A good lens for concerts?

[authoritee]

<p>I've been shooting concerts with a Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens, but I feel the focal length range too limiting for my likings. Besides, it does not have a very good aperture at 55mm and doesn't have IS to compensate for it when handholding (which is most typical in concerts). I've been thinking of acquiring the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM Lens, how do you guys rate this lens? How do you compare it with the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens?</p>

<p>If you know of any other lens that could give me such a range, or similar to it, let me know please. It would be even better if it was not EF-S, so that it could fit a Full Frame body.</p>

<p>Yes, I know that the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is an excellent lens for concerts, I have it, but there are just some concerts where I do not feel safe taking that flashy lens together with my camera... Besides, I like taking shots of the full scenario too, resulting in the use of wide angles.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>maybe a tamron 28-75 or an 85 1.8. Both are full frame lenses. </p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>You might find this helpful<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/100-2">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/100-2</a></p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't understand why your IS wouldn't work for "hand-held" since that is what is it <em>for?</em></p>

<p>I'm one of the fans of the 17-85mm IS lens here, but whatever its strengths, I think shooting concerts would not be one of them. What you probably need to do is to get some fast primes, the fastest you can afford.</p>

<p>A nice 50mm will be a short telephoto on your body now. An 85mm lens will be as long, in effect, as most traditional photographers before the 1970s ever had on their 35mm cameras. There are some bargains in this class, the 50mm f/1.8 being the outstanding example of a something otherwise unheard of, "a good <em>and</em> cheap lens". The 85mm f/1.8 is not outrageous in price and there are some bargains in 135mm fast telephotos too.</p>

<p>If you are very wealthy (you are sending mixed signals here shooting with a kit lens and an L lens?), you could even go for the 50mm f/1.2 or the 85mm f/1.2, but take along a wheelbarrow to carry your money on the way to the store ;)</p>

<p>Primes will be great if these are the sort of concerts you can move around at. Otherwise, you may need to compromise and use a zoom, and you can't do better right now than the 70-200 you already have. By the bye, only fellow photographers will actually know that your lens is expensive, the rest will just know it is BIG, which they may, or may not, translate into "worth mugging for."</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i">http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i</a> for more info. If you think a 70-200 too flashy you may consider a prime.</p>

[ds_meador]

<p>Erwin,<br>

I was shooting this evening at a dance contest. It was crowded so I couldn't move around. I was using the 85 1.8 on my XSi and it was pretty long. No way to get more than 2 dancers in the frame holding portrait rather than landscape. I would have been better off with a 50 prime. As someone else suggested the Tamron 28-75 2.8 I guess I should add that I thought about that lens when shooting - I think it would have been the right lens for the job tonight.<br>

I hope this helps.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[authoritee]

<p>Let me clarify that I misplaced an IS in my question: the lens I use is the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens (not IS, sorry). That's why I don't find it good enough for hand-held, JDM.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is excellent, there's no discussing that, but I sometimes like to take wide shots of the whole scenario altogether, not just one specific artist's close-up. For that, I need a 35mm lens or less (I'd prefer something closer to 18mm).</p>

<p>I like prime lenses, I'll admit, but I find it uncomfortable to change lenses during a concert; you never know when the artist will be making that astonishing move that, if captured in a photograph, will be incredible to look at in the future. You might lose that moment while changing lenses. For events where I cannot control the action of the subject I'll be photographing, I'd rather have a zoom lens.</p>

<p>I've been using the kit lens because of it's focal length range, having the 18-24mm option the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L USM lacks. Also, it's much more lighter. I've been eyeing the Canon EF 16-35 f/2.8 L II USM lens too, because of the wide angle/constant aperture it offers, but I'd like "one lens to do them all" during a packed concert where I cannot feel very safe about my equipment.</p>

<p>The Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens offers me an excellent range, very much like what I'm looking for, and so does the Sigma 18-125mm f/3.8-5.6 DC OS HSM Lens, but I don't really know how Sigma's Optical Stabilization compares to Canon's Image Stabilization. Besides, although it wouldn't alter my selection in a definite manner, I dislike the idea that neither of them fit a Full Frame body. Can anyone shed some light comparing these two lenses, or at least the OS vs the IS?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>I can't comment on the differences between OS and IS but I found IS of little use for concert photography. Most of the time the artists move quite fast, in that case IS does not help much. Depending on the amount of light the fastest lens you can get is the best.</p>

[goulden]

<p>there is no 'do it all' lens for concert photography<br /> <br /> i'm a concert photographer for about 8 years now and through over 1000 bands photographed my top lenses for shooting are:</p>

<p>24-70 f2.8<br>

70-200 f2.8<br>

50mm f1.4<br>

10-22mm (though now upgraded to 16-35 f2.8 after changed to full frame)</p>

<p>Of those only the 70-200 has IS and that rarely comes into play as I'm usually working at shutter speeds close to where the persons movement is the limiting factor. Make sure you get lenses with apertures of f2.8, anything else, you'll struggle with.</p>

<p> </p>

[ds_meador]

<p>The Sigma 18-125 does not review so well. I have not used it though. You could look at the Canon 18-200 IS if you want to look at a broader focal range zoom.<br>

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is probably the closest to your kit lens and should be optically a good step up from the non-IS 18-55. Then, there is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS = $$$. That's all I can think of on the wider end that keep a fixed 2.8. I think Tokina makes a 16-50 2.8 too. I don't know if any of those work on FF.<br>

Going to the longer end, you have the 17-85 IS, the Sigma 17-70, the EF 24-85 and either Sigma or Tamron made a 24-135 at one point. I cannot comment on the IQ on any of those though. The 24-105 L might be a consideration, but I think f/4 would be limiting for concerts.<br>

Just some more options for you. Unfortunately, there is no "one lens does it all" for any of us.<br>

DS Meador</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>In the old days I pretty much used my 70-200mm f2.8 exclusive for concerts. In some of the bigger well lit concerts, some slower lens can get by. These days I have been employing the 2 camera system with either the 50mm f1.4 or more likely the 85mm f1.8 on my cropped sensor camera and a Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my other cropped sensor camera body and it has served me well - sometimes better than the 70-200mm f2.8 which is sometimes too slow in very dim lighting without cranking up the ISO.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Yes superzooms are convenient, but they are dim. For concerts you need large aperture.</p>

<p>As for image stabilization, it helps to control camera shake but it won't freeze action on the stage. You need high iso and large aperture.</p>

<p>I've seen some good results with Tokina 11-16/2.8. Yes it's a crop factor lens. Don't worry about it. If you move to full-frame just sell it. The ultra-wide angle gives cool perspectives, great for crowded bars. An added advantage of UWA is bigger depth-of-field at f/2.8 and less sensitivity to camera shake, compared to longer focal lengths.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8. I can tell you it's sharp even wide open, if you can keep yourself from pixel-peeping in the corners. At 17 mm it's 2x faster than the 17-85 you're eyeing up, and at 50 mm it's 4x faster.</p>

<p>Primes are very popular for shooting concerts. I've putzed around with my 50/1.8. This is a budget lens ($100), but it is sharp, if you manage to focus it correctly. It'll give you shutterspeeds 10x faster than you kit lens at 50 mm. f/1.4 lenses are 16x faster.</p>

<p>Primes are small, inexpensive, black, unobtrusive, and fast. Most (except Sigma 30/1.4) are full-frame compatible. Yes you'll have to change lenses, but with a bit of practice you'll get it down to a few seconds. In order to catch peak action you'll have to learn to anticipate. For security just get a little front pouch and work with that. Have a friend watch your back.</p>

[stamos]

<p>For concerts I am happy only with fast prime lenses without any filter on. For me there is no other choise. Better to avoid big white lenses that attract too much attention. This is just my opinion.</p>

[authoritee]

<p>Alright, I think I'll try out prime lenses then, instead of trying to get a "do-it-all" zoom. Thinking about buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and the Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM lenses then; good value, good aperture, both USM. Perhaps you know of some third-party lenses that compete with these two for a better value?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>I would take the 85mm f1.8 over the 50mm f1.4 because sometimes the 50mm hunts for focus and on a cropped sensor might not be long enough in some situations. I think the 50mm is not true USM ... check out the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 as well - I heard good things about it.</p>