Switching Systems - Low light Concert Kit plan - Ideas?

[radiotyson]

<p>Hey Everyone,</p>

<p>I'm wondering if any of you have any input on my planned starter Nikon Kit to replace my current pentax rig. I shoot mostly Concert/Event photography and every once in a while some sports.<br>

Currently I have -<br>

Pentax k-x<br>

pentax FA 50mm 1.4<br>

Pentax kit lenses 18-55 & 55-200mm</p>

<p>I find the pentax lacking in autofocus speed especially in low light - and I feel I should invest in either Nikon or Canon at this point before I invest a ton in Pentax Glass.<br>

The kit I set up at Adorama includes:</p>

<p>Nikon d300s (refurb)<br>

Nikon 50mm f1.8 AF<br>

Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S DX<br>

Nikon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 DX (kit lens)<br>

Nikon 55-200 f4-5.6 ED-IF AF-S DX VR</p>

<p>The two primes is what I will use predominantly - The two zooms for fill in and the occasional outdoor shot - the 55-200 for sports until I can afford a 70-200 f2.8 VR<br>

<br />What do you think? Any experience with this gear?</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Just a suggestion: if you want low-light focus to be good, skip the 18-55 and the 55-200 lenses. Save up for a AF 85mm f1.4D Nikkor. It does pretty good in low-light situations... If that is not possible, then the AF 70-200mm f2.8G VR Nikkor, or the old AF 80-200mm f2.8D Nikkor.</p>

<p>The 'kit' lenses are good for sunshine and kids, but so-so for low-light events.</p>

<p> </p>

[radiotyson]

<p>Yeah I don't plan on using the 18-55 or 55-200 in low light - I can do fine with the 2 primes - Effectively 50mm and 75 mm with crop factor. The two zooms are just for that "other stuff" when a prime is a pain and i'm just getting snapshots in great outdoor lighting.<br>

I like the looks of the 80-200 f2.8 nikkor.</p>

[samuel_lipoff]

<p>I don't see much reason to choose a D300 over a D90, but a huge reason to choose a D700 over a D300 if you do low-light. If you do need to go with the DX sensor body, I would think the 85/1.8 would be more useful than the 50/1.8 for event-type photography. The 85/1.8 focuses much faster than the 85/1.4, but it's not as sharp at f/1.8 and isn't as dreamy in the out of focus areas. I much prefer the 85/1.4 despite the focus speed, but the 85/1.8 is a very reasonable choice for event photography. Also, while the 35/1.8 is a fine lens, you might be happier with something a little wider on a DX body, like a 24/2.8. But the speed of the 35/1.8 might well make up for that.<br>

But seriously, the old adage about the lenses being more important than your body goes out the window where the D700 is concerned. If there's anyway you can afford it, the jump to an FX sensor completely changes the game for low-light. </p>

[radiotyson]

<p>Ohhhh - to be able to grab the d700 - Unfortunately its at least $1000 bucks more than the d300s. I just can't see myself being able to afford that any time soon.</p>

<p>As for the 85mm lenses - typically it's just way too close for me. Usally the 50mm is too much - I have to shoot the opposite side of the stage instead of whats right in front of me. the 24 f2.8 would be a nice addition for those well-lit concert halls where there is about 2 inches of space between the security barrier and the stage.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>An important reason to pick the D300/D300S over the D90 is AF capability, both under dim light and for sports. The OP can apparently take advantage of that under both situations.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>The 35 1.8 and 50 1.8 are adequate but too near each other for my taste. I would get a d90 and up the lenses myself. </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>35, 50, 85 are concert staples. Whatever combination you can afford, I really rely on the 85 a lot, I use D200 so your D90 or D300 will do even better.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you indeed want to get a 85mm AF lens, there is also the f1.8 option, a lot less expensive than the f1.4.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i'm not sure why you would get the kit zooms at all since that defeats your stated purpose of low-light concert photography.</p>

<p>you really only need one 1.8 or 1.4 prime. not sure why you need two so close to each other in focal range.</p>

<p>also you should get a 2.8 zoom. if 85 and 50 mm is too close, a 17-50 tamron or 18-50 sigma HSM should be about perfect. the tamron has slightly better optics, the sigma faster AF. later on you can upgrade to a nikon 17-55.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>you are probably very skilled using primes for events. tried it once and went back to zoom. i will echo eric in why bother with the kit zooms. why not just get the 85mm f/1.8?</p>

<p>the 55-200mm might disappoint you in sports. how about the old nikon 80-200mm f/2.8?<br /> or the sigma 50-150mm f/2.8, excellent for sports, portraits, concerts and other events.</p>

<p>well, the kit zooms don't cost that much and are actually very good lenses. i use the 55-200mm vr even for shoots that i get paid for. so why not, go ahead and get hem.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>I've used the 20, 24, 35, 50, 85 all with great success when I can get close to the action. <br>

I shot a band at 4th and B in San Diego and I was very happy to have rented a 70-200VR I. I desperately needed that reach and the VR made the shots possible. I've needed a lens in the 105-135 range several times and the 70-200 fit the bill. It's not as fast as the 105 or the 135 but the VR helped make up for that.<br>

The kit zooms for what you're doing won't cut it in my experience. YMMV</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you wanted a longer lens which would work for both sports and concert photography, the sigma 50-150 is a good choice. it focuses-super fast on a d300. it's lighter than the 70-200 so as long as you maintain a fast shutter, VR is largely extraneous. since VR wont stop motion blur, you still need a fast shutter for action shots. slowing down the shutter to 1/15-1/60 to take advantage of VR will only help with still or not very active subjects, like jug bands. for rock band shots you want a faster shutter since they jump around so much.</p>

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

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I prefer ATCQ era q-tip:)</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>leslie, i saw Tip last year at OutsideLands. he was phenomenal. he did a bunch of tribe stuff and even brought Phife out for one song. i saw Tribe back in the day but honestly they were just ok live...tip is much better as a solo artist IMO.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I use two bodies, one with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC, the other with a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 HSM and a monopod. Great combination for a great price.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Eric---</p>

<p>I just dig the low end theory, that's all. None of his work after resonate with me.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>From my experience, you don't have the time to go switching lenses during a concert. If you want to go the "prime route" then you'll need multiple bodies.<br>

If it's smaller clubs you work where you can get close you'll do everything with a 24/28-70 2.8 zoom, nikkor or Sigma certainly with a D90, D300 or better. If the venues are bigger look at a 70/80-200 2.8 zoom.</p>

 

[janos_kovacs]

<p>For low light event work the D300s over the D90 makes sense and definitely is a good choice.<br>

From my experience it is possible to change prime lenses during the event, but it's difficult, time consuming, and at the expense of missing out shots. You do not always have room to move around so "zooming" with a prime becomes a challenge. On the top of this, a prime (85mm) set at f 1.4 will give you a very shallow DOF so to get people in focus is difficult. You will need to step down from wide open at times.<br>

35 or 50mm might not be occasionally long enough. <br>

If I were you I'd try to get the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (Tamron 17-50 if on very low budget) and the 80-200mm f.2.8. These 2 lenses will allow you to address more than properly low light events and lot of other work.</p>

 

[chris_gampat]

<p>Tyson, you should forget about most of those lenses can just get the 24-70mm F2.8 ED. Since you've got a cropped sensor, it's all you'll need for the most part. I've reviewed them with a D3s and D300s. http://thephoblographer.com/2010/04/01/field-review-nikon-d300s-final-day-pax-east/<br>

My friend has the 35mm and uses it more for portraits than she does concerts.<br>

I hope this helps. On the bright side, it will also reduce the gear in your bag.</p>

[bryan_woodward]

<p><strong><<Pentax user warning>></strong><br>

I'd be best advised not to get in the way of a man and his LBA/CBA. Switching platforms is exciting, with the ever optimistic hope that it'll be the panacea to unlocking better photography skill.<br>

I think it has subtly come out in some of the Nikon recommendations, but, what did you expect from *any* platform's kit lens? I think your expectations were a bit high for successfully pulling off concert photography, frankly.<br>

I recognize that Pentax has been thoroughly dinged for (K10D, K20D) low light A/F performance against its contemporaries, but the K-X and K-7 are fairly much even par for the AF course at this point. I think you need to try out some real glass on the k-x (taking advantage of its high ISO performance to boot) before completely jumping ship. Otherwise, you may not find that the grass is so green -- especially if you're going to fall into the same kit lens trap as you've hinted.<br>

<strong>A good blanket approach</strong>:<br>

I recommend the DA* 50-135mm f/2.8. This with high ISO kicked in on the k-x will be a killer combination.<br>

<strong>Cheaper but equally high quality low light alternatives:</strong><br>

DA 70mm f/2.3, FA 77mm f/1.8 limited. Don't forget about the FA 50mm f1.4 which can pull off some nice low light photos as well.<br>

<strong>More expensive Prime lens options:</strong><br>

Since were talking Nikkor level prices, you can also consider FA* 85mm f/1.4 available now, or the new Sigma 85mm 1.4 slated for release next month. </p>