Good Wide Concert Lens?

[ella_swanson]

<p>When I shoot concerts I usually shoot with my 70-200mm f2.8 and I love it. I tend to lean towards tighter crops and more intimate portraits and usually the bands I shoot are folkier and slower so it allows me to shoot in this style.</p>

<p>However a few of the bands I work with regularly are ska or punk bands and their shows have a lot more movement to them so I need a wider lens so people can actually see the action. Right now I just have the 24-105mm f4 but I would love to find a f2.8 wide. I'm fine with a prime.</p>

<p>Any suggestions?</p>

<p><a title="She & Him by abeams, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4775500574_5b3350021a.jpg" alt="She & Him" width="500" height="333" /></a><br>

<a title="She & Him by abeams, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4143/4775503712_8b340634a1.jpg" alt="She & Him" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

<p> </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I shoot with the 17-40/4 on a 1.6 body and the 24-70/2.8 on a 1.3 body. I shoot with the 20/2.8 when I need a prime. I always shoot close, sometimes from the side of the stage, so I have never used a longer lens for concerts.</p>

<p><strong>24-70:</strong><br /> <img src="http://spirer.com/witchesbrew/content/images/large/357P4365.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p><strong>17-40:</strong><br /> <img src="http://spirer.com/ritespotoct2010/content/images/large/IMG_4267.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br>

<strong>20</strong>:<br>

<img src="http://spirer.com/pandemonbendersjan10/content/bin/images/large/IMG_8551.jpg" alt="" width="776" height="582" /></p>

[martin_z.]

<p>Yeah, it depends on what kind of seats / access you have. For this shot, I used the 24-70, at 70mm.</p>

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

[martin_z.]

<p>This was with the 50/1.8, wide open, on a D90 (crop sensor).</p>

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

[martin_z.]

<p>Yikes! Sorry about the D90 reference, above. I just realized this was in the Canon section. </p>

[mark_ethridge]

<p>That's OK, Martin. Canon has a 50mm f/1.8 as well.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm fine with a prime.<br>

Any suggestions?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Get the 35/1.4. If you're on APS also consider the 24/1.4 II.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Have any examples that show why these would be better than what was recommended above?</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Better in what way? Artistically? Technically? I'm not much of a concert shooter but when I do, I mostly use tele. On my 40D and 7D my standard WA shots are taken with the 17-55/2.8 IS which is a fabulous all-rounder.</p>

<p>In any case, because of their faster aperture these will allow him to shoot at lower light and/or with shallower DoF, assuming that what he wants. As he is fine with primes, I offered him Canon's best.</p>

<p>And as always, the craftsman is much more important than his tools.<br>

 

 

<br>

Happy shooting,<br>

 

<p>Yakim.</p>

</p>

<p>

 

</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>I dunno if it's really what you want but I found the 100L really good at a night venue. Other than that I think Yakim's choices are the best. I have the 24L II and it's amazing in low light.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>What the original poster asked about was a wider lens to show more of the action. Typically, that means f1.4 is not going to work, it doesn't have enough DOF. I've been shooting this stuff professionally for a number of years, and have not been that happy with f2 even when I've been forced to use it by lighting conditions. </p>

<p>That's why I ask about photos. Wider than f2.8 is often not useable in these situations.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>Jeff, I have the greatest respect for professionals in general and to you in person. I already noted that I am only an armature who only rarely shoot concerts and then, mostly with a tele lens. I thus have neither the wish nor the intent to put your experience in question. I only wanted to give the OP another option to think about.</p>

<p>I remember shooting a few concerts with the 35/1.4 on 40D wide open and never had any DoF problems. Maybe that's because I like shallow DoF in general. I switched to the 17-55/2.8 IS not because of DoF but because I found that f/2.8 was enough for me and because the zoom ability proved more useful for me. If I'd shoot a lot of concerts my personal choices would be 17-55/2.8 IS and 70-200/2.8 IS II.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>I would consider a fast prime as well. f/1.4 will let in 4X more light than f/2.8. This means that you can use a shutter speed 4X faster with the faster lens. If you want to freeze action, you'll need a faster lens.<br>

In terms of DOF, I wouldn't worry too much. Wider angle lenses, by nature, will have greater DOF. With a 70mm lens at f/2.8 and your subject at 15 ft from the camera, the total DOF is 1.8 feet. With a 35mm lens set at f/1.4 and the subject at 10.6 ft away, you'll get equivalent DOF but you'll be able to use a shutter speed 4X faster. This calculation was done for a full frame format.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Typically, that means f1.4 is not going to work, it doesn't have enough DOF. I've been shooting this stuff professionally for a number of years, and have not been that happy with f2 even when I've been forced to use it by lighting conditions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with a longer lens but not for wide angle. DOF is dependent on focal length, aperture, and subject distance. With a 35mm lens DOF is quite good at f/1.4. Which lens and body are you using?</p>