About to pull the trigger on some lenses

up until now, i have primarily been a landscape photograpgher. this summer i am going to venture into concert photography with camera friendly bands. i will be shooting from the crowd at GA shows where moving around is generally not a problem. you can see in my sig what my current kit includes. I had spoken with johnstoy about this and he suggested the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 on my 30D. I value the advice he gave me and I am ready to order this week and wanted to seen if anyone had any additional advice for me as i venture into this new realm.

Both the lenses johnstoy suggested are great for that type of things.

A couple of others that might be worth throwing into the mix for your consideration are the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and short zoom either the 17-55 f2.8IS or 24-70 f2.8L. I believe the IQ on the 17-55 is very good and if you are a landscape photographer I'm sure it would prove a very useful addition to your kit bag for landscape work too.

If the lighting is adequate a short zoom makes framing a lot easier when shooting from the crowd.

John is right, for small venues or if you want to be discreet, fast primes like the 50 and 85 (or sigma 30 1.4) are the way to go. These lenses will work with the light in almost any venue. The 50 and 85 also double as great portrait lenses btw. It can be a little tricky switching lenses when 'shooting from the crowd', but the people around you usually give you a little space when they see you're weilding a 'pro' camera.
For well lit venues, if you can get credentials (or if you don't need them) take the 70-200. And I agree with blackshadow about the 17-55...I'm pining for one of those myself, talk about a great all around lens.

I really want the short zoom's mentioned. Is there a big difference between the Sigma and Canon versions other than one costs $400 and the other $900?

woman4life wrote in post #3275893
I really want the short zoom's mentioned. Is there a big difference between the Sigma and Canon versions other than one costs $400 and the other $900?

IS and USM on the Canon. I don't think the Sigma/Tamron wide zooms are really known for low light performance. The AF on the newer Sigma 18-55 macro is supposed to be a little better than the older non-macro version.

Thanks everyone. I really do not want to buy another zoom. I am heading up to a mountain bluegrass show in a small bar restaurant next weekend for my first try at this. I am gonna go with the 50 1.4 and 85 1.2.

Do others here use a hood when shooting concerts to block out stray light? Wondering if I need to buy the hoods. The lenses I buy will be strictly for low light photography.

col4bin wrote in post #3277069
Thanks everyone. I really do not want to buy another zoom. I am heading up to a mountain bluegrass show in a small bar restaurant next weekend for my first try at this. I am gonna go with the 50 1.4 and 85 1.2.

Do others here use a hood when shooting concerts to block out stray light? Wondering if I need to buy the hoods. The lenses I buy will be strictly for low light photography.

Good going Frank... I'm glad the feedback given by the forum guys/gals helped you to reach a positive decission...

Don't hesitate to ask any additional questions, we're usually all here...

I hope to post some new show pix next weekend too...

I use the hoods religiously outdoors... At the venue, it's always tight quarters, so it's not always suitable...

However, if the restaurant doesn't object to big looking lenses, like mine does, than put them on... Besides the regular Canon lens specific hoods, I also bought the less expensive collapsible rubber hoods... I'm able to set the camera down with the rubber hood and the camera stays put in one place, plus the lens is cushioned from shock...

Last thought on the hoods, they do get loose and make the camera twice as long... I don't recall needing the hood that often... Let's see what others say...

Thanks John. I really appreciate your help. WIth the rubber hoods, do you use a UV filter?

I am looking forward to my first shoot next weekend and will post some pictured for feedback.

I use a hood 24/7. Never use a UV filter: Too much chance of flare / ghosting.
IMO the rubber hoods aren't of much use: Do nothing for impact protaction, very little for hooding (better then nothing however)

René Damkot wrote in post #3279302
I use a hood 24/7. Never use a UV filter: Too much chance of flare / ghosting.
IMO the rubber hoods aren't of much use: Do nothing for impact protaction, very little for hooding (better then nothing however)

You're right about no impact protection from the rubber hoods... didn't think of that...
I'm so careful, I rarely set the camera down anywhere...
the only thing I use the rubber hood for is the cushion it offers to the lens when I set it down...

so is the consensus hoods and no filters?

as you can see, i also "pulled the trigger" on the two lenses.

Congratulations on having made a positive choice...

Yes I'd get the hard hoods 1st... and yes I'd have filters too... Since these lenses both take the 58mm filter... You might wish to get at least one of the very best B & W or Heliopan UV filters for protection...

I use the UV filter for protection against beer splatter, grease and grime from peoples hair while in the pit, cause I don't use the hood at all...(it's too long and gets loose from time to time)... I can then switch to a fresh filter and continue shooting...

That said... shooting without any filters is probably the best way to go...ever since Rene' explained the reasons, most every one agrees on that...

So from my perspective...the UV filters are for physical protection of the lens as well as the hard hood...

bacchanal wrote in post #3276026
IS and USM on the Canon. I don't think the Sigma/Tamron wide zooms are really known for low light performance. The AF on the newer Sigma 18-55 macro is supposed to be a little better than the older non-macro version.

I've done really good with my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, but when light is minimal, the 50mm or faster is worthy of hanging onto.