Ls vs zoom vs primes

OK I just shot my husbands gig last weekend and wasn't happy with the AF on the sigma 30 (front focused worse at a distance then it did in my testing of close stuff.) I also used my 100 macro which worked better in my book then the sigma. I need another lens now since the sigma went back.

My husband told me I can have $1000 of the stimulus package!! Well now I don't know what to do. I only shoot gigs once a month or so. Some of them are for charity events and are outside. Some are in VERY dark bars. And some are on a stage with OK lighting. Now since these gigs aren't happening that often yet I need this lens to do double duty. I need it for a walk around. I shoot mainly gardens and flowers. I would like something wide, but not real wide.

Here are my ideas so far (please add anything you think may complicate things more :lol

-get the 17-55 since the IS may help keep things steady, but I won't be able to use it in the real dark bars.
-get the 24L, I worry it may be too wide for the stage shots, but it would be ok for the bars since they are small. Plus it's a great lens for my gardens and landscapes
-get the 35L, I worry it's not quite wide enough for the bars
-get a 20 for the landscapes and the sigma 30 until I find a good copy or get it fixed (which may take too much time) and the 50 1.4
-get the 24 2.8, 28 1.8 and 50 1.4

The band wants shots at every gig but are much more concerned with the stage shots, since they've played so many bars they all look the same. They really only use the shots for their web site and for smaller printing, but if they ever do promo shots for posters they'll need to be enlarged. But for ME I want them all to look good. I want a lens/es that I can do my stuff with as well since I'd use it more for me then for them.

I worry that going too wide will lose the band in the shots. I like to get a couple good group shots and shoot mostly one member at a time.

I was thinking of getting the 100 f/2/85 1.8 but the only thing I would use that for would be the gigs, I don't have any other use for it.

Please any advice would be great.

When I take pictures in bars/restaurants I usually use my 5D & 28 f/1.8 ... with the ISO at 1600 or 3200 I'm lucky to sneak out a 1/60 shutter speed at f/2. IMO, f/2.8 anything is too slow for low light indoors without flash.

So if it were me, I'd probably go for a prime collection like I have (28 f/1.8, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8)...and only the 85 if you really need reach. I don't really know what the layout is of the place and if something wider or longer would be better. Option B might be the 24L and maybe the 85 or 50.

24/1.4 and 50/1.4 ($1090+$300)

The 50 is out-of-stock at B&H and Adorama

Problem with primes: you can't stop at one.

shutterfiend wrote in post #5107010
24/1.4 and 50/1.4 ($1090+$300)

The 50 is out-of-stock at B&H and Adorama

Problem with primes: you can't stop at one.

That's an idea. I was also thinking of getting the 35L and the 24 2.8 for landscapes. I would love to get the 24 2.8 and the 35L and the 50 again but it's a lot of money!

The first 50 I had worked great, sharp wide open, fast and accurate AF, but I sold it for lack of use. I tried two others and neither was anywhere as good as the first.


ETA: in all honesty I don't really need too many lenses. I'd be happy with a good wide/normal and my macro and 200, I may get the 400 at some point, but I'm still not sure yet. I tend to sell stuff if I don't use it that much, which I now regret since I had such a great 50 and the 24 2.8 already.

timnosenzo wrote in post #5106954
When I take pictures in bars/restaurants I usually use my 5D & 28 f/1.8 ... with the ISO at 1600 or 3200 I'm lucky to sneak out a 1/60 shutter speed at f/2.

Yeah the bar they go back to next month I had ISO 3200 and f/2.0 and a shutter speed of 1/6. It was near impossible! They said they don't need too many new shots from that bar since I've shot them there twice already.

If its full frame go with the 35 1.4 if its a crop camera get the 24 1.4. A 35 on a crop give a FoV = to a 58 not wide. 24 will give you 38. Heres a shot I did of a band on stage with a 5D and a 35 1.4 about the FoV would be wit ha 40D and a 24 1.4

How about simply sending the 30 in for a focus adjustment? Then you're set.

I notice one recurring response to shooting in low light, and that is to shoot with a f1.2 to f2 lens. This is understandable, if you do not need the depth of field.
The band shot, that is posted, was shot at f4. If that same shot was done at f1.4, it would be much different because of the limited depth of focus.

If you are shooting a band, it would seem that you would need more depth of focus than f1.4 to f2 would provide. Maybe I'm wrong, since I don't do any photography of this type.

If I had to do this, I think I would use flash with the appropriate gel for color, and shoot at f4 to f8.

unless you really need wide (guessing as to how you said 24 may be too wide), 35L is just about the best lens you can ever get for a crop body, since it's very close to a 50 on a full frame.

LightRules wrote in post #5107601
How about simply sending the 30 in for a focus adjustment? Then you're set.

The sigma was sent back already

Don Powell wrote in post #5107913
I notice one recurring response to shooting in low light, and that is to shoot with a f1.2 to f2 lens. This is understandable, if you do not need the depth of field.
The band shot, that is posted, was shot at f4. If that same shot was done at f1.4, it would be much different because of the limited depth of focus.

If you are shooting a band, it would seem that you would need more depth of focus than f1.4 to f2 would provide. Maybe I'm wrong, since I don't do any photography of this type.

If I had to do this, I think I would use flash with the appropriate gel for color, and shoot at f4 to f8.

When shooting bands you need a fast lens. One gig I shot was so dark at 3200 ISO I was still getting shutter speeds of 1/6. f/4-8 would be a huge luxury and then it wouldn't matter what lens I had.

basroil wrote in post #5107941
unless you really need wide (guessing as to how you said 24 may be too wide), 35L is just about the best lens you can ever get for a crop body, since it's very close to a 50 on a full frame.

I'm leaning more towards the 35 out of the two. I would only need wider in real tight spaces and for the landscapes.

The sigma was only good inside. When I took it outside I wasn't too happy with the shots. It really seems to be only useful for the low light stuff for what I was shooting. I would consider getting it again but for the cost it would really once be used once a month or so. If I'm speding over $300 I need it to be a more useful lens. I don't mind spending more money if I can use it more. I'm almost tempted to get the 50 1.8 for the band stuff and spend the money on other things I need more, like a nice walkaround prime. But I worry about the poor AF in low light. If it had better MF I'd consider it more and not worry. If the sigma was around $200 I could see it being a real great lens. I did like it, but for what it is, it's too much money.

basroil wrote in post #5107941
unless you really need wide (guessing as to how you said 24 may be too wide), 35L is just about the best lens you can ever get for a crop body, since it's very close to a 50 on a full frame.

The beautiful thing about both the 35 1.4 and the 24 1.4 is there good wide open but really sing from 1.8---4.

Actually its 58 on a crop.