Glass

[jpkuckens]

I'm looking to get a new lens to accompany (replace) my (shitty) rebel XT kit lens. I'll mainly use it for concerts and similar low-light situations (aka narrows center for the arts). I have virtually no money so my favorite choices right now are:

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8-unlikely

I've read that for smaller venues I can get away with a fast prime versus an expensive zoom, but I guess all i can really do is try it out...that's the beauty of digital

[headnugg]

I

Canon 50mm f/1.8
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Canon 85mm f/1.8-unlikely

how much are each? I'm in the same boat as you but I just bought a 20D w/the kit lens.....

[Phrazz]

The difference between f1.8 and 1.4 is noticeable.

The cost is not much more (a bit over/under 3 bills).

Get one at a time 'til you learn what it can do. That'll also help you pick the next lens (do you want wider, or closer?).

[Guest]

well, the main reason i'm in hte market at all is because i'm going to be helping with, if not outright doing, the photography at my school's annual jazz show. I just got back from a hypnotist show in the same auditorium under virually the same lighting conditions i'll encounter, and the kit lens was dismal at best. Setting the ISO at 800 helped a lot for exposure, but the 55mm end, even sitting in the 3rd row, was quite distant and at a tortise-slow f/5.6. That sigma 28-70 f/2.8 would be great in terms of aperture, but I'm not convinced the 70mm would be close enough. I've since been looking at things like canon 7/75-300 f/4-5.6 (bad reviews), sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 (mixed reviews), and other similar tamron/canon lenses. A tripod would be impractical and cumbersome, and I find monopods odd and inefficient.

I guess I'm looking for something that doesn't exist. The thing I have to keep in mind is that in reality this lens will be more of a learning experience-I'm a student who's looking for his first lens besides the kit, not an intermediate to advanced photographer who... well, who has money.

[jpkuckens]

i'm the "guest" above... stupid message boards

[You know -- you can EDIT your posts... like this: ]

well, the main reason i'm in hte market at all is because i'm going to be helping with, if not outright doing, the photography at my school's annual jazz show. I just got back from a hypnotist show in the same auditorium under virually the same lighting conditions i'll encounter, and the kit lens was dismal at best. Setting the ISO at 800 helped a lot for exposure, but the 55mm end, even sitting in the 3rd row, was quite distant and at a tortise-slow f/5.6. That sigma 28-70 f/2.8 would be great in terms of aperture, but I'm not convinced the 70mm would be close enough. I've since been looking at things like canon 7/75-300 f/4-5.6 (bad reviews), sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 (mixed reviews), and other similar tamron/canon lenses. A tripod would be impractical and cumbersome, and I find monopods odd and inefficient.

I guess I'm looking for something that doesn't exist. The thing I have to keep in mind is that in reality this lens will be more of a learning experience-I'm a student who's looking for his first lens besides the kit, not an intermediate to advanced photographer who... well, who has money.

[or I can edit them for you -- but it's easier for me if you edit them instead ;-} ]

[Phrazz]

well, the main reason i'm in hte market at all is because i'm going to be helping with, if not outright doing, the photography at my school's annual jazz show.

Thanks for that little tidbit. Of course we should have asked what you wanted to shoot exactly, and under what kind of lighting conditions and range.

I just got back from a hypnotist show in the same auditorium under virually the same lighting conditions i'll encounter, and the kit lens was dismal at best. Setting the ISO at 800 helped a lot for exposure, but the 55mm end, even sitting in the 3rd row, was quite distant and at a tortise-slow f/5.6. That sigma 28-70 f/2.8 would be great in terms of aperture, but I'm not convinced the 70mm would be close enough. I've since been looking at things like canon 7/75-300 f/4-5.6 (bad reviews), sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 (mixed reviews), and other similar tamron/canon lenses. A tripod would be impractical and cumbersome, and I find monopods odd and inefficient.

So you need at least 100mm it sounds, but what's your budget for a good lens? You seem to be able to pick a fixed position, so the zoom is less of a consideration if dim lighting and no tripod ability are also factors. So you need like an 85mm 1.8 or better, there's a 1.2 and a 1.4 in the Canon family that are good, and some higher that aren't so good. With fixed lenses, you really want to be under 2.0 or it's probably dim glass. For jazz photography, you need high dynamic range (lots insist B&W is the only way to go for jazz, so you need more color depth to start with to get more greyshades...and also need to shoot a lot in RAW). You can get some kickass shots with the 2.8 70-200 IS, but you're looking a grand and a half for that Canon cannon...though it's a beautiful lens and extremely diverse for live music photography and highly dynamic material (tigers, etc).

I guess I'm looking for something that doesn't exist. The thing I have to keep in mind is that in reality this lens will be more of a learning experience-I'm a student who's looking for his first lens besides the kit, not an intermediate to advanced photographer who... well, who has money.

Hey man, don't be so hard on yourself! You're trying to fit some gear into a known image space, so you just have to look at the technical environment and ask a few questions. I think now we know what you want and can give some better advice. I am guessing your subjects don't move a lot...so you can get away with 800ISO but the texture is also nice for jazz photography and also for B&W. Some 1600s are dirty on various models, and the RAW and bit depth will be a big factor there. Also the focus is key and a bright lens lets you see sharper so you can do more manual focus and play with field depth. That's also key...stay with the eyes if you can, but you need at least 70-100mm to see well enough at third row or more. Less you can go 28-70 and it's always good to have both (and a super wide for band shots...if you shoot big bands which I don't think you're talking about).

If the lighting is really an auditorium (means usually dismal) then you might also need some kind of light to make it really crispy. Flashes are obnoxious but fixed lights are getting smaller. I don't know how much creative space you have but that will help make up for limits or defects in what the lens (and to an extent the camera) can do.

[jpkuckens]

I just took a look at some of the shots of the hypnotist show, i guess they could be worse... 80% of them are blurry, but then again i was shooting at 1/3 second most of the time...

Flash definitely is not an option-- I actually talked to some of the kids who were in deep hypnosis and they said they could see the flash in the audience and were annoyed by it, but that's nothing I didn't already know. I guess it depends on where I'm going to be allowed to stand/move around... If I can get up close then I'd definitely go with the 50mm f/1.8, but If I'm any farther away than where the soundboards are right in front of the stage (seems odd that clinton isn't behind one of them) then I'm probably forced to go with something at least 100mm like you said...

I want to think that with a slower telephoto zoom, like a tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6, I could get away with that slowness by waiting for a great lighting moment--we have a pretty good lighting crew, and that would probably capture the mood much more effectively than me taking blurred, dark shots when the lighting isn't right...

Also, there WILL be alot of movement--there's a friggin regiment of jazz dancers on stage between the soundboards and the band in back half the time...If they weren't so attractive, I'd probably be more annoyed

Theres this other kid, a silly underclassmen, who goes to every production/concert/play toting his sony h-5, who has no courtesy for the "no flash" rule. I'll try to talk to him about the lighting during the big production I'll be shooting (and make sure he's not there too.)

Until I know any more, I'll just go back to scouring amazon, B&H, Adorama and eBay every 5 minutes hoping for a miracle.

[jpkuckens]

wow that 2.8 70-200 IS is nuts...SOME DAY

[Phrazz]

wow that 2.8 70-200 IS is nuts...SOME DAY

Any time you can find me at a show, you can borrow any of the lenses I'm not using. I usually bring 3 or 4 to most shows.

Sell the f1.8 50mm and get the f1.4 (just the regular, you don't need the L).

Flares are a factor -- use lens hoods whenever shooting into the lights. Sometimes flares are cool and add legitimacy to the photo, but please keep these off of the subjects' faces! ;-} [tilt & swivel]

1/3 s is a "must have tripod" or a fixed position (back of a chair, pole, etc). If the subject is moving at all, fahgetaboutit (creative shot ;-}). I try to stabilize against anything at any slower than 1/50s (with IS you can do OK down to about 1/30 - 1/40). Don't be afraid of monopods...but any stick will get in the way (sometimes good if you can carve a spot, but you'll get beat up if you camp out too long ;-}).

Part of the game is to have fun, but also to use all the lenses so you see what they can do and vary the ISO as much as you can and don't forget to bump up to +2 EV if you really can't use flash or get any blur. I almost always bump to +2 EV anyways so I can shoot lower ISO and faster speeds. Much crispier and can get noisy when the CCD is hot (amps make more noise when hot). When cold, you get dark noise.

Film is better of course. ;-}

-Phrazz

[jpkuckens]

yeah, film is better, but digital is easier. I sure as hell have alot left to learn, but I wouldn't have learned what I know now nearly as fast had it not been for the handy LCD and delete button.

I've decided that the 50mm (f/.14 or f/1. still wouldn't be close enough for me, but thats assuming I'll be sitting somewhere near where I was last night.
For now (and I'm sure you've noticed I'm a fairly fickle person), I have my eyes on the 85mm or 100mm fixed telephotos from canon.

The kit lens isn't so bad if you pick the right situation. I was shooting my swim team for the school paper, and at first glance I thought the lighting would be too dim-but after some tweaking, I was able to get some decent shots of the divers, in mid-air, with no blur.

I'm not sure what you meant when you said "sell the 50 1.8 and get the 1.4"

[headnugg]

wow that 2.8 70-200 IS is nuts...SOME DAY

Part of the game is to have fun, but also to use all the lenses so you see what they can do and vary the ISO as much as you can and don't forget to bump up to +2 EV if you really can't use flash or get any blur. I almost always bump to +2 EV anyways so I can shoot lower ISO and faster speeds. Much crispier and can get noisy when the CCD is hot (amps make more noise when hot). When cold, you get dark noise.

Film is better of course. ;-}

-Phrazz

What does +2 EV mean?

[jpkuckens]

btw phrazz you can find me in one of your photos from narrows 10-27-06... im making a futile attempt to capture andrew's magic on paper birds with the crap video mode on my P&S

[jpkuckens]

what do you think of a sigma 28-105 f/2.8-4 aspherical

[sm]

im finding most of my concert photography lately has been shot with my 35mm F2 and my 50mm F1.8... im a big fan of the 50mm in general and would recommend it to anyone, especially for the cost. i picked up a 105mm vr lens at the end of the year and havent yet used it at a show... i really dont see myself having a need to go much longer than that... i sometimes found the 70-200 too long when i was shooting concerts, but that was just me.. everyone is going for something different.

[headnugg]

im finding most of my concert photography lately has been shot with my 35mm F2 and my 50mm F1.8... im a big fan of the 50mm in general and would recommend it to anyone, especially for the cost. i picked up a 105mm vr lens at the end of the year and havent yet used it at a show... i really dont see myself having a need to go much longer than that... i sometimes found the 70-200 too long when i was shooting concerts, but that was just me.. everyone is going for something different.

what would you recommend for someone who just bought a Canon 20D w/the 18-55mm kit lens? I'm looking to buy a lens that will allow me to zoom in more, and will be able to take good pics in low light situations(concerts). I don't have too much money to spend right now, so I'm looking for something inexpensive that I can replace at some point down the road.

Is there a Sigma that you think would work? Or even a low end Canon model.....I was looking at the canon 75-300 that costs around $200. I know this is by no means a "good" lens, but do you think it would provide what I need?

any/all help appreciated