ThomasOwenM
6th of June 2007 (Wed), 15:25
I'll soon be getting either an EOS 20D or a 30D for use in concert photography. I'm new to photography and have never owned a DSLR. Right now I'm using a PowerShot S3 IS, which is not up to the task of concert photography for many reasons. Since I've never actually put a lens onto a DSLR camera and used it, naturally I've been reading up on lenses and asking questions. (You can find a previous discussion of mine on lenses here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3319846#post3319846)
Some people have suggested that I get a wide angle lens. However, such lenses can distort a performer's face under certain conditions. Since I'm new to photography, I would prefer to start with something more straightforward that I can't accidentally warp someone's face with into something ugly. Lenses that warp light like a wide angle or a fish eye are definitely ones I want to get and learn how to use, but not right now. I would prefer to wait until I have more experience under my belt.
I understand that the quality of the lens is of paramount importance in musical performance photography. I need something fast and clear and that can zoom. Right now the S3's 10X optical zoom has enough range for me (though not the same quality of many DSLR lenses), though I probably will need more range in the future when I graduate from photographing only local bands. Here's the lens I'm thinking of getting:
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002_70_200mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html
I like the fact that it's image stabilized. From what I've read, it seems like it would lend itself well to concert photography. Am I right? Or is there something else that I would be better off using? Also, they obviously use different terminology when describing digicams versus DSLRs. How does my S3's 10X optical zoom compare to the zoom of this lens?
I also don't always have to zoom. At many of these local shows, I can get up as close to the stage as I want. If I'm not zooming, will this lens still perform well? Or would I be better off changing the lens to something else when I'm shooting close? Maybe this one could be my lens when shooting close:
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
At only $79, it's probably worth having if it gives me something the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS doesn't even if it's to a very limited degree.
Or is there such a thing as a 50 mm image stabilized lens? Granted I won't be zooming with a 50 mm lens, but I like image stabilization for when I do creative blur shots. For example I've been able to get some nice blurs of a drummer's arms in motion by using a shutter speed of 1/4 or 1/6.
I've decided to forego getting a lens kit. Some people have recommended that I get one, but from what I've read those lens kits don't have the high end low-light lenses I need. If I get the 30D, it's an extra $500 for the kit. Wouldn't I be better off applying that 500 toward high-end lenses that I'll actually use? Then over time I can collect lenses as I need them. Concert photography is by far the most important type of photography for me, though I probably will at least dabble in some other forms for now. I might be doing some food photography and possibly artistic nude photography, but these types are way below concerts in my priorities. Would a lens kit be useful for to me in some way? I have heard that there's such a thing as a kit that includes L series lenses, but I've yet to find one. If anyone knows where such a kit is, I'd appreciate a heads up.
Many, many thanks to everyone who has responded to my previous posts, and thanks in advance for this one.
cheers, Tom
Oh, almost forgot: bokeh is important to me. A lot of times a stage is cluttered with all kinds of distracting musical equipment. It will be nice to focus on the performer and blur all that junk out.
Some people have suggested that I get a wide angle lens. However, such lenses can distort a performer's face under certain conditions. Since I'm new to photography, I would prefer to start with something more straightforward that I can't accidentally warp someone's face with into something ugly. Lenses that warp light like a wide angle or a fish eye are definitely ones I want to get and learn how to use, but not right now. I would prefer to wait until I have more experience under my belt.
I understand that the quality of the lens is of paramount importance in musical performance photography. I need something fast and clear and that can zoom. Right now the S3's 10X optical zoom has enough range for me (though not the same quality of many DSLR lenses), though I probably will need more range in the future when I graduate from photographing only local bands. Here's the lens I'm thinking of getting:
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457678-USA/Canon_1258B002_70_200mm_f_4L_IS_USM.html
I like the fact that it's image stabilized. From what I've read, it seems like it would lend itself well to concert photography. Am I right? Or is there something else that I would be better off using? Also, they obviously use different terminology when describing digicams versus DSLRs. How does my S3's 10X optical zoom compare to the zoom of this lens?
I also don't always have to zoom. At many of these local shows, I can get up as close to the stage as I want. If I'm not zooming, will this lens still perform well? Or would I be better off changing the lens to something else when I'm shooting close? Maybe this one could be my lens when shooting close:
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12142-USA/Canon_2514A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_8.html
At only $79, it's probably worth having if it gives me something the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS doesn't even if it's to a very limited degree.
Or is there such a thing as a 50 mm image stabilized lens? Granted I won't be zooming with a 50 mm lens, but I like image stabilization for when I do creative blur shots. For example I've been able to get some nice blurs of a drummer's arms in motion by using a shutter speed of 1/4 or 1/6.
I've decided to forego getting a lens kit. Some people have recommended that I get one, but from what I've read those lens kits don't have the high end low-light lenses I need. If I get the 30D, it's an extra $500 for the kit. Wouldn't I be better off applying that 500 toward high-end lenses that I'll actually use? Then over time I can collect lenses as I need them. Concert photography is by far the most important type of photography for me, though I probably will at least dabble in some other forms for now. I might be doing some food photography and possibly artistic nude photography, but these types are way below concerts in my priorities. Would a lens kit be useful for to me in some way? I have heard that there's such a thing as a kit that includes L series lenses, but I've yet to find one. If anyone knows where such a kit is, I'd appreciate a heads up.
Many, many thanks to everyone who has responded to my previous posts, and thanks in advance for this one.
cheers, Tom
Oh, almost forgot: bokeh is important to me. A lot of times a stage is cluttered with all kinds of distracting musical equipment. It will be nice to focus on the performer and blur all that junk out.