middle school auditorium lens

Posing this question to make sure I've "thought of everything" before making a decision.

My daughter plays violin and has joined the drama club this year. I don't have a lens that's up to the task of photographing inside of a middle school auditorium ... it's dark as a cave. The way I see it, these are my options (I'm shooting with an 80D):

1. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L ... out of my budget, but a perfect choice.
2. Canon 135mm f/2 L ... used would be the upper limit of my budget. This lens is too long on a crop for doing much other than recitals, making it maybe too specialized?
3. Canon 200mm f/2.8 L ... maybe too long, maybe not. Like the 135 prime, I'm not sure if I'd use this lens for anything else (I own the 300mm f/4 L IS).
4. Canon 70-200mm f/4 L ... perfect focal length and can used for my son's soccer games and portrait work, but f/4 in that auditorium is going to suck.
5. Canon 100mm f/2 ... cheap and sharp, but maybe not long enough. This lens could also be used for portraits, which I also enjoy.
6. Canon 135mm f/2.8 SF ... can be had for $150 and was once regarded as excellent, but it's an antique and I'm not sure if I want to buy one ... can't explain why, to be honest.
7. Buy nothing this year ... Save money for the 70-200 f/2.8 L. I know myself well enough to know I get distracted easily with other hobbies and/or wants .. so saving $1000 is near impossible for me

Any thoughts? Have I missed anything? I'm not all that interested in 3rd party lenses, even though many people love Sigma.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2cqW​623

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2cqW​6fQ

How steady are your hands? Your current lens has IS; switching to something like the 135L gets you 3 stops of light, but you might have to increase your shutter speed to avoid camera shake blur, which will eliminate some of the benefit.

So using the second shot as an example: it was shot at f/5.6, 1/125, and ISO 16000. With a 135L you might be able to get away with f/2, 1/125, ISO2000 (if you have steady hands), but a better bet would probably be f/2, 1/250, ISO 4000. Still, that's two stops better ISO than what you have now. Same thing applies to the zooms; you don't say if you're looking at the 70-200 versions with IS or not; I would strongly recommend planning to get IS if you get one of those. Especially the f/4 zoom; it only gets you 1 stop over the 18-135mm at the long end (and less than that at shorter focal lengths) but losing IS would probably hurt more than the stop of light would help.

I think I would get either the 135L or 100mm f/2 for close-ups and keep using the 18-135 for the wider shots

Also, assuming you buy used, after a year you could sell a 135L for close to what you paid for it. Think of it as a way to save for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS without being able to spend the money on something else

all good thoughts ... thank you

yellowt2 wrote in post #18788717
How steady are your hands? Your current lens has IS; switching to something like the 135L gets you 3 stops of light, but you might have to increase your shutter speed to avoid camera shake blur, which will eliminate some of the benefit.

So using the second shot as an example: it was shot at f/5.6, 1/125, and ISO 16000. With a 135L you might be able to get away with f/2, 1/125, ISO2000 (if you have steady hands), but a better bet would probably be f/2, 1/250, ISO 4000. Still, that's two stops better ISO than what you have now. Same thing applies to the zooms; you don't say if you're looking at the 70-200 versions with IS or not; I would strongly recommend planning to get IS if you get one of those. Especially the f/4 zoom; it only gets you 1 stop over the 18-135mm at the long end (and less than that at shorter focal lengths) but losing IS would probably hurt more than the stop of light would help.

I think I would get either the 135L or 100mm f/2 for close-ups and keep using the 18-135 for the wider shots

Also, assuming you buy used, after a year you could sell a 135L for close to what you paid for it. Think of it as a way to save for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS without being able to spend the money on something else

I picked up the tamron 70-200 f2.8 VC, a pretty good lens.

~550 and would use it for similar scenarios.

100mm f2 would give you a huge boost in IQ, even if not long enough, you would have to crop in.

In addition to the other suggestions, you should also consider using noise reduction software.

http://imagenomic.com/​Products/Noiseware

I do this sort of stuff a lot and if I were doing it over, I would just get a 70-200/2.8 that is stabilized. What I do end up doing is bring my 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 135/2 along and based on how far away I get a seat, I choose the lens based on that. Almost always this ends up being the 135/2 (shooting on crop too).

So in your 5.6 1/125" iso 16000 example and as yellowt2 has pointed out, with a 135/2, this can become f2 1/250" at iso 4000. However with a 2.8 stabilized lens, you would gain back the slower shutter speed that you gained with stabilization and at the same time lost with going back to 2.8, but you gain the flexibility of the zoom and now you are at 2.8 1/125" at iso 4000.

For subjects that are more static like this, you really could push the shutter speed down to 1/60" and do some spray and pray. Maybe 4 times out of 5 you catch her arm in the middle of a stroke and see some motion blur, but maybe the other time you catch it at the beginning or end of a stroke and you don't see motion blur. So now you can be shooting at iso 2000 at 2.8 and 1/60" Delete the 4 out of 5 images with motion blur, unless you want to emphasize that, and you are good.

Maybe if you have steady hands, you can shoot the 135/2 at slower shutter speeds, but for me if I shoot below 1/250" with my 135/2, my keeper rate starts to plummet.

One other thing to think about is future use of the lens. If you think she we be getting into other activities with much more motion like dance activities, you are going to want the larger aperture of the 135/2 because stabilization will not help the motion blur. This is where I am glad I have the 135/2 and 85/1.8 for when I am shooting dance performances.

I have the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 G2 and I really like it. I have shot a fair amount with the Canon 70-200 f2.8 II and I can not tell the difference (at least at my skill level)

msowsun - that is really awesome! Is that software difficult to use?

thanks again, everyone ... good stuff

duckster wrote in post #18789480
msowsun - that is really awesome! Is that software difficult to use?

No, it just takes one click and it's done.

Good advice in the posts above.
Consider renting the 85mm f/1.8 to see how that works for you.

You'll really want a 70-200 so you can take somewhat close-up and wider shots. I used the f4 for a while which on FF and a slow SS with bursts worked OK.

135 was never really long enough. I could use a tripod, but I'd be at the back and 3 stops IS on the 70-200 + the 300mm got better results hand-held.

I don't think you missed anything.

Just a follow up for anyone getting to this conversation late and wondering what the conclusion was:

I went cheap :P

I got the 100mm f/2 for $219 on ebay. I'm very impressed with it (after +9 micro focus adjust). It's a little short for the auditorium, but good enough. I was able to use the lens for my daughters drama club presentation ... which is the same auditorium, but different lighting (still bad lighting). I'm happy with the results. Also, it's a killer portrait lens, even on a crop camera. My daughter is the short one in yellow.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2eG8​KpV

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2dD4​zT7

One tip to reduce perceived noise in images in those kinds of drama shots, be sure to set up a custom WB if possible. Artificial lights can accentuate the noise you get, making the images look worse than they really are.

There are many post processing techniques out there to drop a stop of noise without really affecting detail. Useful when you are exposure-limited...