Jump to content

Nikkor 85mm F1.8D lens Opera House shots


cecil_kent

Recommended Posts

I have been asked to take photos of plays at our local opera house. Mostly for

the actors to purchase. My usual interest is sports. I believe I need a

faster lens because I cannot use a flash during the performances.

 

My current equipment is a D70s, 70-200 f2.8, 18-70 f4.5, SB800. I believe I

need a 1.4 or 1.8 lens. The 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 maybe too short to fill the

frame. Even the 85mm maybe short. Estimate 60' to 140' distance.

 

I'm thinkikng about the the Nikkor 85mm f1.8D which is affordable. But I am

thinking long and hard about spending $380.

 

1.)I need a lens that can shoot the actors. If I have to get closer, so be it.

2.)I need a low light lens for basketball games (near the goal).

3.)My local Council photos on the 70-200 f2.8 are too dark unless I use a

flash.

4.)I read the 85mm 1.8 is a good portriat lens. But do I already have that

covered with the 18-70 and 70-200.

 

Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stage lighting is much brighter than you would think. I have done many photo stories on Plays,Opera's and the such, and I shoot the dress rehearsal.You get the best access and photos , you can even be on stage. I also shoot the dressing rooms,wings back stage, and from the orchestra pit.Your 2.8 lens will work just fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a gymnastic show on stage last year. I was thinking the same thing you are with my lense selections. The catch was I had to be at 1/180 ss or faster, to stop the action of the gymnasts. I borrowed a frinds 85mm 1.8, and found it to be slow focusing, and not long enough. I went to the dress rehursal to test it out. I ended up using my 80-200 in the end, at ISO 1600 at 2.8.

 

I think your 80-200 would be fine. Could you rent something to use, that way you don't invest in the lens and end up using what you already have? Or, can you go to the opera house and do some test shots, even on a different show? Or by the 50 1.8 to tide you over until you find out if you need something you don't have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kari,

 

Just wondering if you shoot Nikon or Canon. You mentioned that the 85/1.8 you borrowed was slow-focusing. Wondering because I often shoot with the Canon 85/1.8 and have found the AF speed to be very fast. Not that this would help the OP as he is obviously shooting Nikon, just curiousity on my part.

 

Anyway, back to the OP. Although I haven't shot alot of stage productions, I have often heard the advice as mentioned above to try to shoot dress rehearsals as opposed to during the production. Seems like good advice.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

I actually use a Fuji S3 with Nikon mount lenses. The 85 1.8 didn't seem to focus very fast (I have been getting used to the AFS lesnes), and it didn't give me much more zoom than my 50 1.8. I didn't feel it was worth the investment for me personally. I was glad to borrow it and try it out first, before I invested in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Stage lighting is much brighter than you would think. <

 

Yes it is brighter than most first envisage.

 

And the EV range is much greater than most might think also: depending upon the lighting changes and gels being used.

 

Whilst I agree, that 70to200F2.8 will be fast enough most of the time; you will really need to be steady if the lighting change is to one far spot only. Down around 1/8 or 1/15. Take a stick with you. Basically it all depends on the lighting sequences.

 

One advantage you have is that stage lighting creates usually always an high contrast scene, so AF should be slick.

 

The question implies that you have a static viewpoint: if this is correct, you should seek to remedy that, being able to move will create versatility that you can use to your advantage.

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the great information. I scheduled a test shoot for tomorrow morning. I will use my current 70-200 f2.8. I'm not used to shooting at such a slow speed. I'm used to sport photography. Never below 200. I'll knock the dust off my tripod and see how slow I can go. With my eyes, its hard for me to see blur on the LCD. I'll pick up a stronger pair of reading glasses before I shoot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took two test sessions on location before the actual shoot. I went with Aperture priority f2.8, 800 ISO, shot in RAW mode, post processing in PhotoShop and used Noise Ninja on the final photo. I wasn't too sure of how much to alter the temperature tweeking the RAW processing. AS SHOT always seemed too bright and saturated. Auto seemed a little bland. I finally went with AS SHOT, saved to .jpg and when sizing to 8"x10" clicked auto levels. I will include two of the final images.<div>00KJOb-35456484.jpg.58d27ebe0bc3a1cf0eef08d6bf7bb269.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...