I FINALLY DID IT!!!!!! =) & LENSES for Big Events?!?!

[FotoPhreak]

Can people please recommend some lenses for Music Concert's ... actually I better fill in a bit.

Regulars here might remember my frequent posts before Christmas with the constant deliberation as to which camera to get between the 10D & the 300D.

Well finally (and yes I heard that sigh) I got a camera, the 300D to be precise ... whilst it doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling inside when I hold it tight in my hands, I am content in knowing that for the price I am going to be able to do some substantial learning with it.

Anyway, I was able to use it as I wished during Christmas time ... whilst not being particularly flash hot with it I didn't take many mouth watering photos, the quality and the number are what matter most to me.

However the best test run I have taken it on so far is at a big concert that was on New Years.

Unfortunately due to the rushed effort to actually get the camera, I had to satisfice with the standard lense.

Took plenty of shots at the concert, but most, particularly nighttime stage shots, were very grainy and quite dark. Crowd shots with flash, and daytime shots were pretty nice though.

However what I need your help now is with my next big purchase, and this isn't going to take much deliberation at all (nothing like last time anyway *smiles*).

Can people please recommend L-series glass suitable for Rock concerts.

I was thinking of choosing between the following:

50 1.8II
24-70L
28-135
70-200L

I will probably get the 50 anyway due to the cost and I can use it for portraits, but how likely am I to get use out of it at concerts?

And I guess the biggest question lies between the 24-70 & the 70-200 ... does the first cut me out of zoom, and is the second overkill when often are quite close to the stage?

Finally, the age old question ... is the 28-135 even worth a look in?

Any other lenses?

Appreciate as many responses as possible.

Happy New Year to all, thanks for all the help, and as soon as I start serious shooting I'll be uploading to start the serious learning curve from the critiques on the other pages.

[Jim Larson]

Are you aware the price range of the four lenses you list is $70 to $1300?

Assuming money is no object, would you still want to have a $1300 lens and $900 body at a concert?

Do you want to bring out a prominent big white lens like a 70-200/4L at a rock concert?

OK, having said that:

1) Get the 50/1.8. Great for indoor portraits. Only $70. Buy one now.

2) The 28-135/IS is not in the same league as the "L" lenses. Definately a notch or two above the 18-55. The IS on a 28-135 is cool for dusk landscapes, but if your subjects are moving, IS can't stop their motion blur. IS on 300mm zoom is a different matter. For concert work, I might be more comfortable with this lens than dragging out a 24-70/2.8L.

3) a 4L lens at a concert with dim lighting may be too slow, but the focal length is good for what you are trying to do. 24-70 would be a bit short IMHO. The 70-200/4L, however, is in generally a really good lens.

4) My recommendation: If you have a 18-55, a 50/1.8 and 70-200/4L are great supplements to that kit. Also consider a flash.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Get the 50 as a matter of course,. and if you can use a lens that "short" it has better low light capabilities than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L at 1/18th the cost!!!!!!

Obviously Focal length will be dictated by the distance you can get to the stage,.

I use a 70-200mm for this exact application. I have been using the exellent Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 which sells for about $640.00 for the last year or so... and the results have been great.

I have yet to be so close to the action that the 70-200m has ever been "to close"

I now have the Canon 70-200mm IS version as well for the time being.. but either one will serve you well. (the Canon is "dreamy" but will cost three times what the Sigma cost)

I would say a 70-200 f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 would solve most of your problems at a concert.

[BDM]

Can people please recommend some lenses for Music Concert's ... actually I better fill in a bit.

Regulars here might remember my frequent posts before Christmas with the constant deliberation as to which camera to get between the 10D & the 300D.

Well finally (and yes I heard that sigh) I got a camera, the 300D to be precise ... whilst it doesn't give me that warm and fuzzy feeling inside when I hold it tight in my hands, I am content in knowing that for the price I am going to be able to do some substantial learning with it.

Anyway, I was able to use it as I wished during Christmas time ... whilst not being particularly flash hot with it I didn't take many mouth watering photos, the quality and the number are what matter most to me.

However the best test run I have taken it on so far is at a big concert that was on New Years.

Unfortunately due to the rushed effort to actually get the camera, I had to satisfice with the standard lense.

Took plenty of shots at the concert, but most, particularly nighttime stage shots, were very grainy and quite dark. Crowd shots with flash, and daytime shots were pretty nice though.

However what I need your help now is with my next big purchase, and this isn't going to take much deliberation at all (nothing like last time anyway *smiles*).

Can people please recommend L-series glass suitable for Rock concerts.

I was thinking of choosing between the following:

50 1.8II
24-70L
28-135
70-200L

I will probably get the 50 anyway due to the cost and I can use it for portraits, but how likely am I to get use out of it at concerts?

And I guess the biggest question lies between the 24-70 & the 70-200 ... does the first cut me out of zoom, and is the second overkill when often are quite close to the stage?

Finally, the age old question ... is the 28-135 even worth a look in?

Any other lenses?

Appreciate as many responses as possible.

Happy New Year to all, thanks for all the help, and as soon as I start serious shooting I'll be uploading to start the serious learning curve from the critiques on the other pages.

These are my suggestions. Bear in mind that while I am new to digital photography I have had a fair amount of experience with film based photography.

Your dark and grainy results suggest you simply need a lens with more speed. I would forget flash for two reasons: part of the excitment of concert pictures is capturing the lighting and atmosphere - - both of which would be lost with flash and many concert venues prohibit flash. Using it can get you tossed out rather quickly. I've seen two types of users of flash at concerts: those who sit in the bleachers 500 feet from the stage and bang away with their Instamatic flash cameras (as if the flash would have any effect at such a distance), or those who get right up in the first row and flash away in the performers faces - - which is very likely to draw a quick invitation from security to take yourself and flash to a different venue - - namely, the street!

I would go with the 70-200. Usually you will have more problems getting close enough than with being too close. Pekka has some wonderful concert pictures, many of which were made with the 70-200. You might also consider a fast 50mm prime, either the F:1.8 or, if you can afford it, the F:1.4. That should help in the speed department in dealing with low light.

Remember, you need to be aware that stage lighting is often very uneven. The principal subject is often well lighted if not over lighted. That can lead to burned out highlights since the Drebel's exposure system may notice the relatively dark background and bounce up the exposure more than it should. That is where a spot meter comes in handy. Unfortunately the Drebel does not have that. But with a bit of experience you should be able to recognize when you should introduce exposure compensation.

And finally, speaking from experience, I wouldn't go near a rock concert without adequate equipment insurance. Opportunities for theft and damage are just to great. I always advocate for adequate insurance but as I'm sure you know, a rock concert provides a very different set of risks than a walk in a quiet woods.

Good luck,

Bruce

[FotoPhreak]

Thanks a lot of your help BDM.

I have a few follow up questions ...


Your dark and grainy results suggest you simply need a lens with more speed. I would forget flash for two reasons: part of the excitment of concert pictures is capturing the lighting and atmosphere - - both of which would be lost with flash and many concert venues prohibit flash. Using it can get you tossed out rather quickly. I've seen two types of users of flash at concerts: those who sit in the bleachers 500 feet from the stage and bang away with their Instamatic flash cameras (as if the flash would have any effect at such a distance), or those who get right up in the first row and flash away in the performers faces - - which is very likely to draw a quick invitation from security to take yourself and flash to a different venue - - namely, the street!

I totally agree -> whilst flash might make life easier, totally takes away the whole atmosphere ... and besides stage colouring is normally pretty amazing anyway why would you want to lose it?!?!

I would go with the 70-200. Usually you will have more problems getting close enough than with being too close. Pekka has some wonderful concert pictures, many of which were made with the 70-200.

Can you (anyone) please tell me the post/address where I might find some of these concert pics by Pekka?

You might also consider a fast 50mm prime, either the F:1.8 or, if you can afford it, the F:1.4. That should help in the speed department in dealing with low light.

Something I have asked before but never really had a 'push over the line' answer ... is it really worth paying triple (in fact I think it might even be 4*) the price for a lense that is 1.4 over 1.8??? Exactly what benefits am I getting ... and in your opinions is it worth the extra bang for your buck?!?!

Remember, you need to be aware that stage lighting is often very uneven. The principal subject is often well lighted if not over lighted. That can lead to burned out highlights since the Drebel's exposure system may notice the relatively dark background and bounce up the exposure more than it should. That is where a spot meter comes in handy. Unfortunately the Drebel does not have that. But with a bit of experience you should be able to recognize when you should introduce exposure compensation.

I keep hearing/reading about spot meters, but, whilst logically working out what they do, I don't fundamentally know how they work, how to use one, or how they can benefit my photography. So if anyone has any resources, whether it be previous posts, websites, or just straight out knowledge this is something I am very keen to learn about.

And finally, speaking from experience, I wouldn't go near a rock concert without adequate equipment insurance. Opportunities for theft and damage are just to great. I always advocate for adequate insurance but as I'm sure you know, a rock concert provides a very different set of risks than a walk in a quiet woods.

Out of interest, what sort of insurance do you (and anyone else for that matter) carry on their equipment?

Just that I have simply included it as a major item in the house and contents ... but is this sufficient ... what if some bozo at a concert decides to spill booze, or some drunk knocks it out of my hand?!??!


Good luck,

Bruce

I have a long journey to take, however I am already feeling as though it is going to be extremely exciting and a lot of the help is going to come from this site.

So thankyou to all!

[FotoPhreak]

CDS, as always you are a pillar of strength and a wealth of information!

I think it has already been decided that the 50 is a must have ...

Now it just comes down to the 24-70 or 70-200.

Whilst I have brought up this post with the idea of rock concerts ... I guess it might be sensible to find out what additional uses I am likely to get out of a lense.

I guess what I would be looking at are the following ...

Some sports photography ... field games such as hockey, soccer etc.

Outdoors, scenary, mountains, rock climbing

And of course portraits & general use.

With the above in mind, which of the two lenses I have mentioned is going to cross over more boundaries and thus be more useful?

And if you say the 70-200, please make recommendations on IS 2.8/4 as well please.

Cheers!

Get the 50 as a matter of course,. and if you can use a lens that "short" it has better low light capabilities than the 24-70mm f/2.8 L at 1/18th the cost!!!!!!

Obviously Focal length will be dictated by the distance you can get to the stage,.

I use a 70-200mm for this exact application. I have been using the exellent Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 which sells for about $640.00 for the last year or so... and the results have been great.

I have yet to be so close to the action that the 70-200m has ever been "to close"

I now have the Canon 70-200mm IS version as well for the time being.. but either one will serve you well. (the Canon is "dreamy" but will cost three times what the Sigma cost)

I would say a 70-200 f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8 would solve most of your problems at a concert.

[nosquare2003]

Thanks a lot of your help BDM.

I have a few follow up questions ...


Your dark and grainy results suggest you simply need a lens with more speed. I would forget flash for two reasons: part of the excitment of concert pictures is capturing the lighting and atmosphere - - both of which would be lost with flash and many concert venues prohibit flash. Using it can get you tossed out rather quickly. I've seen two types of users of flash at concerts: those who sit in the bleachers 500 feet from the stage and bang away with their Instamatic flash cameras (as if the flash would have any effect at such a distance), or those who get right up in the first row and flash away in the performers faces - - which is very likely to draw a quick invitation from security to take yourself and flash to a different venue - - namely, the street!

I totally agree -> whilst flash might make life easier, totally takes away the whole atmosphere ... and besides stage colouring is normally pretty amazing anyway why would you want to lose it?!?!


I do not fully agree. The most important thing is to get the picture. If flash is needed somehow, use it. Secondly, using slow syn flash may have some blur motion for the rock concert. (It depends on our taste certainly.) Well, it's digital anyway. Experiment with different settings to see who you like most.

[kahfluie]

Concert photography is what I do a lot of. I try to never use flash at concerts. My lens of choice is the 50mm/f1.8. I also use a 75-300mm/f4-5.6 for those close in shots - lens may not be the best for concerts, but it works for me. Of course it helps to get fairly close to the stage.

http://images.fotopic.net/?id=1254149&outx=600&noresize=1&nostamp=1
Canon EOS 10D; Shutter speed: 1/60 sec; Aperture: 2.5; Exposure mode: Tv; Exposure compensation: -1/2; Flash: Off; Metering mode: Evaluative; ISO: 800; Lens: 50.0 mm

[CyberDyneSystems]

....

Now it just comes down to the 24-70 or 70-200.

Whilst I have brought up this post with the idea of rock concerts ... I guess it might be sensible to find out what additional uses I am likely to get out of a lense.

I guess what I would be looking at are the following ...

Some sports photography ... field games such as hockey, soccer etc.
Definatley 70-200mm material :)

Outdoors, scenary, mountains, rock climbing

Well,. lendscapes and scenery tends to work well with a wider lens.. so of the two the 28-70.. but as you have the wide "kit" lens.. that lens will be very usefull for scenic and landscape work where you can mount it on a tripod or get adaquate out door lighting.

And of course portraits & general use.

With the above in mind, which of the two lenses I have mentioned is going to cross over more boundaries and thus be more useful?

And if you say the 70-200, please make recommendations on IS 2.8/4 as well please.

Cheers!

Well,..

If you didn't have the Kit lens,. it would seem the 28-70 would be a wiser choice to get your more standard range covered,. but in truth the 18-55mm is allready covering this range. You may want to replace this lens some day.. but it is a good serviceable lens and a bargain.. and to me it allways makes sense to expand to what you don't have before replacing anything you do have.

Therefore, I feel the majority of your current needs would be answered best with a 70-200mm f/2.8

Note I say f/2.8... it will be essential for the theatre work you hope to do and help dramtically wiht sporting events as well to have the extra speed.

So that leaves three choices. Either Canon,... Non-IS or IS versions. (approx $1,200.00 and $1,850.00 respectively) or Sigma for approx $650.00

The IS will help for hand held shooting,.. which is any 70-200mm intended purpose. But the cost premium is high.

I have a very hard time telling anyone that they should just spend more money. (many others insist on it! :) ) so I can not recomend either of the above for you,. you need to decide on price point. (You could also look for the Canon Non IS used at about $950.00 or so)

What I can tell you is that all of the three above lenses are magnificent peices of glass. My own personal expeirence with Sigma lenses has thus far been flawless. All of the lenses I have used and do use most have been Sigmas. That said, I frequent many forums and have read a lot of users complaints,. and there is no question in my mind that there is a larger percentage of perfect Canon lenses out there than there are perfect Sigma lenses.

Latly,.. This particualr lens is considered one of Sigma's best. So if you get the Sigma (as in fact I did) I think you will be well served,.. and if at some point it no longer fills your needs,. then look to upgrade to the Canon IS version.

When you buy either,. get the 1.4X t-con with it,. and perhaps the 2X. This will solve your long telephoto zoom issues for out door shooting of sports for some time.

Make sure you get the dedicated T-cons.. ei: Sigma for the Sigma lens,. Canon for the Canon lens. (neither will work with the existing kit lens so don't let that bother you)

Hope this helps. :)