Canon Rebel XTi concert photography

<p>I've got a Rebel XTi with a kit 18-55/3.5-4. I'm currently looking to get one or two more lenses. Particularly, I'm looking for something with more low-light capabilities (2.8 or faster). I've been looking at lenses in the 18-50 2.8 range and the by several makers. I like the range, but would it be foolish to get another lens with the same range, just slightly faster? I guess I could ditch the kit lens.</p>

<p>My interest is in small venue concert photography, which I have done with the kit lens, and even had some succes. Most people seem to recommend 50mm 1.8 for that, but I like the 18-50 range. I don't think a fixed length would be good for me, since I don't usually have the ability to move forward and backward very much, and 50mm is too tight for my taste. I like wider shots. I also do land and seascapes, and recently tried some portraits. More lenses seem necessary.</p>

<p>The Canon 16-35 2.8 would be nice, but I'm looking to spend $600 tops. I'm thinking a sigma 17-50 2.8 or tokina 11-16 2.8 (because of the 1.6x conversion). Plus a 35mm or 50mm 1.8.</p>

<p>What do you guys think? Opinions apreciated. Thanks.</p>

<p>f2.8 is very limiting for low light venues. You find yourself bumping the ISO to the max and possibly using flash. A fast prime is ideal here.</p>

<p>I usually shoot with a 17-55 f2.8 and all my primes(24L,50L and 85L). Check my slide shows of gigs using 30d, 40D and those lenses.<a href="

and <a href="

. I get more keepers with the primes.</p>

<p>What Angel said. For your budget, I'd go w/the 50/1.8 and 85/1.8.</p>

<p>For a budget of $600 the new Tamron 17-50 2.8 IS lens looks good. I personally prefer primes for concert photography my favorite being the 85mm on a 5d2. </p>

<p>The "new Tamron 17-50 2.8" Tommy mentioned has image stabilization, but Tamron calls it VC (vertigo control?) not IS, just in case you google for it. But for all I know the Canon mount is still pending, should be out before Xmas. Reports on the Nikon version are quite excellent so far.</p>

<p>Here is a good informative article by Jeff Spirer you should find helpful <a href="../learn/digital-photography-workflow/overview/event-photography/">http://www.photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/overview/event-photography/</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i">This photo.net article on concert photography</a> is from back in the film days, but it gives a pretty good background on the topic, including why no matter how fast a lens you have, you'll probably wish you had an even faster one. At least one advantage of digital cameras is that it's easier to crank up the ISO a notch than it was in the film days (particularly if you were already going to be pushing the film) and modern DSLRs have reasonably well-controlled noise at higher ISOs.</p>

<p >Being that you have a crop sensor, it would be almost useless to get a 16-35mmL because you wouldn’t be able to utilize the entire focal range. For your camera, I would suggest using the sigma 10-20mm, which is about $480. OR you can save some money and buy the Canon 10-22mm, which I think is a great lens. These are both EF-S lenses and should be a problem with your crop sensor camera. Also take into account what kind of effects you want to play with, by using your light sources. I’ve been doing pictures for shows, for a while now, and you can get EXTREMELY creative using the low light and direct light sources. Light paintings as well as motion blurs are easily accessible when shooting in these conditions. Also, think about using an off shoe flash and make use of the curtain flash function. This proves to come in VERY handy when you know what you’re doing. Having a fast lens doesn’t necessarily mean you will get the results you want… What I do most of the time is use the manual setting, set my shutter speed to BULB, and depending on whether (or not) I want to get some motion blurs or light steaks, I might just tap the shutter butter to get a crisp clear picture with no blurs or streaks, or I might hold the shutter release button down for a few seconds in order to get some blurs and streaks in my pictures. Also, BOUNCING light can produce very nice pictures if you are near a wall or if the ceiling is low.</p>

 

<p >Being that you have a crop sensor, it would be almost useless to get a 16-35mmL because you wouldn’t be able to utilize the entire focal range. For your camera, I would suggest using the sigma 10-20mm, which is about $480. OR you can save some money and buy the Canon 10-22mm, which I think is a great lens. These are both EF-S lenses and should be a problem with your crop sensor camera. Also take into account what kind of effects you want to play with, by using your light sources. I’ve been doing pictures for shows, for a while now, and you can get EXTREMELY creative using the low light and direct light sources. Light paintings as well as motion blurs are easily accessible when shooting in these conditions. Also, think about using an off shoe flash and make use of the curtain flash function. This proves to come in VERY handy when you know what you’re doing. Having a fast lens doesn’t necessarily mean you will get the results you want… What I do most of the time is use the manual setting, set my shutter speed to BULB, and depending on whether (or not) I want to get some motion blurs or light steaks, I might just tap the shutter butter to get a crisp clear picture with no blurs or streaks, or I might hold the shutter release button down for a few seconds in order to get some blurs and streaks in my pictures. Also, BOUNCING light can produce very nice pictures if you are near a wall or if the ceiling is low.</p>

 

Do you want to shoot the people on stage, or the audience?

 

For parties, I've had very good experience with the Sigma 30mm 1.4

<p>I have to agree with Angel here. Getting to 1.8 or faster will make a world of difference in this kind of low light setting. Assuming your subjects will be moving around, IS will be of limited use and the only thing that's going to work is a big aperture. </p>

<p>what about the DOF he will get with 1.8?</p>

Better to have limited DOF in a sharp picture, than have lots of DOF with everything blurry...

 

Also remember that a fast lens, even if stopped down, will still autofocus at maximum aperture, and in bad light, the difference between 1.4 and 2.8 can be a lot.

<p>Thanks for all the responses, guys. Lots of helpful advice. To answer a few questions, I prefer to not use flash most of the time, I feel like 50mm is too tight for my style, and I am shooting the musicians on stage, usually from the crowd/sidestage/front row area.</p>

<p>I know that I want 2 new lenses... for now. I'm thinking about the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8. I realize the range overlaps, but the 30mm is faster.</p>

<p>Also on the radar: Tokina 11-16mm 2.8, Sigma 28mm 1.8.</p>

<p>Which 2 out of these 5 make the most sense to have?</p>

The 28mm 1.8 is bigger and slower than the 30mm 1.4, so I'd forget about that one.

 

I'd get the Sigma 30mm, use it for a while and then get either the Tokina if you want to be able to go wider, or the Canon 50 1.8 if you want to go longer. (or both, it's not as if the Canon is expensive).