>>4493792
The 35mm f2 IS is more useful (even on ff)

idk what you're on about you can take some lovely pictures with that setup

>optimise prime lenses
what?
>getting bogged down by the maths
what?
>unexceptional camera
what?


You are speaking nonsense. Have you taken your pills today?

>>4493796
You calling me a liar son?

>>4493795
I feel like it or me is just not responsive enough that by the time I figure out the focal lengths, the lighting, the shutter speed, the aperture I miss the moment and the photograph is dark and blurry anyway and I'm not a complete mature but something is preventing me from going to that next level of competence and I don't know if it's because I've got a starter camera

>>4493800
Let me guess: you will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever post a bunch of photos you took so we can give you suggestions, right?

>>4493801
Oh you can take photos with this thing? When did they start doing that

>>4493792
https://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/pictures/canon-50mm-nifty-fifty-portrait-photography
One of many examples from that little lens
>>4493800
>the photograph is dark and blurry
This is just knowing how to use a camera. If you don't know what the actual problem is, your pictures may very well be just as dark and blurry even with something much better.
If your photos are too dark, change your exposure settings, same as you would with any other camera.
There are different kinds of blurry. If it's blurry because of movement, either you or the subject, use a faster shutter speed. If it's blurry because not enough is in focus, use a narrower aperture. If it's blurry because the focus is wrong, learn your focus system better.

>>4493800
homie you're just new lol keep shooting and you'll get quicker.

oh dick pics for sure

>>4493792
Most of what you're saying means nothing. Take the photo in whatever way makes you happy.
The gear itself is perfectly serviceable with reasonably high sharpness and clarity from that lens. Shooting at f/2.8 or below will give you less ideal results but at f/4 and above the 50mm is a great performer. Sure you could get a nicer body for like $100-200 but that's up to you.
>>4493800
>I feel like it or me is just not responsive enough that by the time I figure out the focal lengths, the lighting, the shutter speed, the aperture I miss the moment and the photograph is dark and blurry anyway
Take the fucking camera off of M mode. You don't get bonus points for making it harder on yourself. Stick the thing on Program or Av mode. Program might make more sense for you now since you're struggling but I like Av mode for most use cases as you still have full control over your DoF.
Program mode does the work for you. You can still mess with parameters by 'adjusting the program' with your control wheel, it will just move your aperture and shutter speed around. Set your ISO to something that allows you to keep your shutter speed reasonably high like 1/125th.

Buying more expensive gear only gives you more controls like a rear dial or a joystick or whatever. Useful but not mandatory to take good photos.

>>4493792
>muh maths
Nigga you don't even have the photography vocabulary to verbalize why you think you suck right now. Just search for a free photography course for beginners on youtube and start from there.
You don't need to be a wizard to be able to shoot manual, just a bare minimum knowledge of exposure triangle and your camera's interface. And honestly if you can't figure this shit out with a T7 give up, you'll never make it, there's people still rawdogging T3is with the kit lens and doing just fine.

>>4493805
This exactly. Chill OP, there's no exactly formula. Just take pictures and learn about your camera

>>4493792
The 50mm is a short tele or portrait lens on crop. You still have the 18-55 kit zoom too? It's a cheap very lightweight but not bad lens. Shoot with that on other focal lenghts, practice composition and only get prime when/if you find focal length which works best for you. "Normal" is 30-35mm is on aps-c but 25mm could work too. Or maybe a f2.8 zoom instead of prime.

File: IMG_4310.jpg (4 MB)

4 MB JPG

>>4493792
It's perfectly capable if you're not a retard.
Shot with a 2011 eos 600d and a sigma 50mm F2.8

>>4496059
Sure, now take a picture of anything that moves even a bit

>>4496801
>needs f/0.95 prime to eliminate motion blur
Nigga there were filmchads doing moving subject photography with red filters (-3 stops) and CPLs (-1.5 stops) well before you were a twinkle in your dad's balls.

>>4493792
>>4493800
> What camera can compensate for my absence of skill and unwillingness to learn
an IPhone

>>4496801
God damn you're retarded.

>>4496996
yes, and so are you

File: 1,4000.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4496801
already did?

File: 1000030700.jpg (145.3 KB)

145.3 KB JPG

Pic rel is the answer to your struggles OP
All the poorfags ITT are just seething that they can't afford propper gear

>>4496801
>take a picture of anything that moves even a bit
this, together with shooting in the absolute dark, is one of the biggest copes of the gearfag. Spoiler: you're not shooting anything remotely fast to justify your Canon R1

Sorry to hijak the thread but I'm also using a Canon 2000D same as the OPs. Let's say I'm wanting to upgrade from the kit lens what would you suggest? I've looked into maybe grabbing an efs 24mm r 2. 8 to try and improve my street photography game but I've also been tempted by a few lens from Sigma that have also caught my eye.

>>4497058
I'm still using a 2nd hand 100D I got as 'temporary replacement' many many years ago. I have plenty of lenses but I still use the britpoor no-IS kit it came with when walking daytime because it's really lightweight and does the job. Get a lens which does something you want to do and the kit does not, like low light, macro, ultrawide, tele. &cet. I'd myself like to have the 24/2.8 but I know I do not need it. Perhaps you do.

File: IMG_4652.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4497058
>>4497065
The 24mm f/2.8 is great for extension tube macro, but other than that I hate it. The 40mm f/2.8 has the same form factor but is way sharper and FF compatible. EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS is probably a good wide-angle for your street needs...

>>4497058
EF-S 35mm f/2.8 Macro is a good all-purpose prime.
EF-S 15-85mm is a great zoom with more than average zoom range.
EF-S 24mm f/2.8 is an excellent pancake.
EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM is the best telephoto you'll get for crop.

Sigma and tamaron lenses are normally a worse choice except for their late-stage primes and hyper-autist zooms like the 50-100mm f/1.8.

>>4497058
Unfortunately, apsc on canon and nikon is just zoomslop. Get the 24mm for general shooting and buy the 50mm 1.8 for portraits. If spend any more on that dead system you're hust throwin away money

>>4497039
But I have a modest r6mk3 and a 24-105 f4 kit lens

File: IMG_2839.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4497069
There's no getting back from an actual macro lens.
(This one is Tamron Di Sp AF 90mm 2.8 Macro. Older but not bad at all. Main con: operating auto/manual focus switch is almost impossible without changing focus.)