Best lense for shooting dance photography?

[sugar_babygirli]

Well, I'm trying to decide between these:

Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM
Canon EF 85mm 1.8

I have the 20 D, so would the 1.6 multiplier actually make the 85mm to be a 135mm? If so, I can save the money, but would the Bokeh be decent?

I'm thinking of shooting moving dancers either inside, or on stage (both would have low lighting).

Would the 135mm be too long to fit in the entire body of a dancer if I were sitting rather far away?

Thanks for your help. I'm SUCH a newbie at this whole thing, but thanks to you all at the forum, am learning quickly! I appreciate you putting up with my hundreds of questions! :o

[cmM]

For full body shots I would recommend the 85mm f/1.8. It depends how close you are to the stage... maybe even 85 might be too long.

[Vita Rara]

What do you think your typical distance to your subject will be?

I have an 85mm f/1.8 and I love it for shooting dancers, but you have to stand back a bit. If you'd like to see some shots take a look at: http://www.vitarara.org/galleries/DanceFlurry-2005/DanceFlurry-2005.html

Most of those shots were taken with the 85mm lens. It is a very fast focusing lens. I really like it.

Mark

[sugar_babygirli]

Hi there! Thanks for both of your replies and especially the photos! That really helped!

One question about the photos, (great job btw!) it seemed like it had an extremely shallow depth of field in the way of focusing only one a small area, and the rest (both in front and behind) was way blurred. Does it do well at making the entire person well in focus, or mainly just the eyes? Is it pretty sharp for the most part? What aperture was it set on for those photos? (sorry for SO many questions!)

As far as how close they would be to me? It would vary, but I'd much rather have to step back a ways compared to what I'm doing now...just about smack in their face! :lol: If they'd be on stage, it would be a ways from where I am I'm sure. If it's in class, I'd love to zoom in on their face for expressions.

[maderito]

The two lenses are too similar in quality for you to notice differences for the type of photography you're talking about. Image quality under low theater light conditions will be determined more by ISO, shutter speed, aperture/DOF, etc.

I would vote for the 85/1.8 if you know in advance that you can position yourself anywhere on or off the stage. The 135mm will be too tight for full body shots on the stage. OTOH - if you know you cannot get too close, use the 135mm. For lens peformance/price ratio, the 85/1.8 wins easily IMO (although the 135 mm is my favorite lens).

See these galleries for comparisons on the same stage with both lenses:
( 85/1.8 )
http://www.pbase.com/maderito/multicultural_talent_show
( 135mm/2.0 )
http://www.pbase.com/maderito/multicultural_show_2005

[sugar_babygirli]

GREAT captures there!

Though the average person probably wouldn't tell the difference, I definately notice how the 135mm nicely blurs the background. (The 85mm does somewhat, but not as much as I would like.) It also seems sharper and most of the time, more in focus then the 85mm...but also much more expensive. Hmm....very hard choice.

Grrr! I just am scared I'll wish I had gotten the 135mm down the road if I get stuck sitting far away from stage and need to really zoom in. When I shoot class in a big studio, what if I want to get the girl wayyyy in the back by the wall? I feel the 135mm would come in alot handier, but then if you all feel the 85mm does just as well, I will consider that one more also.

I guess alot of the shots I'm seeing from it seem really soft and most of the picture is out of focus? Maybe I'm too picky haha.

So would the 135mm actually be that with the 20D's 1.6 multiplier, or would it be more?

[KevC]

1.6x is a crop factor. So yes, any focal length will have to be multiplied by 1.6 to find the equivelent FOV on a 35mm. 135 will be 216mm. It's a crop factor, not magnification, so there is degradation of quality.

I might be covering a ballet performance for my friend's mother's school. Considering that I was forced to bump up to ISO1600 and f/1.8 on my 50mm to shoot my friend's flute performance, I'm a little worried about using my Drebel for the ballet perf.

I will be using the 85mm f/1.8 however (either renting or buying). I'm just worried about the amount of grain using such high ISO. Maybe I should sell my drebel and get an XT? Hm...

[eastcoast909]

You might want to check out this link:

http://www.photo.net/learn/making-photographs/lens

punch in your size of subject and the distance and it will return the size of lens required to have the subject full size in the shot.

Remember about the 1.6 factor, also remember both of the lenses you are talking are telephoto but not zoom.

Personally I think that the 135 is going to be too long for what you want and the 85 1.8 is a faster lens. If you want go for the 85 1.2 L if you can afford it :) :) .

[tim]

How about the 70-200 F2.8? You'd need to use a higher ISO though, I don't know if 2.8 would be fast enough, but it's something to consider.

[sugar_babygirli]

Personally I think that the 135 is going to be too long for what you want and the 85 1.8 is a faster lens

You know what? I really am starting to think that too. *sigh* I guess I'll sleep on it and try to weigh out all the options, but unless I'm 30 feet away (according to that coverter which was VERY cool btw!), I couldn't fit someone who's 5-6 ft. tall in. Thanks for your input! I must say the reviews on the 85mm are really good!

(and no, the f 1.4 isn't even on the radar screen right now! :p )

How about the 70-200 F2.8? You'd need to use a higher ISO though, I don't know if 2.8 would be fast enough, but it's something to consider.

Yeah, 2.8 would be fast enough as I've shot with 3.0 at ISO 400 and they came out great, but DANG that's expensive too! :eek:

[DocFrankenstein]

You're better off renting a 20D IMO... it has a better low light performance than the rebel which would compensate for the lens speed.

I shot with 70-200 2.8 and had to bump iso to 1600. I don't have pics on the net though.

Depending on the distance, you might wish you had a 50mm prime.

Will you be able to use flash?

[sugar_babygirli]

Rent a 20 D? But I own one! hehe. ;)

Nah, I probably wouldn't be using flash. Well, ISO 1600 isn't all that bad to me from the 20 D....MUCH better than my Minolta's 200 ISO! Lol.

[tim]

The Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=148317&is=USA) costs $800, not cheap, and it's not overly light either. If you can work with a prime i'd say do that. I'd probably go for the shorter, faster one, you can crop reasonably easily. It'd be nice to have a nice 70-150 F2 or better zoom though.

1600 on the 20D isn't too bad, I use it without hesitation to get the shutter speeds I need in low light. Noise Ninja looks like the best overall noise reduction program to me, i'm gona buy the PS plugin version some time.

[Vita Rara]

One question about the photos, (great job btw!) it seemed like it had an extremely shallow depth of field in the way of focusing only one a small area, and the rest (both in front and behind) was way blurred. Does it do well at making the entire person well in focus, or mainly just the eyes? Is it pretty sharp for the most part? What aperture was it set on for those photos? (sorry for SO many questions!)

Most of those photos were shot wide open at f/1.8. The light was fairly low and I wanted all the shutter speed I could muster to minimize action blurr and camera shake. Most of the shots were also at ISO 800, which is as high as I like to go on the 300D.

In regards to the focus, at 85mm and f/1.8 the depth of field is pretty shallow. It would be even shallower at 135mm. So, take that into account.


As far as how close they would be to me? It would vary, but I'd much rather have to step back a ways compared to what I'm doing now...just about smack in their face! :lol: If they'd be on stage, it would be a ways from where I am I'm sure. If it's in class, I'd love to zoom in on their face for expressions.

Well, neither the 85 or the 135 is going to put you on top of anyone, especially if you want a head to toe shot. I don't tend to do head to toe stuff anymore. I'm more into capturing faces, expressions, and getting a view into the dance that leaves something to the imagination.

Take care,

Mark

[sugar_babygirli]

Thanks Mark! :)

[radar-eclipse]

I have shot stage dances and with the 135, you can shoot from some balconies. I really recommend a single focal length to keep it simple; the 85mm 1.8. I almost bought a 1.2 lens but found out it focused not as fast as the 1.8 lens.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm loving the 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2L for dance.. the two are the perfect lenses!
Other than the fact that the 135mm is longer,. I don't see a huge differnce in image quality either.

[maderito]

Though the average person probably wouldn't tell the difference, I definately notice how the 135mm nicely blurs the background. (The 85mm does somewhat, but not as much as I would like.) It also seems sharper and most of the time, more in focus then the 85mm...but also much more expensive. Hmm....very hard choice.

Background blur/bokeh is influenced by subject distance to camera. The 135 mm will always give nicer background blurs compared to the 85 mm for the same field of view (same subject size in the frame).

The difference in sharpness you see in the images is more related to technique and camera AF speed - not lens sharpness. The 85mm shots were shot with a 10D, the 135mm with a 1D Mark II. I'm glad you noticed the difference. :)

Keep in mind that wide open (aperture 1.8 or 2.0), filling the frame with a dancer using either the 85 or 135mm lens gives you a depth of field of about 12 inches total - from front to back. Using the 20D, you'd be shooting from about 20ft with the 85mm and 30ft with the 135mm.

Unless the camera is on a tripod, I can't tell the difference in sharpness between the 85mm and 135mm. The 135mm is noticeably warmer and has better contrast under good lighting conditions.

Finally - I wouldn't judge image sharpness from the examples in the two galleries I posted. Most shots are at ISO 1600 and underexposed to avoid clipping highlights under very hot stage lights. Thus noise is a serious problem and only partially reduced with Neat Image. That said, you should get some very useable images from your 20D at ISO 1600.