Urgent advice on a travel lens

[israel]

<p>I'm traveling in Israel and am using an a Fuji S3Pro & 18-55 VR for street photography as well as shooting outdoor concerts at night. For the latter I shoot mainly at ISO 1600; 55mm f/5.6. I am constantly bumping up at the far end of the lens.<br /><br />I have subsequently tried out two other lenses:<br /><br />- Sigma 18-125 (non OS) -- $250<br />- Tamron 28-300 LD (non VC) -- free<br /><br />The Sig, at the store, where I took some nice shots of passers by, although I was disappointed that the lens often struggled to focus, whereas the Nikkor 18-55 never hesitated once, even when pushed to its limits in low light. <br /><br />I then went on to try a friend's Tamron 28-300. I got some keepers in daylight although the lens also struggled to focus until ... it fell apart!<br /><br />At which point my friend told me she'd dropped it some time ago and perhaps time had taken its toll, and the lens lost a screw and what looks to be a tiny gear...<br /><br />Based on what I found at KEH it would be cheaper to buy a used one than have it repaired.<br /><br />Anyway, I am no closer to finding a solution. I don't know if the Sigma 18-200 ($300) or the Nikkor 85/1.8D ($500) would be any better?<br /><br />Certainly in terms of speed the 85 mil would be a no brainer but as we all know the versitality of a zoom is not to be sneezed at, esp. when travelling (and truth be told at this point I prefer to spend my cash on my travels than on a higher-specced zoom)<br /><br />I also imagine that either the Sig 18-125 or the Sig 18-200 would be faster at 55mm than the Nikkor 18-55, though Im not sure what good that would do me if the buggers won't focus quick enough.<br /><br />Or am I being too fussy, painting myself into a corner 'cos of the heat in this corner of the world?<br /><br />Any advice would be most welcome.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

[jim_mohundro1]

<p>If you can stretch to the $500 (which seems high for a Nikkor 85mm AF f/1.8, you could, with judicious shopping, probably come up with a good used 16-85mm Nikkor VR for a similar price. When I went to full-frame (D700), I sold my 16-8 on Craig's List for $500 and noted over the couple days it was listed several other listings around the same price. I used the 16-85 almost exclusively on my D80 in Spain, the south of France and London last summer and it's a spendid lens, one that I would have kept but for the D700 purchase.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>16-85 or 18-200 are great choices for travel. Any lens that starts at 28 is a bad idea for DX camera travel, though.</p>

[israel]

<p>Hi. Thanks for the quick replies! The prices Im quoting are Israeli (converted to US dollars), as I would be buying here to get a lens fairly quickly rather than wait for it to be shipped, sit in customs, pay duties etc.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"shooting outdoor concerts at night" </em> Have you considered the 50mm f1.8 (or the 50mm f1.4 AFS if your body doesn't have a built-in motor)?</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"shooting outdoor concerts at night" </em> Have you considered the 50mm f1.8 (or the 50mm f1.4 AFS if your body doesn't have a built-in motor)?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ok, here's the thing: for concert shooting or other low-light situations, especially with an older high ISO-challenged body, forget variable aperture lenses. you want fast glass. if you can't swing a 2.8 zoom, go with a prime. if you want to do street as well as concerts, i would strongly consider the 50/1.8 over the 85. it's a lot easier on the budget too. in fact, you could get the 50 as well as the 55-200 VR, which is an excellent travel telezoom, for less than the price of the 85 alone.</p>

<p> </p>

[vince-p]

<p>He said he's looking or something longer than 55mm. The 16-85 IS a great lens but the 85/1.8 is far better for at night, it gives you the long end of the 16-85, you already have the shorter end in your perfectly adequate 18-55, costs the same, and is optically better than any other lens discussed. Plus, in my opinion, as good as zooms are, the use of a good prime teaches a discipline of vision and a means of taking control of your photograph that the zoom doesn't. So, all in all, I'd strongly go for the 85/1.8. There's a Tamron 90 macro around the same price also excellent b y all reports, but I haven't tried it. And I think it's f/2.8 which is a stop and a third slower.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>85/1.8 would be excellent for concerts, also for more distant landscapes, architectural close-ups, and portraits. It is easily better quality than any of the variable aperture zooms; one could say that in some ways it is better than the 70-200 too. I think too many people worry about not being able to zoom ... you use a lens for what it <em>can</em> do, not what it can't. There are things that the 85 can do that no zoom can, and if you photograph a concert in low light you'll run into just one such application. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>vince and ilkka make good points (except for suggesting the tamron 90 for any situation in which fast focus is desirable). however, the dilemma as i see it is that the 85 will be great for some concert situations and too long for others.</p>

<p>shooting live shows with just a fixed-focal is challenging; a lot depends on the venue and how close you are to the stage. if you are shooting from the audience most of the time, a longer lens makes sense. however, if you are closer to the performers, i.e. in the pit or front of the stage, 85 will be good for close-up portraits but bad for full band shots.</p>

<p>i dont disagree that the 85 would be a good low-light performer as well as a general portrait lens, but when the OP mentions budget concerns, i always try to think of the easiest low-cost solution, which would be the 50/1.8.</p>

<p>the 50 in this case wouldn't be totally ideal--it won't complement the 18-55 as well as the 85, since it duplicates the long end, but it costs 1/4th as much and is more versatile overall for both concerts and street shooting.</p>

<p>you could make the 18-55 more useful in dim lighting by adding an external flash like the sb-600 but this will add approximately $200 USD to your overall budget.</p>

<p> </p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>How about the Sigma 50-150 2.8 , its a good low-light performer, fast and quiet, and the price is not to far from the Ninon 85 1.8 ...</p>

[Two23]

<p>Something like a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is exactly what you need. If you could find a used one I think that would be the way to go. Another thought is a manual focus 85mm f1.4, if you camera will meter with non-AF lenses. There is a lens out there you can often find on e Bay that is sold by Bower, Phoenix, Rokinon, Samyang, Vivitar and other brand labels. I think they're all the same lens. It sells new for < $350. Look for a used one and I bet it will be pretty cheap. Being f1.4, it will do what you want for less than the 50-150mm f2.8. I doubt an f5.6 lens is going to make you really happy.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the sigma 50-150 Version II is about $750; the 85/1.8 is about $450-$500 new. that might be a significant enough of a difference to rule it out, although i highly recommend the 50-150 for concert shooting.</p>

<p>also, IMO a MF lens will be problematic for concert photography, unless you limit your live shooting to choirs, folk music, or shows where the performers are seated; i wouldnt even think of shooting a concert with a MF lens--it's hard enough even with a d300/50-150, since most stages have constant motion, which can get extreme with some of the more high-energy acts out there.</p>

<p> </p>

[israel]

<p>Thanks for the advice on these.</p>

<p>Other people have suggested I take a look at the following Nikon zooms:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>18-70</li>

<li>18-105</li>

<li>18-135</li>

</ul>

<p>All three would be faster than the 18-55 @ 55mm but I'm thinking a prime would be the way to go, but not the 50 mil. I know it has a wonderful rep. but it's too short :(</p>

<p>I'm attaching a pic I took at one of the shows last week. Uncropped, 55mm, ISO 1600, it was taken right in front of the stage (a small one) and it was easy for me to get up close. I have no problem with this picture. But at the more popular venues I was often about 15 meters away with no way of getting through the crowd to get near the stages.</p>

<p>It's those shots I want to get and I don't think a flash would help in that kind of scenario.</p>

<p>Of course if I had a D90 it's 12MP and high-ISo capabilities would make my task a whole lot easier but I have intention of upgrading bodies now.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>russ, thanks for posting the pic.</p>

<p>but here's the thing: if you can get to the front of the stage, a 50 would be better than an 85. if you can't, an 85 might not be long enough.</p>

<p>your shot is pretty noisy--if you could shoot at 800 ISO or under, you'd be much better off. if you're going to shoot with a kit lens, use a flash, which would allow you to use a much lower ISO and/or a much faster shutter; EXIF says you were at 1/45, which is a little slow for live shows.</p>

<p>also, sorry to say, but from 15m away, an 85 might not be long enough. at that range, you would need a 150-200mm lens, realistically. if you're going to shoot from the crowd, you need more reach, a lot more. if i were you, i'd try to stretch the budget and scoop a 50-150, if not a 70-200.</p>

<p> </p>

[elliot1]

<p>What size prints are you making? </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>if you can get to the front of the stage, a 50 would be better than an 85. if you can't, an 85 might not be long enough.</em></p>

<p>I guess this is a matter of taste; indoors I find I use 85mm and 135mm the most (on FX, so that would be similar to 50mm and 85mm on DX)<em>.</em> Outdoors I make every effort to get to the best spot possible, and then I typically use 135mm or if I use a zoom, a 70-200 (but usually the 135 does fine). If I can't get to a good spot then chances are the pictures will be shot from such a distance that there will be a lot of stage clutter superimposed on the performers and even if I use a longer lens (300mm) I won't get pictures that are as good as those from the front using a shorter lens in an upward angle. I used to think it's a good idea to shoot from a distance that better reflects what the majority of the audience will see, but the final results have not been so good. <em> </em></p>

<p><em>also, IMO a MF lens will be problematic for concert photography, unless you limit your live shooting to choirs, folk music, or shows where the performers are seated</em></p>

<p>If you can use a tripod and if the performers do not run around wildly, a manual focus lens can be used successfully. I tried this with the 400mm f/5.6 a few weeks ago, stopped down to f/8 (I was doing tight close-ups where this aperture was appropriate to get the instrument and face in focus) and the results were mostly fine in terms of focus (I did miss a few as one of the players was bending back and forth a lot). But I had a tripod which helps as it reduces the sway of the camera back and forth, and allows better concentration on the details. Would I prefer a 200-400/4 AF-S? Yeah, if someone would give one to me. As it is, I will use what I can... ;-) Ordinarily, if you hand-hold and if the performers are more active, especially in low light autofocus is indispensable. But it's possible within certain constraints to get good results without much difficulty using manual focus lenses also.</p>

<p>Anyway, I think considering the travel aspect, I still think the 85mm is what I would recommend because of portability, speed, cost, and mostly appropriate range. I think the lens speed can be useful to minimize stage clutter. In the case of the 400mm case, I would also have preferred a faster lens to get the option of smoother backgrounds on some shots but the maneouverability of fast 400mm lenses is not so good... in an 85mm focal length the speed sort of comes as a matter of course in a prime.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ilkka, i dont know where and what you are shooting, but i have yet to shoot a concert, club, or festival venue where there was a shooter with a tripod-mounted 400mm lens (LOL). not sure why you're mentioning this.</p>

<p>also, you say you like to shoot concerts with an 85 and 135 on FX. if you could only pick one focal length, which would you pick, and why?</p>

<p>part of the problem with shooting primes is, if you have only one, it's a compromise. i think a case can be made for either the 50 or the 85, though it perhaps makes more sense overall for the OP to consider the 85 since it doesnt duplicate his 18-55's range.</p>

<p>when i shoot concerts, i mainly use zooms, except in extreme low-light. my main setup is a tamron 17-50/2.8+sigma 50-150/2.8 on a d300, but i have also found the tamron 28-75 to be an excellent concert lens on DX. as long as you're not too close, the range is about just right. from Russ' pic @55mm you can see that an 85 would have been too long for that shot (assuming he couldn't have backed up, which is often the case when you're in the front of a big crowd). the 28-75 costs a little less than the 85 and would be a two-stop improvement in terms of max aperture, while also adding a little reach. it would, however, duplicate much of the 18-55's range.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>i have yet to shoot a concert, club, or festival venue where there was a shooter with a tripod-mounted 400mm lens (LOL).</em></p>

<p>At Pori Jazz Kirjurinluoto Arena concerts, one can see the press use 300/2.8 and 200-400/4 type lenses quite frequently. The 200-400/4 I saw was on monopod but anyway, it's not so far-fetched. I shot with my 300/4 from the audience (I was maybe 10m from the closest imaginable audience position that would be difficult to use for photography due to fans packing there at least during the main artists of the day). I think my shooting distance to the stage was perhaps 60 meters; the 300mm allowed me to shoot groups of instrumentalists but focusing was not trivial. Here is a shot with the 300mm (on FX), focused on the rightmost performer. You can probably see the potential use for longer lenses and the tripod would make focusing and also sharpness more secure. Using a tripod I could have shot at f/8, 1/100s with some luck, and get all three in focus. I did the testing on the 400mm to verify that it's possible to use a manual focus long prime in a jazz concerts (the answer is yes).</p><div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>also, you say you like to shoot concerts with an 85 and 135 on FX. if you could only pick one focal length, which would you pick, and why?</em></p>

<p>My choice would be the 135mm (on FX) or 85mm on DX. The reason is that this corresponds to the kind of angle of view which I find practical to use for concerts and results in a pleasing perspective (at least to me; see example below). Avoiding overlap with the 18-55 the OP has is also a consideration though all these lenses (50, 85 etc.) are quite small. The larger maximum aperture should be useful for night concerts. I often run into situations where a faster than f/2.8 lens is the only possibility to stop the performer's movement. I have shot for 16 years mostly with primes and I don't even notice anything missing in terms of framing options... it's just something you get used to and after a couple hundred thousand images I just pick the lens based on how it draws images and rarely think about the prime/zoom aspect. I do think about the maximum aperture though in this case both my shots are made with a relatively small aperture so from that point of view a zoom could have been used, perhaps with similar results. The shot was in Tallinn so technically I was traveling and dragging the 70-200 around in a city is not my idea of a good time though for concerts I guess one could say I don't spare the effort (Nikon, where is your 70-200/4 in the pipeline?). The lower contrast of the 135mm in this case helps a bit with the contrasty sunlight (the same problem exists amplified in a night concert). For night concerts the apertures tend to be in the f/2-f/2.8 range for me, at ISO 3200.</p><div></div>

[israel]

<p>Price-wise there's no way I'm going to be able to buy a 50-150/2.8 ($1000), or the Tamron 28-75 ($600). As much as I'd like to own either of these it would mean cutting my vacation time down considerably unless I stay indoors and eat crackers and where's the fun in that ;-)<br /> <br />As for alternatives I have looked around and aside from the Nikkor 85/1.8 D there's also the Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO which goes for a little over $500 - more than the 85 mil! So besides the extra 15mm F/L advantage of the Sig I'd be losing a lot of speed.<br /> <br />Elliot - I'll be printing at (max) A4 size.<br /> <br />Eric - Yeah, all my shots were slow. I was initially shooting in AP, but later switched to Manual to save the highlights so things were pretty slow in terms of speed. My initial plan was to shoot B&W only, ISO 1600 (see attached) but sometimes a little variety was called for.<br /><br /><br /> Illka - I use AF most of the time as I wear glasses. Nice clear shots BTW!</p>

<p>I'll be going in to Tel Aviv in the next couple of days to try out a few more lenses. I get paid on Friday and will hopefully have made a decision by then.</p>

<p>BTW, the attached pic IS cropped slightly to remove mikes on both sides of the shot.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>well ilkka, you've proved it can be done... shooting a 400mm MF lens for concert photography, that is. nice shot by the way, very crisp.</p>

<p>but you've kind of proved my point as well, as orchestral/sit-down jazz musicians move around far less than rock, hip-hop or pop acts.</p>

<p>my experience includes being in the photo pit at auditoriums, theaters, some large music festivals, smaller clubs and concerts, as well as shooting from the crowd in situations where a photo pass is not required, like a general admission or free event like a neighborhood fair or something.</p>

<p>in the last four years of shooting such events fairly regularly, i've seen exactly one guy with a monopod in the pit, with a 70-200, and no tripod shooters. (although seeing video DSLR shooters with tripods and monopods is starting to become common.) i've never seen an accredited shooter use a lens longer than 70-200, even at something like Outside Lands, Rock the Bells, or Power to the Peaceful--large events with tens of thousands of people.</p>

<p>Part of the reason is long lenses which require external support are just not very logistically feasible at these events, if they are even permitted inside for non-credentialed photogs, a f/4 which needs to be stopped down to f/8 would become useless as soon as night hits, and after dusk is when all the top headliners perform, generally. Also, venue operators and concert promoters at major events tend to be very selective when photo pit space is at a premium. If your tripod takes up the space of two people and/or hinders other shooters from getting the shot, you may not be "approved for photo."</p>

<p>And, at many of these events, you can't just set up and be left in peace. I rarely shoot seated shows, and with festivals and sometimes concerts, photogs are escorted to the photo area to shoot three songs, then have to exit until the next act goes on, when the process is repeated. With a three-song limit, you dont really have time to do more than one lens change if you don't have multiple bodies. And sometimes the press area is quite far from the stage. a 70-200 is about the extent of a comfort zone when you have to wade through the crowd. And if i'm shooting in a small club where there is no photo pit and i'm surrounded by a constantly moving, possibly-intoxicated crowd, i appreciate my compact tamron and sigma 2.8 zooms because they don't get in the way.</p>

<p>back to the OP, 15 meters is still a bit far away for an 85 IMO, if that's as close as you can get. and if you're right at the lip of the stage, 50 may be at the limit of not being wide enough, although that might depend on the angle. which is why i recommended the 50 over the 85. i do think the 85 makes more sense overall for a travel kit as it doesnt overlap with the 18-55, but for concerts in general i think a 50 is more versatile. there's nothing worse than having a great shot which is ruined by being too tightly framed, but with a prime you have far less latitude in that region. anyway, it kind of comes down to a coin flip as both have pros and cons. i just wanted to let the OP know there was a low-light option out there 75% less expensive than the 85.</p>

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

[eric_arnold]

<p>ps Russ, the sigma 50-150 is $749 at B&H; the tamron 28-75 is $499 at Adorama for both the BiM and screw-drive version (screw-drive is faster if your camera has a motor).</p>

<p>it's a tough call to have to sacrifice shutter speed because of aperture/ISO limitations. but from your shot it definitely seems like you are getting the most out of your equipment :)</p>

<p>i'd still consider adding an sb-600 to increase the usability of the 18-55 in those situations, though your aperture would still be less than ideal at longer ranges.</p>

<p> fyi, i wouldnt expect any dedicated macro lens to be a fast-focuser, not even the nikon 105 VR, which has AF-S.</p>

<p>tamron used to make a 28-105/2.8, which is a great focal length and spec for shooting concerts, but that lens had an inconsistent reputation and was discontinued awhile back. i wish they would make it again. it is possible to find it used from time to time. also there may be some (recently discontinued) tokina 50-135/2.8s still around out there, if i didnt already have a 50-150 i would've jumped on that when they were $549 new on closeout.</p>

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

[israel]

<p>Eric, thanks for all the practical advice. I see the logic behind the getting a nifty-50; certainly in terms of versatility it ain't no slouch which is why it's made my list.<br>

FYI, I used to use a Canon EF-100/2 back in my EOS 300D days, and while a stellar performer in terms of sharpness, it was always a little too long, hence the logic behind my desire for an 85 mil. <br /><br />That said, I may buy used if I can find what I want.<br /><br />Either way I'll keep you posted. This has been a rewarding exercise for me. I've learnt a lot about my technique and my equipment; having fun all the while!<br /><br /><br />R.</p>