Recommended lens for a club/people?

[Rukes]

A few months ago, I took a huge leap from a Canon G3 to a Canon 20D with EF 28-135MM lens, and a SpeedLite 580EX once my photography started taking off very quickly.

The lens was based on general recommendations from online reviews, and from a friend who has a 20D and the same lens, that it was a great general "walk-around" lens.

For the most part, the lens has worked very well. During photoshoots with big dj's and the like, I found I was the only one who could get some amazing close-up shots, while everyone else was fuddling around with lenses. However, I have two complaints. 1) The images are not "super sharp" which I read could be common with this lens. It doesn't bother me too much, as a majority of the time my images are resized and compressed anyway, however it is noticeable, sometimes even compared to my G3. 2) I don't need this much zoom. While it is nice to be able to be far away and take little spy pics, 99% of the time, I am usualy up close photographing people. The only time I really could see using zoom is if I am waaay across the dancefloor and need to take a pic of the DJ, which would still require little zoom.

So I was wondering if anyone has any recommendations for a great lens with very good image quality (like a standard telephoto), and at the same time, I can zoom in a tad if I wish. After doing a little research, it seems that the EF 24-70MM L series might be good...but before I make such an expensive purchase, I figured I would ask everyone here for an opinion on the matter.

Edit (6-17-05): For those who only read the opening post, I came to a conclusion later. I ended up buying the 24-70L.

[defordphoto]

24 isn't wide enough. 16-17 is just barely on an APS sensor. I'd get that 10-22 EF-S lens they have out now.

[Mike Panic]

i worked in the electronic music industry for 4+ years... been published in urb, mixer, lotus, bpm, etc... lens choice should be fast sharp stuff. 50mm f/1.8 if you hvae the room to play - otherwise invest in the 16-35 f/2.8L and / or 15mm fisheye

[Firefly]

The 50mm f/1.8 ($70), 50mm f/1.4 ($310), or 85mm f/1.8 ($320) are great lens for low light club/concert/party situations. If you have some ablitity to move around a little for your shot you shouldn't have to worry about losing your zoom. Any of these lenses are great additions to your bag.

[mr.photoguy]

I used my 18-55 this past saturday night ... with my 550ex...
results were pretty good.
I can't wait to get my hands on the 17-40 though ..

[Rukes]

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

My gallery is here: http://photo.rukes.com/ Anything in NY is with my old G3, everything else is with the 20D and lens...the 580EX not until the most recent ones.

So basically, I am going to be using it for taking close up poses of people at clubs, close-up model pics, close-up DJ pics, and a few not so close up club/behind the scenes pics and dj pics too.

Losing the zoom should not be too bad, but there have been some dj's I have to photograph where they are pretty "walled in" by equipment, walls and people...so if I want to get a good close-up, I would have to just try to get as close as possible and zoom in the rest of the way. I'm sure I can live without it, but I am a bit concerned.

So far the EF-S 10-22 is looking very nice...

[redbutt]

I use a 50mm f/1.4 and a 16-35 f/2.8 L. The 16-35 is expensive, but well worth it. I also try at all times to not use a flash in clubs or shooting bands. 1) They usually don't like it when you do that, and 2) the real colors of the stage make the images better to me. So, go with the fastest lens you can get your hands on.

[Rukes]

Yeah, I only use flash in clubs when getting portrait shots of people, I use the lighting of the stage too. However with musicians I know, like BT, they usualy let me know when they are "in the vibe" and it's OK to use flash at my discretion.

So a 50mm/1.4 looks good to have as a partner, but for the main one, it seems like a toss-up between the EF-S 10-22 and the EF 16-35 L...however RFM sports said "16-17 is just barely on an APS sensor"...so I am not 100% sure which one now...

[DionM]

I think the 10-22 would be too short ... you'd have to be in their face ...

17-40 f4 or 16-35 f2.8 if you need the speed, would be my suggestions for a wider zoom. Or something like a 20mm f2.8 prime, or the 28 f1.8 if you're happy with the wide angle of the 28-135, but just not its quality. Or the 24-70 f2.8 if you just want a tad wider but better quality.

[Rukes]

So am I right in guessing that the 16-35, although it is a standard zoom, it is extremely sharp? Although it is expensive, I think I like redbutt's setup the best.

[Tripod]

I mostly use the 24-70mm f/2.8l with the 16-35mm f/2.8l with EOS1D MK11 and the 550EX. The bar that I normal shoot in is so dark I have to use a flash. I use the 24-70mm for portrait and the four or smaller bands and the 16-35mm for the larger bands and crowed shoots.
You can check out my work at Kemopub.com (photos by james morgan) The ones before Aug were using a Minolta 7i.

[defordphoto]

Rukes: Remember you have the 1.6x APS sensor. What we use on a 1DMKII is whole different world on an APS sensor. My 17-40 becomes an entirely different beast on the MKII as compared to the 20D/10D.

Best suggestion is to hit up your local pro shop, take your camera, and try out a few of these lenses for size. Maybe even rent a couple. One thing is for sure, however, I think you'll find that one lens will not do it all. You'll more likely end up using 2-3 lenses.

[tim]

If you're thinking of that L lens, consider the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 as well. The Canon 50mm F1.8 is also a steal at it's price, great for low light when you can't use a flash - use high ISO and F1.8 instead.

[Rukes]

I think I am going to test out the Canon 24-70 today at the local camera store...this looks like the one I should get.

[HKFEVER]

I agree 28-135 is good but a bit soft, that's the reason I sold it to buy the 24-70.

24-70 is a very sharpe and good wide zoom walk around lens in 1:1 to 1:1.3 camera

But 1:1.6, the len become 38.4-112. If you don't mind this then 24-70 is the best choice.

[Tom W]

Its a good idea to be able to test before buying. Make sure the zoom range will be good for your purpose. 24 isn't real wide on the 1.6 sensor, but you may not need that feature. And if you do need something wider, you can save up for the 10-22. Also, make sure that f/2.8 is fast enough for the lighting situation, particularly if you don't use flash for some shots.

Although my club experience (photographically speaking) is somewhat limited, I prefer no flash and a very fast lens - the 50/1.4. What it will do on the 1.6 is give you some great shots if you can get back enough, and some great head-and-shoulder shots if you're up close. What it won't do is work as a table lens, for getting those wide table and dance-floor shots if you want them. For those, the Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 might be a good choice.

Note that the shallow depth-of-field can cause problems when trying to shoot a larger group of varying distances. This won't be much of a problem in flash situations, but can be challenging in low-light non-flash shots where wide apertures are needed for available light, but subject distances vary.

[tim]

Of course fast lenses like the 1.4 will give you a narrow depth of field, so it'd be best to put some distance between you and the subjects, if possible. If you don't know why play with this (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html).

[Rukes]

Thanks for all your help. I ended up narrowing it down between the 16-35 and the 24-70. I got a last-minute opinion from the people at Canoga Camera while I was there, and they suggested 16-35 if I was doing more wider-angle shots, but since I was doing more shots of people close-up, that the 24-70 would be my best bet.

[Rukes]

Big bump. 5 months later, still using the 24-70L lens. Still love it alot. Works out really well, since some clubs always change the stage setup, so having a zoom helps give an edge over people with primes (I don't have to worry about climbing over obstacles).

Also works great when doing portrait shots of people in a club, making it a perfect balance of what I need: Wide shots of musicians and the crowd for clubs, and close-up portraits of people.

Only things I could wish for: Maybe a lower aperture like some primes (like 1.8-ish). Slightly better zooming, for the times when I do need it (for the most part, no).

[Jackal]

Only things I could wish for: Maybe a lower aperture like some primes (like 1.8-ish). Slightly better zooming, for the times when I do need it (for the most part, no).

A 24-70L 1.8 would run you a hefty sum of money if it existed. :)

[condyk]

Can't understand why people are suggestion widish lenses like the 16-35 for this application. Am I missing something? I think in this application some greater flexibility is needed.

The obvious options given you have flash are the various F2.8's ie the Canon 24-70L, Sigma 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75. I swapped my 28-135mm IS for the latter. Maybe the Canon L is better if you can afford it as it has the extra width, alternatively the Sigma (latest version only!) is a viable option at a great price.

[AjP]

I do have 28-135 and shoot some receptions and wedding, definately can't wait to get 16-35 L and 24-70 L and may be 70-200 2.8's
but I almost always use flash no mater inside or outside pics.

[AjP]

Can't understand why people are suggestion wide lenses like the 16-35 for this application. Am I missing something? I think in this application some greater flexibility is needed. The obvious options given you have flash are the various F2.8's ie the Canon 24-70L, Sigma 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75. I swapped my 28-135mm IS for the latter. Maybe the Canon L is better if you can afford it as it has the extra width, alternatively the Sigma (latest version only!) is a viable option at a great price.
well first of all, if you in club or party or wedding, its not always in huge room, and if you want to tak wider.... no matter if u use flash or not 2.8 focusin much faster in low light inviroment, for me personaly Canon's L lenses are expencive but still I'll get it, slowly but surely. I like the Canon lenses better then any other and quality still a better with Canon L's, so it is personaly preferences, how explanation like this

[grego]

Sigma has just come out with a 30mm f/1.4. That might be nice if you want something wider than the 50mm f/1.4.

The 15mm F/2.8 fisheye is pretty damn good. I've used it and it gives you good quality photos.

You can't go wrong with the 16-35mm f/2.8 if you want a versatile zoom wide angle.