Is Canon 24/105 F4 IS good enough for concert pictures ?

Hi everybody,

 

I'm Laurent, a french journalist/photographer.

 

I've got a Canon EOS 350 D with a Sigma 28/70 F:2.8 lens.

 

I was pretty happy of that setting, but my Sigma lens is dying slowly (autofocus

doesn't work anymore when there's not enough light)

 

Like I said, I'm a journalist and I take concert photos with credential which

means I've got usually the first 3 tracks to take pictures in the photopit

WITHOUT flash (it's just forbidden by most of the bands).

 

I assume many of few may have higher standards concerning photo quality and I

have to precise I'm doing photos in the first place because I take care of my

media on my own. Then I'm not so meticulous. All I want is my pictures to be

bright enough.

 

As the Sigma is dying, I'm looking for a new lens.

 

Canon 24/70 F2.8 might be the perfect choice but it's a bit too expensive for me.

 

Then I'm hesitating between Canon 24/105 F:4 IS and Tamron 28/75 F:2.8 ?

 

I would love to get the Canon, because I would have a higher reach with it and

you're limited with 70 sometimes. But on the other hand, I'm really afraid to

try a F:4 lens for concert pictures without flash.

 

Do you think F:4 is enough to do something decent in indoor situation without

flash ?

 

 

Here is 2 live report with photo taken with my Sigma, one with very good lights

on stage and one with poor lights.

 

Good lights (Wembley Arena):

http://heavymusic.free.fr/heavymusic2/concert%20review/hhwembley/hhwembley.php

 

Poor lights (a smaller venue in Belgium with really few lights):

http://heavymusic.free.fr/heavymusic2/concert%20review/sepultorhout/sepultorhout.php

 

 

I guess with a good setting on stage, the Canon can do a way better job, but I'm

a bit sceptical concerning low lights situation in small venue.

 

Thank you for your answers !

What f-stops do you normally shoot at? If it were me, I'd be looking for at least 2.8 for the kind of work that you're doing. Remember IS is not going to help for moving subjects.

http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i

Sheldon is right, f4 is too slow for many concerts. I usually shoot with f2 primes, 35mm and 50mm (f1.8 really) on 1.3 and 1.6 bodies. Even then, I can get caught by subject motion.

Like Jeff & Sheldon say, f/4 is very slow indoors, esp. for a dReb. Canon AF system especially like f/2.8 or faster lenses and most especially indoors.

"Do you think F:4 is enough to do something decent in indoor situation without flash ?"

 

Not a chance if someone is moving around. In small venues even f2.8 is often slow.

50 mm f1.8. 100mm f2.0. Second body

Yeah, you might be better off keeping the Sigma lens and getting a newer/better camrea body. A 30D would cost less than either the 24-105 or the 24-70.

 

Agreed, the f4 of the 24-105 is a problem. I.S. can help you shoot at slower shutter speeds, but that doesn't stop subject movement.

 

On the other hand, there's not much price difference between the Canon 24-105 IS and their 24-70/2.8 (which would have been the lens I'd recommend).

 

Some faster alternative would be primes: 28/1.8, 35/2 (AF not so good), 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2 and 135/2. You might be able to get two or three of these, for the price of a 24-105 or 24-70. A little less convenient to use, in some repsects, but faster AF and bigger aperture as well (for faster shutter speeds in low light).

Note: (which would have been the lens I'd recommend) *if* you absolutely had to have a zoom and didn't already have a 24- or 28-70/2.8.

No. I would look at the 135 f/2, the 50 f/1.2, and the 24 f/1.4 as a good set of concert

lenses.

I would also use fast primes for these situations, and, if necessary, buying a second 350D body, to lessen the number of lens changes.

 

It is most likely that the history of shots with the Sigma F2.8 reveals the necessity for a lens faster than F2.8 to adequately freeze subject movement.

 

Obviously my comment (and others) implies that subject movement being frozen is a requirement of an `acceptable` image: indeed it might not be.

 

WW

<i>Obviously my comment (and others) implies that subject movement being frozen is a requirement of an `acceptable` image: indeed it might not be.</i><p>Subject motion is not a requirement for good images, but in this case, when it's for publication, having only images that suffer from subject motion is a bad thing. Also, looking at Laurent's images, it would appear that subject motion is not, at least so far, part of the game.

>>> Subject motion is not a requirement for good images, but in this case, when it's for publication, having only images that suffer from subject motion is a bad thing. <<< (JS)

 

Agree 100%.

 

And BTW, (in case it was thought so), my sentence quoted was not to address any other post specifically: but merely to mention, generally, that subject motion is not always a bad thing.

 

>>> Also, looking at Laurent's images, it would appear that subject motion is not, at least so far, part of the game. <<< (JS)

 

Yes, the published images were previously noted: hence my suggestion for fast primes and perhaps another body to make such capture easier.

 

My comment regarding the history of the shots with the Sigma, referred to those images not displayed / published.

 

WW

Looking at the live pictures at http://heavymusic.free.fr makes me think some subject motion (and perhaps wider angle) would be nice addition. It feels odd to see just frozen images of guys like Sepultura's or Haunted's guitarists. I play that sort of music myself and if a photog portrayed me as still life in all shots I'd give him a funny look or two.

Right hand picking 400 times per minute and 22 inches of hair flowing...

 

Ok, this is aesthetics and off-topic, but I think Laurent needs both sharper and more blurry pictures. A fast prime or two solves this nicely.

I might add the Tamron you mention is a notorious backfocuser -- mine is -- and f2.8 at all focal lengths produces extraordinarily bad IQ compared to other apertures, all of which are extremely good. If you can't afford the Canon 24-70, I would suggest looking at the Sigma 24-70 -- but at least get a new one from a shop where you can readily return or exchange in case its not up to snuff.

Laurent--

 

In addition to getting a couple of good fast primes (f:2 or faster), if I were you I'd sell or trade that 350D for a 40D:

 

For one thing, the 40D can go up to ISO 3200, plus it has an additional high ISO noise suppression option which works beautifully.

 

With my own indoor rock concert shots, such as in the sample linked below, I've had to do very little noise reduction in ACR and PS-CS3. In that shot and the rest of the shots in that same gallery) I set the ISO at 3200 with that new feature turned on and the 40D set at 6.5 frame/sec. (the 350D only goes up to 3 frames/sec as I recall):

 

http://www.pbase.com/sloopjohne/image/89976064

 

As you can see, the stage lighting was extremely limited. Yet using the aforementioned settings combined with my fast primes (in this shot, Canon EF 100mm/f:2 USM) I was able to freeze the action in most of my shots. With the lenses wide open, the shutter speeds I got ranged from 1/90 sec. to 1/250 sec., which resulted in little to no motion blur.

 

Good luck!

thank you all for all your answers !

 

Finally as I found an american shop able to ship lens in France, I choose Canon 24/70 cause with the lower US price and the dollar/euro conversion, it's not that expensive anymore. Actually it's half the french price which is great :-)

You can see some images I have taken with the 24-105 IS here (starting at image 21), so that you can judge yourself: http://www.rocktrip.de/pics/30.08.2007/slides/Web-IMG_6628.html