Should I get a wide angle prime for dance recital?

I've been asked to shoot the stills for an upcoming dance recital my daughters are in. I'm going to be shooting them during the two dress rehersals.

I'm planning on not using the flash and using my 50mm and 85mm primes, but I was wondering if I should also consider getting an wide angle prime. Since it'll be a rehersal, I can move about at will, but I won't be able to check out the school auditorium before the first rehersal. I'm concerned that the 50mm might not be wide enough, or I'll be having to climb over seats to get far enough away for a wide FOV. I aslo think my 18-55 and 24-85 might not be fast enough at f/3.5.

Sigma has a 20, 24 or 28mm prime at f/1.8 and Canon has a 28mm f/1.8. I still have time to get one from B&H.

I'm open to suggestions. For those who shoot concerts and school events, will a 50mm on a 300D be wide enough? Thanks.

Take a look at these lens tests: http://www.photozone.d​e/

The mentioned lenses don't rank very well there.

Best regards,
Andy

I shoot ballet from the audience... first 4 rows or so (during rehearsals)

I've never needed wider than a 50mm on the 10D...

But f you can shoot from closer that changes evrything...

The flip side is I use two lenses.. the 50mm and a 70-200mm f/2.8
and I use 200mm often enough... (it's a big stage)

...but somewhere around 135mm may be the sweet spot for the tight close ups.

I'm guessing were talking apples to oranges here.. ( as far as distance from the action goes) but for my needs 85mm isn't enough tele to get the job done. ( i just can't get that close)

Personally, I'd use my flash and a zoom....slow doesn't matter then. You also get better depth of field and they will look fine. I have used my recommendation for pictures like this and they looked great! I personally wouldn't fool with available light ...probably tungsten. If you use available light, change your white balance and shoot at 800 asa.

The lens choice depends on whether you are trying to capture just one or two performers or else the entire stage.

---Bob Gross---

I agree with WestFalcon, I'd use the flash. It is,after all a rehersal and it will give the performers a chance to get used to flashes being used.
Try telling a parent who comes to the show that they can't take pictures with their P&S during the performance.
The chance to move around and get shots from different angles will give you a great oppertunity to get the "shot" that none of the parents can get.
The quality and clarity of the pictures will far surpass the shots using just available light.
Just my de-valued $.02

I have done a play, concerts, and other school events, and I have found the 50 and the 85 to be fine. I also have a 100mm f2, and I use that as well. Unless you are going to be very close (closer than 15 ft. from the stage) or if you want to get a large group shot, you should not need a wider angle than that. If so, consider the EF 35mm f2. It is inexpensive, and fast enough. I have avoided the 28 f2.8 because I have a zoom that fast.

I have found the speed of these primes to be very helpful in this environment. I have the 24-70 f2.8L, and I tend to leave it off of the camera in the auditorium shoots. I usually set the ISO to 200 and it gives me good shutter speeds with the primes.

Flash - I avoid it like the plague for this - you would have to be close, and it wipes out the stage lighting.

Let me also add that if you can find your way clear to use a monopod, it will be a huge bonus. If these are rehearsals, that should not be a problem. I even used it during performances, while sitting down. The stage lighting is not as bright as it seems.

Andythaler wrote:
Take a look at these lens tests: http://www.photozone.d​e/

The mentioned lenses don't rank very well there.

Best regards,
Andy

I tried the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 the other day, and found it very good. It also get good optical scores on photographyreview.com and fredmiranda.com/review​s/ The most negative about it is the lack of HSM and the noise and cumbersome "clutch"-system for AF/MF switching. Opticaly it usually ranks good, and I found nothing to proof otherwhise from what I've tested it. There might of course be bad samples out..

Another feeling I've gotten is that Canon/Sigma is "silently" improving things based on user-feedback on early samples. If you look on reviews of lenses with a lot of shared oppinions, veery often you find the early reviews to be less good than the latest. I can't say for sure why, but to me it wouldn't be surprising if they actually improve the optical quality of lenses without saying so, to cover their bad tracks. If they where to ship a new model only months after the lens first was improved, it wouldn't look "good". Also, if they where to say: Ok, sorry guys, it stunk! We've fixed it now, and ever lens produced after dd.mm.yy doesn't have theese issues any more, they would piss of the early buyers unless they gave them an update for free. But again, whether this happens or not, is pure fiction from my side without any research to back it up. And even if it where happening, there still would leak out bad samples every now and then..