a lot too but now i dont really care. Images are good enough now a days up to 3200 iso. and its not like when you look at a photo you look at it 100%; you always see it resized smaller, which means you dont see the noise as much. i think its better to have high iso to get that low light shot then to have 100 iso and a blurry pic.

imo, put you iso on auto up to the iso that still gives decent quality.

generally the faster lenses give better image quality through out the range, so normally they are better.

>>2941964

>isn't it advisable to have the fastest lens no matter the focal length?

No. Well, faster lenses give you more room to work, but just because you have an F1.4 lens doesn't mean you're always shooting at F1.4

Aperture effects bokeh as well as light sensitivity. The faster the aperture, the shallower the depth of field. This is up to the photographer to choose what is the appropriate DOF for the shot he wants to take. Always shooting wide open can also be an indicator of an amateur photographer. Most experienced photographers use shallow depth when it suits the photo, not just to have bokeh for the sake of bokeh.

>For a long time I was using ISO Auto on my DSLR. I thought "I can use the shutter speed and aperture I like, the automatic ISO will compensate so my photos aren't under/overexposed", but then I read a bit more into it and am convinced I want the lowest ISO possible for any given image.

This is correct. You always want the lowest ISO possible without giving up on other things. You want the lowest ISO possible while maintaining the DOF you want and a shutter speed appropriate enough for the scene/subject to keep it from having motion blur, unless that's the effect you're after.

I generally shoot in aperture priority or program auto mode and let the camera choose the shutter/ISO based on my settings.

>So it made me think lens speed is the bottleneck for potentially amazing PQ photos. Am I right in my train of thought? Barring sports/wildlife photography, shouldn't I be investing in the fastest lenses of a given focal length as possible?

Not even close. Lens speed has nothing to do with overall "image quality". It's true that faster lenses are built better and thus have better IQ, but that's not the effect of the speed, that's an effect of the manufacturer.

Don't worry about lens speed so much. If you have something 2.8 or faster, you're generally golden in normal lighting conditions

>>2941969

I only have a 50mm f/1.8 and 16mm f/2.8 although I'm interested in the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

The reason I thought speed is a bottleneck for great photos is because of versatility. Unless you have a tripod for every shot, there's going to be a situation where no combination of (reasonable) shutter speed and low (<1600) ISO can produce a properly exposed image. Even with an f/3.6 for example, some photos will need higher ISO or longer exposures to have good exposure. A faster lens, however, gives me more room to work in. I can step up without having to resort to long shutter speeds which are difficult without tripod.

I don't use the widest aperture for every photo, but I do appreciate having the option in lower light conditions because if I don't have my tripod, I can't take a good shot otherwise. Higher ISO, at least to me, has a larger effect in dark conditions.

>>2941967

I'm fiddling with maximum ISOs for now, I'm very comfortable up to ISO800.

File: IMG_6376.jpg (1008KB, 2074x1383px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 2074x1383px

>>2941973

Meant to post this photo.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL T5i
Photographer	Robin Ciaran
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:02 02:59:32
Exposure Time	20 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5184
Image Height	3456
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2941973

For low light for sure having a faster lens is good. To be honest I shoot with an F2 lens and I'm fine. I think your 50mm f1.8 is probably fine but if you're really a night shooter then it may be worth it to you.

I'll tell you this from experience though, going from 1.8 to 1.4 really isn't a big deal. If you spend that $500 thinking it'll solve you're problems you'll be in for a disappointment. If you're already in tripod territory at f1.8 then you'll probably still be there at f1.4.

2/3rds of a stop is NOT a big deal.

>>2941964
ISO isn't the end all be all; while it's going to heavily depend on the camera, ISO will give a cleaner image, the biggest aspect of shooting at low ISO is there is typically much more dynamic range. Most solid cameras will be quite usable at higher ISOs, but they won't have the capabilities in post as lower ISO image.

I fret less about ISO than I do about ensuring that I am shooting the correct Aperture for the photo. Primary focus should be focus and the subject, and if you are just shooting wide open, the DOF can negatively affect that.

>>2941973
Fast lenses are bigger, more expensive and can look like shit unless stopped down (canon 1.2's are baaaad wide open).

A better way to drop a load of cash on ensuring low light shots don't become an issue is to consider your body, do not use canon (their sensors are outclassed by everyone else, especially in low light), get a full frame body, bigger sensor = more light hitting it, and look for a body with ibis, this wiggles your sensor about to gain up to 4 or 5 stops for hand holding, that's the difference between f1.4 and f8!

As you're new, i would also highly recommend using a mirrorless camera over a dslr, the evf in a mirrorless gives you an exact preview of what you're shooting, taking the guesswork out of exposure, also on sensor pdaf is much more accurate than dslr autofocus.

I have around 50 lenses, i use different ones for different tasks, a fast set of primes, a small set of primes, a superzoom and a set of pro zooms.

The sony a7ii, a7rii and a6500 would all be great choices. These bodies will also go to iso 800 and still be plenty clean for prints, up to 3200 for clean web images. A crop canon really struggles over iso 400.