>>2719737You will not take good photos in shit light. Even if your photo is exposed correctly, the light will still be shit.
There is a difference between enough light, and good light. Good light comes from a pleasant angle, wraps around a subject well, and has enough color in it to allow for editing and correcting. There is such a thing as good light, in low light, but you have to go find it.
Most low light is bad light, that will look bad, no matter how much of it you have. This is usually really orange light, coming from very small bulbs, relatively far away from your subject, and generally from above. This gives unpleasant bland shadows, a strange unpleasant color cast, and necessitates a wide aperture meaning that most of your photo is out of focus.
If you're looking to ignore me (which you are, and it's fine, you have to figure it out on your own, I've been there) then start looking at actual inexpensive primes, rather than bleeding edge of technology amazing zooms that act like primes. Start with a 30mm f/1.4, and a 50mm f/1.4. Those will give you the solutions you'll be looking for in low light, and in bokeh. Then, you'll start to wish your lenses were wider angle (Because you're still sitting in your friend's living room, and you can't get more than about 10 feet away from anything to use your 50mm lens) and you'll be shocked at how expensive wide-angle lenses are when they're faster than f/4, and you'll start looking into other solutions (like getting a flash)
What you need to do to create good looking photos is find good light first, and then either put something interesting into the light (a model, a still life of some sort, etc) or wait for something interesting to happen in that good light.
If you aren't going to look for good light, you photo is going to look bad, and to make up for it, you need to fill the photo with a really interesting or really emotive subject that doesn't require nice light to look good.
