*** Question *** Lense for concert photography

[FotoPhreak]

I need a lense for a concert coming up soon.

I have been dwelling for some time between the following:

* 70-200 L (2.8IS/2.8/4)
* 50 (1.4/1.8)
* 28-135 IS

I have a DREBEL with kit lense at the moment.

I am thinking that it might be better to wait for a little longer (more experience in the realm of photography) before I make such a large purchase).

So let leaves the 50 & 28-135 IS.

I wouldn't even think twice about getting the 50 1.8 at the price, but unfortunately BHP don't have any in stock at the moment (some have said that this is because Canon are going to announce an upgrade at PMA ... who knows?!?), and unfortunately I can't purchase at any of the other dealers as am in Australia and are trying to make use of the favourable exchange rate.

So that leaves the 1.4 & 28-135 IS.

Obviously the concert will involve low-light conditions, however I also have to think of the long run and the use that I am likely to get out of a particular lense.

So dilemma is as follows:

1. Is the kit lense at all suitable?
2. Is either the 50 1.4 vs 28-135 IS better than the otherone for this particular type of photography?
3. Or do you have some recommendations for using the kit lense (i.e. recommended settings), and wait to purchase the 50 1.8 when it becomes available?

Thanks. 8)

[robertwgross]

Just to complicate "concert photography" more, there are variables.

I don't know what kind of concert it is, or what kind of stage lighting there will be.

A symphony orchestra would require a wider lens. Picking out a single soloist from the symphony would require a longer lens.

What kind of photography is allowed? Some rock concerts do not allow any flash photography. Some concerts do not allow photography of any kind, so you would have to sneak a shot. Most big auditoriums will not allow you to use a tripod unless you have special permission. So, I.S. makes some sense for a handheld shot, unless you are way back at the back of the hall with a long lens, in which case I.S. probably won't help enough.

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

Bob makes some good points,. but I would rule out the 28-135mm for anything other than a very brightly lit concert??? (if such a thing exisits)

In the mid to mid telephoto the 50's are great and then the 85mm f/1.8 for a slightly longer lens...

[FotoPhreak]

Just to complicate "concert photography" more, there are variables.

I don't know what kind of concert it is, or what kind of stage lighting there will be.

Couldn't tell you the kind of stage lighting, presumably spot lighting on each of the band members.

Concert = rock concert (well more jazzy/rock), anyway band members are likely to move around a bit (not sit down on chairs and play guitar)

A symphony orchestra would require a wider lens. Picking out a single soloist from the symphony would require a longer lens.

Good point here, but as said not a classical concert.

Would like to get some stage shots, but would not require a hugely wide setting for this. Definately would like some close ups - especially if there is some interesting coloured stage lighting.

What kind of photography is allowed? Some rock concerts do not allow any flash photography. Some concerts do not allow photography of any kind, so you would have to sneak a shot.

Not sure about whether flash is allowed - thinking that it might be allowed, but somewhat frowned upon. Would be interested to know comments regarding using flash, but guess really need to know using without.

Will be given a photography pass to this gig, so don't have to worry about sneaking a shot ... and fingers crossed I will be allowed up close to the stage.

Most big auditoriums will not allow you to use a tripod unless you have special permission. So, I.S. makes some sense for a handheld shot, unless you are way back at the back of the hall with a long lens, in which case I.S. probably won't help enough.

Will not be a big auditorium, just a largish room. However, as said above, should be able to get quite close to stage.

Definately will not be using a tripod.

So ... now hopefully you know the full story ... recommendations :wink:

[FotoPhreak]

Bob makes some good points,. but I would rule out the 28-135mm for anything other than a very brightly lit concert??? (if such a thing exisits)

In the mid to mid telephoto the 50's are great and then the 85mm f/1.8 for a slightly longer lens...

Thanks CDS,

Maybe I should just bugger the bank balance and get the 70-200 f/2.8?!? What worries me is that I will get it, and yet still don't have the skills to get decent photos out of it in the particular conditions.

Actually, that makes me think of something ... if you would rule out the 28-135 IS (presumably because of the f3.5-5.6) would you then rule out the 70-200 f/4?

2ndly, forgetting the bank balance for a minute ... any other recommended L-enses (i.e. 24-70, etc.) for concert photography ... knowing that am either going to be reasonably close (perfect for primes), or of some distance (looking for zoom).

[CyberDyneSystems]

Actually, that makes me think of something ... if you would rule out the 28-135 IS (presumably because of the f3.5-5.6) would you then rule out the 70-200 f/4?


Yes,. I would. I spend a bit of time shooting in dark theatres (it's where I work in fact :) )

I specifically started with the 70-200mm f/2.8 Sigma for that purpose,. but this past week the even the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L whoch replaced the Sigma was not really "fast" enough... I shot a lot with the 50mm f/1.8 and I wishe di had allready gotten an 85mm f/1.8 :(

With the 50mm I could shoot at ISO 400 most of the time,. and at most at ISO 800

With the f/2.8 I was forced to shoot at ISO 1600 most of the time and occasionally,. as light allowed,. I could drop down to ISO 800.

[FotoPhreak]

So you don't have any possible settings that might let me get some half decent photos with either the kit lense or the 28-135 IS?

Or would the high ISO just produce too much noise?

[robertwgross]

High ISO settings will make more color noise. It may or may not be an objectionable amount, though. Color noise is easy to process out if you use Neat Image or the similar programs. If you completely blow it, then it's still a problem. A little practice and bracketing will let you get a feel for what works.

Just based on the sketchy information, I would agree that the moderate focal length zoom lenses would work.

The last performance that I shot was a small bluegrass band. Unfortunately, they had a background directly behind them, so it became difficult to blur it out completely.

---Bob Gross---

[rick barclay]

I took these photos at a concert using my digital rebel with kit lens in full
auto mode with the internal flash--a very stupid thing to do, but
done in my youthful newbiness at photography. You can draw your own conclusions as to the pics' quality. I would not under any circumstances
advise using a flash during a concert unless you have, as I did here, full
permission from someone in charge to do so. Sorry for posting the full thread, but I don't see any way here to post an indiviual image.

http://www.flashdaddee.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9124

[Pekka]

Maybe I should just bugger the bank balance and get the 70-200 f/2.8?!? What worries me is that I will get it, and yet still don't have the skills to get decent photos out of it in the particular conditions.

- How do I get to Carnegie Hall?
- practice.

All photojournalists who have shot our symphony orchestra (mostly conductor/soloist performance shots) have used 70-200 2.8. Every single one, including me. Couple have used also some wider L lenses and 135/2 L or 200/1.8.

The dilemma of concert photography (especially in electric concerts) is the age-old one: how to stop movement when there is no light. And most of the time you can not use flash. So, no matter what your lens is you must shoot with shutter speed that will get you decent movement stop, else your shots are just blur. If there is not enough light to for example 1/60 speed @ ISO 1600/2.8, your only choice is to shoot it anyway and raise levels in RAW converter at home.

If you use slow lenses, the images may not be salvageable by post processing (at ISO 1600 about 1 stop under can be managed, two can be quite bad). If you get faster lenses you can maintain decent quality (even if you have to underexpose 1 stop) and with even faster lenses perhaps keep the ISO at 800 or shoot 1/100 at ISO 1600 which ensures better motion stop.

Cheaper alternatives to 70-200 2.8 are 85/1.8 and 100/2 and also 135/2. 135/2 takes also 1.4x extender which makes it 189mm 2.8 lens.

[MediaMagic]

I'd carry the 50 f1.4 (wishful for me, I don't have this one yet), the 85 f1.8 (one of my very favorite lenses ever.. I know I sound like a broken record in my posts, but the 85 f1.8 is truly a stellar lens - extremely beautiful bokeh, very sharp, excellent speed, and won't break the bank... if there were a "must" lens for everyone's bag, this would be my vote) and lastly the 70-200L f2.8 IS (this one will break the bank, but it's worth it).

The 24-70L f2.8 would be another possibility, but for a concert, I wouldn't carry more than a single L lens due to the weight and I'd rather have the 70-200 in that situation and it's a pretty monsterfied lens by any measurment.

David

[kahfluie]

Just to add something to the mix.... the concert photos at the following link were taken using both a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 and a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 - both lenses pretty affordable (compared to L glass - although one day I will own L glass) and with the 50mm f1.8 - no flash used and ISO flipped between 400 and 800 depending on lighting, which I thought wasn't all that great. Anyway, just giving you more options...

http://www.debbielou.com/photography/4him_021304/index.htm

[PacAce]

Bob makes some good points,. but I would rule out the 28-135mm for anything other than a very brightly lit concert??? (if such a thing exisits)

In the mid to mid telephoto the 50's are great and then the 85mm f/1.8 for a slightly longer lens...

Thanks CDS,

Maybe I should just bugger the bank balance and get the 70-200 f/2.8?!? What worries me is that I will get it, and yet still don't have the skills to get decent photos out of it in the particular conditions.

Actually, that makes me think of something ... if you would rule out the 28-135 IS (presumably because of the f3.5-5.6) would you then rule out the 70-200 f/4?

2ndly, forgetting the bank balance for a minute ... any other recommended L-enses (i.e. 24-70, etc.) for concert photography ... knowing that am either going to be reasonably close (perfect for primes), or of some distance (looking for zoom).

I wouldn't exactly rule out the 28-135 IS. I've used it for outdoor concert and stage shows where the only source of lighting have been spot lights and colored lights. Obviously it's not as good as a 70-200/2.8 but it's not as expensive either. And if you're just out for the experience right now because you can't afford the 2.8, then why not the 28-135. THe side benny is that it is a good walk-around lens and I'm very sure that it's not just going to sit in the closet for long periods of time.

As I said, I've used the 28-135 IS and you can get some very acceptable pictures with them. You'll just have to use a higher ISO (800 or even 1600) and a slower shutter speed. But the IS makes it very easy to even handhold at 1/45 and possibly 1/30 if need be.

[RichardtheSane]

I've shot quite a few rock concerts, and now I am in a position where I would like a new lens. Below is a link to my gallery so you can see the sort of conditions I shoot in.
http://www.richardlindley.co.uk/gallery/show.php?gallery=rock%20concerts

I am currently looking at which 70-200 F2.8 lens I should go for.

I like to shoot from a side-stage position where possible, but when this isn't possible it would be nice to be able to get some good shots from further back, which is why 70-200 is ideal for me.

I am happy shooting at ISO 800, 1/90th-1/200th at F2.8 and I get good results (These are the settigns I used with my 100mm F2.8 macro).

Another point I'd like to raise is how handy it is making sure your lens has a fixed max aperture if you use a zoom. My forst shots were taken with an old 35-135 lens with F3.5-4.5 and when you zoom in the last thing you need is to loose some light....