Following up - Lens for indoor ballet/dance show

<p>Hello again everyone! About 1,5 months ago I posted a question here asking which the right lens for indoor ballet/dance show. I was thinking at that time of buying the II version 70-200 f/2.8L lens and thought of renting the older version of 70-200 f/2.8L lens for my daughter's dance show as a try-out (as the new version wasn't available for rent anywhere yet).<br>

I have since received many useful responses and advices (which I appreciate very much!) so I thought of sharing some photos from that dance show here in this forum. Any comments, critiques and advices are welcomed. All photos were taken handheld (without tripod as I was sitting among the public and not enough space to put the tripod). Yes, my right upper arm and elbow were quite sore after holding this lens throughout the 3 hours show. As I mentioned earlier the lens I used was the older version of 70-200 f/2.8L with Canon 7D. I used mostly Tv mode (and Av mode once in a while) with high ISO. <br>

Best regards<br>

HENDRASTI Danti.</p><div></div>

<p>Another photo from the show</p><div></div>

<p>Nice job, just have to work with the limited DOF (on the first one dancer is back is out of focus) but looks very good - IS would help if you have to shoot at such a low shutter speed.</p>

<p>[[All photos were taken handheld (without tripod as I was sitting among the public and not enough space to put the tripod). Yes, my right upper arm and elbow were quite sore after holding this lens throughout the 3 hours show.]]</p>

<p>That's why the photography gods invented the monopod. :)</p>

 

<p>Hi Rob.... :) I don't have one yet.... I will be buying one soon.... thanks for reminding me.</p>

<p>Hi Mark...thanks! I'll keep that in mind. I was a bit panicking at that time. It was my very first attempt to take photo of an indoor show with a "proper" camera & lens so it was a little bit of trials and errors.</p>

<p>Here's another photo in B&W... it's actually a bit blur but I kind of like the "ghostly" effect :)</p><div></div>

<p>Danti,<br>

I think it was a very nice first effort. Why shoot in TV instead of AV? If you set AV and f2.8 you will always get your fastest shutter speed for the available light. You could even underexpose slightly to wring a bit more shutter speed out of the light. The wide-open f-stop will make you use the center focus dot and concentrate on what you want in focus.<br>

Mark</p>

<p>[[iS would help if you have to shoot at such a low shutter speed.]]</p>

<p>Which would have turned the dancers into a blur. Certainly there are times when this might be aesthetically pleasing but probably not the desire for every photo.</p>

<p>Hi Mark Atwell! I thought by setting it on Tv I would be able to control the shutter speed.... hence I could decide when I want to freeze a movement or create a bit of movement, although honestly, many times I didn't really get the effect that I wanted anyway... and at some point, I accidently switched off the AF button on the lens and wasn't able to focus at all. I got really panicked and tried to figure out what went wrong (and obviously in the meantime I lost so many good moments)... I only solved the problem almost 15 minutes later when my husband (who - I thought - doesn't know much about photography stuff) told me to check the AF/MF switch on the lens :)) I felt quite stupid! I do have a lot to learn. Thanks for the advice... I should put it on practice in the future.<br>

Here another photo that I'm quite happy with the result.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>some photos from that dance show here in this forum. Any<strong><em> comments, critiques and advices are welcomed.</em></strong> . . . 70-200 f/2.8L with Canon 7D.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you did well, thanks for sharing.<br>

With those three examples it seems you didn’t have much light, which was an alert I mentioned on previous thread.<br>

With only an F/2.8 lens and that low light: I might have been inclined to push to ISO6400 and use another stop of Tv.</p>

<p>Stage lighting is often problematic for dance, when the faces are turned downward – I think with some PP you can get more out of the faces in shots similar to this one, irrespective of agreeing or not with my interpretation of the colours / exposure and etc – I think the faces are better lit in the second PP.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>.</p><div></div>

<p>..</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry William, I think the original is better. Looks more natural.<br>

Its theater lighting.. it must show that.<br>

jan</p>

<p>Absolute. Opinions varying. I appreciate yours.<br>

WW</p>

Agreed. I like original better. The lighting makes the shot.

<p>Danti, yes by setting the camera to TV you are controlling the shutter speed. I guess I'm used to trying to freeze the motion as much as possible in dim light. And I agree with William W. about using a very high ISO, then using some noise processing program (Noise Ninja) to fix the noise in your computer.<br>

I like your shots!</p>

<p>Hi Everyone! Thank you so much for all the inputs, comments/critiques and advices with regards to my photos. I have since bought the II version of this lens and... and yes, Rob... I've bought a monopod as well :) A superb lens indeed! and I'm looking forward to go out (as soon as I get rid of this flu!) and to take more photos. Practice... practice... and more practice that's the only way, I guess. <br>

Enjoy the rest of your week, guys! Thanks again.<br>

Best regards, DANTI. </p><div></div>