PDA

View Full Version : UWA for Concert Photography


blackshadow
6th of June 2006 (Tue), 19:15
I'm considering adding a new lens to my arsenal. I'm looking at an Ultra Wide Angle and given that I do a lot of live concert photography I need something nice and fast.

I am tossing up between the 16-35L f2.8 or the 14L f2.8. I shoot with a 20D but am hoping to upgrade to either a 1DM2 or 1DsM2 within the next 12 months (so the upgrade should be taken into account during my deliberations).

I'd love some comments; especially from people who shoot concerts on the above lenses and any other lenses that I should be considering. I'm not a dedicated Canonophile or L-phile; I just want a good UWA lens that does the job for me.

I look forward to your comments and examples of concert shots with UWA lenses.

kmb
7th of June 2006 (Wed), 03:08
I'm considering adding a new lens to my arsenal. I'm looking at an Ultra Wide Angle and given that I do a lot of live concert photography I need something nice and fast.

I'd love some comments; especially from people who shoot concerts on the above lenses and any other lenses that I should be considering. I'm not a dedicated Canonophile or L-phile; I just want a good UWA lens that does the job for me.
I use Tamron SP 17-35/2.8-4.0 for concert photography. The "-4.0" does make it less than perfect lens for concerts, but the image quality (compared to Canon 17-40/4.0) is apparently very good (I depressed a Canon owner by showing a few taken with the Tamron wide open), and the price is... well consider what you can buy with the difference of $$$ between that and the canon 16-35. Of course, it does not have weather sealing which you might want if you plan to shoot concets at outdoor festivals (although I'm not sure if you'd want an ultra WA for that). Anyway, I have no intention of switching to anything else, although I'm currently looking for fast (f2.0 and faster) WA primes to deal with the especially hard situations. I've had no problems with focusing in low light situations and I don't consider focusing to be slow (somebody somewhere complained about that). Also, flaring has not been an issue for me. Of course, there is some, since it is a WA-lens and the hood won't block all that many light sources. I cannot say how it compares to other equivalent lenses in this matter, but for me, it handles flaring definitely well enough.

Here are a few example photos taken with the lens (the exif is there also).

With EOS 20D:
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-692
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-661
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-658
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-686
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-689
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-662

With EOS 5D (just got it, so not many pictures to show):
http://bjorklid.net/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-732

René Damkot
7th of June 2006 (Wed), 06:56
Sigma's 20/1.8 is quite decent when stopped down to f/2.2.
It doesn't have HSM however, but a silly AF/MF switch-and-pull-ring arrangement.
14L would be too wide for me, and I don't know about the IQ.
A used 20-35L might be an option too (thinking about that myself), although the Tammy posted above looks nice as well...

Samiad
7th of June 2006 (Wed), 10:54
I'm not that overwhelmed with a Tamron 17-35 on a 5D - it's far less impressive than when it's on a 10D. But part of that might be just me expecting it to be better, when perhaps even the Canon 16-35 / 17-40's of this world are also similar in performance.

kmb
7th of June 2006 (Wed), 11:58
I'm not that overwhelmed with a Tamron 17-35 on a 5D

I've liked it sofar (in general photography as well), but then, I'm no pixel peeper and I don't care much for light falloff - it either is unnoticeable or fits some photos, like this (http://www.bjorklid.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/_MG_0757.jpg) (note that that's taken at f4.0 to stop the motion of the water, and therefore the buildings on the opposite shore are not inside focus).

motion_projekt
7th of June 2006 (Wed), 12:02
come on...complete the holy trinity...

16-35L, 24-70L, 70-200L


thats the way to got...

blackshadow
7th of June 2006 (Wed), 20:15
Thanks for the feedback. I'm still nowhere closer to making a decision.

Regarding the Sigma 20mm f1.8 I'm wondering if the extra 4mm of WA will make an appreciable difference over my Canon 24-70.

Some great photos with the Tamron. It's definitely on my list now as well.

I'm also open to the idea of any primes under 20mm as well - maybe the Tamron 14mm f2.8.

kmb
8th of June 2006 (Thu), 01:17
Some great photos with the Tamron. It's definitely on my list now as well.
Here's the review/comparison which was the main reason why I decided to buy the Tamron (A very interesting comparison to the Canon 17-40/4.0 L):
http://nododo.home.comcast.net/ultrawide/index.html

As you can see, the Tamron is a bit soft at f2.8 - the canon 16-35 may be better choice in that aspect, if money isn't an objection.

blackshadow
10th of June 2006 (Sat), 09:16
Money is always a consideration but in the past I have found that I buy a cheaper lens and then end up buyin gthe best I can get after a while.