Sigma 24-70 for Performing Arts? Anyone have examples?

[bndgrl]

I just purchased a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and tried it out for the first time this weekend at a local club and was less than thrilled with the results (highly disappointed actually.) But the lighting in the club was atrocious (red, amber, red, amber, red, amber) so maybe I'm not giving it a fair shot. I'm trying to decide if I want to return it and get an 85mm f/1.8 instead.

Does anyone have any examples of the 24-70 in a Performing Arts situation that may give me some hope for this lens?

Thanks!

[bacchanal]

I've never used the lens, but you can always try looking through the Pbase sample galleries.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/2470_28_ex_dg_asp_df

You'll come across some venues where 2.8 just isn't fast enough, and you'd be better off with a fast prime.

What was wrong with the shots...lighting issues, AF problems?? Can you post any examples?

[bndgrl]

Thanks, I'll take a look at the pbase galleries.

The lighting in the club was horrible so I sort of expected that the pictures wouldn't be very good but just from the quick glance through the RAW's last night, it seemed to have a lot of AF issues too.

I'll try and post some later.

[perryge]

I gave this lens a spin, and whilst optically it's good, the autofocus just isn't up to scratch, and what's worse, the manual focus system is pretty piss poor too, so I wouldn't recommend it for this kind of thing.

[zero99]

I had sigma 24-70 f2.8 and found the results poor. It simple does not perform at 2.8,its far to soft.I sold mine on ebay and bought Canon 17-85 4/5.6 IS.

However my 50 1.8 (£60) is outperforming both for concert
photograph's.:confused: It just give me the shutter speeds is need and it pretty sharp.

[perryge]

Concerts, gear-wise are all about fast glass and good AF. My 200L and 85 1.8 are by far my most used lenses at concerts. 50 1.4 next. Crank your ISO :D. Speed > IS, always.

[BEEEsH]

I had sigma 24-70 f2.8 and found the results poor. It simple does not perform at 2.8,its far to soft.I sold mine on ebay and bought Canon 17-85 4/5.6 IS.

lol.

Thats funny because I went from a 17-85IS to the sigma 24-70 because of extreme softness issues. My 24-70 2.8 is tack sharp.

In regards to the original post:

You've set yourself up for disappointment. 2.8 isn't great enough for lowlight shooting. Its great for indoor shooting, but not low light. You should probably invest in a series of 1.8 primes (28mm, 50mm and 85mm) if you intend on shooting club scenes. That, or get a camera that can shoot decently at 6400 iso.

I'd like to see some sample pics as well.

[rooeey]

My Sigma 24-70F2.8 is serving me well especially stopped down a notch or two..
See my latest couple of posts with images attached for samples...

[shannyD]

Thanks, I'll take a look at the pbase galleries.

The lighting in the club was horrible so I sort of expected that the pictures wouldn't be very good but just from the quick glance through the RAW's last night, it seemed to have a lot of AF issues too.

I'll try and post some later.


i would get at least a 50mm 1.8 for club photography. 1,4 is better. 2.8 is no where near as fast as you need it. youll never expose properly at all with lighting like that.

i did a lot of asking around before i made my purchases. and i will say im happy with the fast primes. youll have that extra light available to you.

dont get mad at the lens i have seen great things with it. its just not for that kind of stuff.

and im sure a 2.8 lens is going to have some af issues just because its not designed for that. its too slow for what you were in.

shan

[bndgrl]

I do have the 50 1.8 and can't believe what a great job a little $80 lens does. So looks like I'll stick it back on the camera for the time being and return the Sigma.

Thanks everybody! Maybe I should have asked BEFORE I bought it :)

[rooeey]

The 24-70F2.8 is an excellent partner to the 430 or 580 ex flash unit...

[bndgrl]

The 24-70F2.8 is an excellent partner to the 430 or 580 ex flash unit...

I have the 430 but I never use flash when shooting live music.

[therealmr]

A couple things - first, the sigma lens won't AF very fast... so make sure you're not relying on AF to do all the work. You'll need to bump or prefocus.

Second - shoot in raw and underexpose 1 or 2/3 of a stop so you can get an acceptable shutterspeed to actually stop motion (approx 1/250 to 1/500, depending on the performance). Having a sharp photo that's in focus is better than a blurry photo that's properly exposed. Why? Because you can always weak exposure with RAW. You can't tweak motion blur after the fact. Noiseninja if your ISO is at 1600 or 3200, too.

Use it one more time until you decide to go back to the 85 f/1.8, I'd say.

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs25/i/2008/040/3/1/Sexy_Tertian_by_therealmr.jpg

Originally one and one third stops under exposed, but well worth the post processing (about 20 minutes) to pull out the image.

[johnstoy]

I have the Canon version of the 24-70mm f2.8... It's pretty limited in a low light venue... I expected to use it a lot for wider shots, instead of my 50mm f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8... Have had some luck with it at ISO 3200 and even a few shots at ISO 1600 while shooting in RAW... But not enough to rely on it.

Instead, for a zoom lens, I rely on the 70-200mm f2.8L IS... The only way I'm getting by more consistently, at f2.8 is with the IS mode...

However, the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 is great in outdoor daylight settings, and serves well in a *flash* compatible environment.

[woman4life]

I can actually get some shots at f2.8 and sometimes better with my f2.8 100 mm lens than my f1.8 50mm, but once the light drops way down, I do have to use the 50. I had a 28mm f1.8 but I had a lot of focus issues with it, that is until I lost it at a Mute Math concert. :( $500 down the drain. I still don't know how I lost it. I got home and I didn't have it. No luck with some honest soul returning it. :(

I really want a good, fast wide-angle zoom because some bands just move around so much and I hate missing shots because the prime lens I have on is not wide enough or fast enough. It will have to wait a good while, though. No money for camera equipment right now and they aren't very cheap. When there is really low lighting, I just have to take a LOT of photos to make sure I get one. Let's face it... it's hard to get me, and the band both to stay perfectly still at the same time. LOL

Good luck at finding what you need.

[Medic85]

I think the OP has expected way too much for a 2.8 lens. I also have the sigma and like most fast zooms, it is a little soft wide open. You still need something faster for what you're shooting. If you don't have to sell it, I would give it a second chance but not on badly lit venues.

[Burrelly]

I pretty much shoot all gigs with a 50mm 1.8 it gets the job done never had any issues with it at all.

All my published work has been shot by that lense aswell. I would like to buy the 1.4 but do not see the need at the moment.

[woman4life]

Yea, the f1.4 version is kinda pricey comparatively, and the depth of field is shallow enough on the 1.8.

[Burrelly]

I have no issue with the DOF to be honest I am usually close enough to the artist for it not to bother me.

I did use the Sigma 24-70 2.8 last night shooting the babyshambles I will post up a few examples in a few hours :)

[elysium]

From another thread.

Heres a few from my collection.

Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX with 430EX
(on most pics)
ISO 1600
1/60
f/2.8
Noise reduction was only PP

#1
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1741/img1053largevw9.jpg

#2
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6440/img1082largefr5.jpg

#3
http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2406/img1171largetf5.jpg

[thepepperman]

I've had my Sigma 24-70 for a couple of months now, and find it pretty useful shooting performances. Quite usable wide open, usually at iso 800 or 1600. Here are a few, a couple from other threads:

http://i29.tinypic.com/2ebxw1y.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/1zed2bo.jpg

http://i27.tinypic.com/10cryp3.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/maf12o.jpg

[Burrelly]

Here is an examle of 30D with Sigma 24-70 2.8

#1
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2313/2266444455_02709a9841_b.jpg

#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2129/2266443331_85af395296_b.jpg

[Williamgerv]

I have the canon 24-70-2.8 but I mainly shoot with the 70-200, 2.8-IS.
I shoot at a performing arts theatre full time but find it to be just fine.

[Atheomerase]

I was sadly disappointed with my 24-70 as well. Even in well-lit, sunny conditions, it is horribly soft. I need to send it back to Sigma to get calibrated, they said that may fix the problems.

[Gebruikersnaam]

I've used this one a lot too (in both really bad and in pretty good lighting). Was pretty happy with the results. Soft @ F2.8 though. Focus not really quick, but workable.

I'll find some examples later, but a lot of these should be 24-70 Sigma:

http://www.anouktimmerman.nl/index_2.html
http://www.anouktimmerman.nl/index_3.html

(Exif included, have checked a few, most is 85 F1.8 or Sigma)

[kmb]

None of the repliers do actually know if f2.8 is/should have been/will be enough to the conditions in which the OP was shooting unless they've seen the pictures and shooting data (EXIF). Some gigs on some clubs, f2.8 (at ISO1600 - or more) is more than enough for a number of music styles.

Red/Amber light doesn't in it self mean low light (for example this one was shot with red light only, exif is below the pic: http://kuvat.huumakuva.net/displayimage.php?pos=-4001)

OTOH - and while I don't know how techically knowledgeable the OP is - blowing the color channels (red, in this case) will result to images that appear soft. And of course, only 1/4 of the image sensors are used (the ones sensitive to red light) if lighting is red only. It will inevitably lead to soft images. And it means the results may not have been any better with a faster lens.

So, in order to know if the lens is to fault, we need to see some pictures. I know that many f2.8 lenses are perfectly useable (I have experience on three canon lenses and a Tamron) for many club gigs.