Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Performing Arts Talk 
Thread started 31 Oct 2013 (Thursday) 07:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

which lens to bring??

 
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Nov 12, 2013 13:27 |  #16

But you certainly wouldn't have been the only person using flash, I can guarantee it. When I shoot small venues with bad lighting, I always pack a flash. I just keep my shots down to around 20-30 for the gig, so that the flash doesn't annoy the crap out of everyone.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
90c4
Goldmember
1,271 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2007
     
Nov 15, 2013 12:01 |  #17

Not necessarily - it depends on the club I guess. I never pack a flash except for daylight festivals and very rarely see anyone using one - maybe one out of 50 shows if that.

onona wrote in post #16445796 (external link)
But you certainly wouldn't have been the only person using flash, I can guarantee it. When I shoot small venues with bad lighting, I always pack a flash. I just keep my shots down to around 20-30 for the gig, so that the flash doesn't annoy the crap out of everyone.


www.facebook.com/stage​shooter (external link)http://www.facebook.co​m/stageshooter (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
onona
Senior Member
Avatar
511 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
     
Nov 16, 2013 10:26 |  #18

90c4 wrote in post #16453962 (external link)
Not necessarily - it depends on the club I guess. I never pack a flash except for daylight festivals and very rarely see anyone using one - maybe one out of 50 shows if that.

You rarely see anyone shooting with a flash at any venues? Pretty much any gig I go to, small or large, has a veritable sea of flashes going off in the audience, which was my point - so many flashes are going off in the venue that it'd be unlikely for other people in the crowd or the performers to focus any annoyance on you specifically.


Leigh
I shoot concerts and stuff. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
turmoil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
144 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Harrisburg
     
Nov 20, 2013 18:17 |  #19

there were a couple guys there that had flashes, but surprisingly didn't use them while the band was playing, only while they were setting up. kind of odd...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RichSoansPhotos
Cream of the Crop
5,981 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
     
Nov 22, 2013 17:44 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

turmoil wrote in post #16467642 (external link)
there were a couple guys there that had flashes, but surprisingly didn't use them while the band was playing, only while they were setting up. kind of odd...

Not really, they could have been using the AF Beam on the flash, it's so much better than the inbuilt camera's "beam". I did that with an artist because I thought their lighting was going to be rubbish on the night, I did turn off the flash, but kept the flash unit on the hotshoe because I might of lost a shot if I had put it away




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
turmoil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
144 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Harrisburg
     
Nov 24, 2013 19:45 |  #21

Just to follow this up, here's a picture from the evening ( a few others are here: http://www.flickr.com …/97587508@N05/1​1040480553 (external link))
This was shot on my 6d, ISO 12800, 24-70 at 24mm, 1/100, f2.8

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7347/11040433694_8611be4f6e_b.jpg

Like I mentioned before, especially during this band, the light level was extremely low since they only really had on the purple and red lights.
I wish I could've shot with a faster shutter speed, but I just couldn't do it without pushing the ISO to its usable limit.

Should I invest in a faster lens? Something like a 1.4 for venues like this? I'll look into using a flash at this venue.

Most of the pictures turned out either very grainy (from the high ISO) or with some blur. I'm hoping to make some improvements for next time.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
narlus
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,661 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Andover, MA
     
Nov 25, 2013 10:14 |  #22

ha, i shot Pelican this year (actually twice), and the 2nd time the lighting was terrible, just as you had...a faster lens didn't really make much of a difference. here's a shot w/ my 35mm wide open at f/1.4, 1/80th at ISO 12,800 (2.3 stops less than your shot)

IMAGE: http://photos.tinnitus-photography.com/img/s5/v125/p367991503-4.jpg

www.tinnitus-photography.com (external link)
Facebook link (external link)

gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RichSoansPhotos
Cream of the Crop
5,981 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
     
Nov 25, 2013 11:09 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

turmoil wrote in post #16477441 (external link)
Just to follow this up, here's a picture from the evening ( a few others are here: http://www.flickr.com …/97587508@N05/1​1040480553 (external link))
This was shot on my 6d, ISO 12800, 24-70 at 24mm, 1/100, f2.8

QUOTED IMAGE

Like I mentioned before, especially during this band, the light level was extremely low since they only really had on the purple and red lights.
I wish I could've shot with a faster shutter speed, but I just couldn't do it without pushing the ISO to its usable limit.

Should I invest in a faster lens? Something like a 1.4 for venues like this? I'll look into using a flash at this venue.

Most of the pictures turned out either very grainy (from the high ISO) or with some blur. I'm hoping to make some improvements for next time.

A 1.4 maybe, but you could get a 1.8 if you haven't got one, since it's really only two thirds of a stop down from the 1.4, not much is it?? Or is it just a clean 1 stop up??? I dunno




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
turmoil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
144 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Harrisburg
     
Nov 25, 2013 12:50 |  #24

narlus wrote in post #16478638 (external link)
ha, i shot Pelican this year (actually twice), and the 2nd time the lighting was terrible, just as you had...a faster lens didn't really make much of a difference. here's a shot w/ my 35mm wide open at f/1.4, 1/80th at ISO 12,800 (2.3 stops less than your shot)

That's interesting indeed. My images SOOC definitely have that level of noise, I just ended up taking it down a hair in LR.
Maybe for this particular case when the lighting is bad, there's just really not much you can do, since a faster lens (like your 1.4) doesn't end up buying you too much more.

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #16478763 (external link)
A 1.4 maybe, but you could get a 1.8 if you haven't got one, since it's really only two thirds of a stop down from the 1.4, not much is it?? Or is it just a clean 1 stop up??? I dunno

I've been thinking about a 1.4 lens, but i've heard some issues with both the Canon and Sigma ones.

This might be crazy, but is it too difficult to manual focus bands live? My buddy has the Zeiss 50 1.4 and swears by it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
narlus
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,661 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Andover, MA
     
Nov 25, 2013 13:04 |  #25

with lighting like that (ie, shooting at f/1.4 and ISO 12800) you are never gonna get clean photos. if you do run noise reduction, you'll lose alarming levels of detail.

so flash 'em, or don't worry about it.


manual focusing a metal band at f/1.4? good luck. for small club like this, assume your subject is ~5 feet away from you. your resulting depth of field (assuming using a full frame camera) is a scant three inches.


what have you heard regarding issues of the 1.4 lenses? I have owned the Canon 35 and 50, and the Sigma 30 lenses. all work well (the 35 is the best performer, the 50 has some build issues and somewhat twitchy autofocus, the sigma has a reputation for front- or back-focusing, but my copy was fine).


www.tinnitus-photography.com (external link)
Facebook link (external link)

gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
turmoil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
144 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Harrisburg
     
Nov 25, 2013 13:26 |  #26

narlus wrote in post #16479029 (external link)
with lighting like that (ie, shooting at f/1.4 and ISO 12800) you are never gonna get clean photos. if you do run noise reduction, you'll lose alarming levels of detail.

so flash 'em, or don't worry about it.

manual focusing a metal band at f/1.4? good luck. for small club like this, assume your subject is ~5 feet away from you. your resulting depth of field (assuming using a full frame camera) is a scant three inches.

what have you heard regarding issues of the 1.4 lenses? I have owned the Canon 35 and 50, and the Sigma 30 lenses. all work well (the 35 is the best performer, the 50 has some build issues and somewhat twitchy autofocus, the sigma has a reputation for front- or back-focusing, but my copy was fine).

I'm assuming you didn't use a flash at all for Pelican, did you?

Pretty much nailed my concerns about a manually focusing with a 1.4 :)

For the canon 50 1.4, the build quality seems to be a bit lacking and i've heard the AF motor can be an issue as well. The one in my buddy's lens seems to just hunt endlessly.
The sigma 50 1.4, i've read, is hit or miss out of the box. If you get a good copy they're great, if not it can be trouble.

Between the two i'd choose the Sigma, since I like the images i've seen it produce, just a little worried about getting a bad version that's all.

The canon 50 1.2 might be better, in terms of build quality and IQ, but i'm not sure I want to spend that much for a lens i'll using sparingly.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
narlus
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,661 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Andover, MA
     
Nov 25, 2013 13:47 |  #27

personally i wouldn't spend the $$$ on the 50 f/1.2 but that's me. i have also heard good things re: the Sigma and haven't been plagued with the frotn or back focusing issues. that said, the canon 50 f/1.4 isn't a bad lens and is pretty inexpensive.

i did use flash a few times at the Pelican show, but still at high ISO:
http://photos.tinnitus​-photography.com/p71950​9108 (external link)

IMAGE: http://photos.tinnitus-photography.com/img/s10/v101/p429895667-4.jpg

www.tinnitus-photography.com (external link)
Facebook link (external link)

gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
turmoil
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
144 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Jul 2013
Location: Harrisburg
     
Nov 25, 2013 14:24 |  #28

Yeah, I agree on the 50 1.2 Personally, I don't think i'd use it enough to be able to justify the cost.

I might try to find a good copy of the Sigma 50 and see how that does. Thanks for the input!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RichSoansPhotos
Cream of the Crop
5,981 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Aug 2007
Location: London, UK
     
Nov 27, 2013 11:45 |  #29
bannedPermanent ban

turmoil wrote in post #16478988 (external link)
That's interesting indeed. My images SOOC definitely have that level of noise, I just ended up taking it down a hair in LR.
Maybe for this particular case when the lighting is bad, there's just really not much you can do, since a faster lens (like your 1.4) doesn't end up buying you too much more.

I've been thinking about a 1.4 lens, but i've heard some issues with both the Canon and Sigma ones.

This might be crazy, but is it too difficult to manual focus bands live? My buddy has the Zeiss 50 1.4 and swears by it.


Manual focusing is not the way, its very hard to do that even with artists who are static, though you are likely to get a few that are good




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BushWacker
Goldmember
Avatar
1,889 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 515
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Lake Tahoe, USA
     
Nov 27, 2013 14:17 as a reply to  @ RichSoansPhotos's post |  #30

Here are a couple shots I took in a small bar in Lake Tahoe called the Divided Sky. All they have for lighting is a few red rope lights with a couple red flood lights so it's one of the worst lighting conditions there is (with the exception of red LED's I guess). The trick I used is I pulled out my cell phone and used the flashlight app to bring in just a little white light.

It was taken with a Sigma 50m f/1.4 32k iso and yes the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8 is significant in these situations.

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3736/11060910623_3a35b80cf6_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …20890085@N03/11​060910623/  (external link)
_MG_5060e (external link) by WackyBush (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3824/11060909883_d633b44a64_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …20890085@N03/11​060909883/  (external link)
_MG_5098e (external link) by WackyBush (external link), on Flickr

Here is shot without the cell phone light:

IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2878/11060849416_694c1029a5_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …20890085@N03/11​060849416/  (external link)
_MG_5038e (external link) by WackyBush (external link), on Flickr

Bottom line is I like the faster lenses much better with limited light. Consider that f/1.4 is 2 stops faster than f/2.8. Would you consider going 2 stops slower to f/5.6? I don't think so...

"When I shoot something I use a Canon!"
-------------- Gear List | flickr (external link) --------------

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,580 views & 0 likes for this thread
which lens to bring??
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Performing Arts Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bsowde
677 guests, 349 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.