lynn_malpass

<p>Hello everyone. <br /> I'm shooting indoor and outdoor concerts with a Nikon D70s and a Tamron 2.8 zoom and up until recently I have gotten amazing results from this little setup. I also have a couple of other lenses and a telephoto, but I always find myself resorting back to the Tamron - it's seemed like the perfect lens for me and almost everything I want to do with it.</p>

<p>Lately, however, I have been experiencing autofocus problems and I'm not sure what the issue is, whether my camera is possibly wearing out, or the lens is having a problem. The camera is now over 3 years old and though I have not looked for the exact number at this writing, I suspect I have probably shot 40,000+ shots with it over these three years. It doesn't SEEM to be having any problems, but lately I cannot get my autofocus to give me the results I have gotten in the past.</p>

<p>What I am experiencing is that my lens will focus, say on a person playing guitar, but the strumming hand is blurry. I never had that before. Sure, the shots that were not done with high enough shutter speed, but in general I have always been able to adjust to where I could stop the motion and get the strumming - or drummning - hands still, without a blur. The past three times I have been out, no go. I shoot with the camera on AF-C mode, Dynamic Area, though I have played around to see if I am just not set correctly, and still I cannot completely freeze the shot any longer. I can't freeze the motion even by upping my shutter speed, so that really baffles me. This is happening in daylight and low light, equally.</p>

<p>I just shot Warped Tour, which is an all-day concert with tons and tons of bands, shot 14 sets, 10G of pics and most of what I shot is junk. Thankfully I at least have enough "representative" shots for my needs, but there is nothing really "great" in this whole set. Unlike last fall when I shot Mayhem Festival, and got a few amazing pictures (and a portfolio image as well) in almost no light at all.</p>

<p>Any advice? Could this be camera wear with the autofocus or shutter speed? Lens problem? Can you recommend a way that I can try to pinpoint what it is?</p>

<p>Also, while I'm at it, to upgrade affordably... D90? </p>

<p>Thank you all for your time and advice.</p>

Well, I don't have experience with the lens, or with telephoto at all. I'm a lot less experienced than the rest of you, obviously. I can only go by what I find out from other people. I originally BOUGHT the lens after reading the guide that you posted on this forum... and it just seems to me it's being suggested that it's not suitable. I don't know. All I know is that my results with it were poor. I understand I probably need a lot of practice with it, but if I'm going to be wasting my time, I'd just as soon get something else.

Oh, and I'm shooting a D70s currently.

I do almost exclusively concert photography. I have been getting amazing

results from my Tamron 2.8 zoom lens, but I need a telephoto at this point. I

purchased a used Sigma 50-150mm APO EX DC and love the lens, but it's too slow

for my purposes and I can't use it. (I'm now offering it for a really good

price in the classifieds if anyone's interested). What do you recommend? (other

than a VR telephoto, because honestly, I can't afford one of those right now,

besides the fact that as far as I know, most concert photographers don't find

the VR to be particularly useful). Thanks.

Eric,

 

Well, I wish I had known this before I bought it. I already use a 1.8/50mm, but I need a telephoto lens as well. So am I understanding you correctly in that another 2.8 telephoto might be better for this? Concert photography is pretty much all I do.

 

I did research a lot, and thought I would be coming away with a good lens for my purposes, especially since it seemed a really great distance range for my uses. It doesn't do anything for me at all if its low-light capabilities are not that good. :( I bought it to use it in the dark. I guess I will be selling it, then. I can only afford one telephoto lens. Unfortunately, in this case, minor shortcomings are the in the properties that I need it to be strong.

 

Wow, I'm kinda disappointed.

 

Anyone want a Sigma 2.8/50-150mm? I will sell it for what I paid, $500. It's not even a year old, and at this point has been used only about five times.

Eric,

 

Thanks for that reply. That helps me at least realize that probably the place I "tried it out" was too-low light for it. As I had mentioned earlier, it's my first foray into telephoto, and I'm pleased with the quality of the distance shots I got with it, but the close ups, well, I'll have to give it a try again in better light. It really does seem like a great lens and I especially love the depth I have gotten in my images, so here's hoping. :)

Richard,

 

No, the problem isn't camera shake. There were four bands the night I tried the lens. I used it for two, my Tammy 2.8 zoom (which is an amazing little lens, let me tell you) for everything else. Same conditions, all four bands. I got clear pics from the Tamron, like I usually do, and nothing good from the Sigma. :( So this was why I was wondering if it was a battery issue or not.

 

Release priority vs focus priority? I will have to check the camera. I want to say I do, definitly, have it set to focus priority, but it's been so long since I set the base settings, and I tend to change very little in my settings other than aperture and shutter speed, and occasionally white balance. I am pretty sure it is, though; my camera does not shoot unless it's got a good 'track' on something and the lens has stopped. Thinking in this vien, it seems perhaps the shutter is snapping especially slow, but I can't really push my shutter speeds in this low of lighting, because the pics come out black at that point. What I question along that train of thought is... isn't f2.8,... f2.8, regardless of what lens it is? Or could there be a problem with something on the lens that it's not getting the light it should be, and not actually acheiving that f2.8?

 

Oh, one other detail, not sure if it means anything or not. These preliminary runs with the Sigma, I ended up really strapped for space and a lot closer than I needed to be with a telephoto. So most of the shooting was done all the way back at 50mm. I would think that would be a GOOD thing, but... I don't know?

 

Thanks, about the pic. I thought it came out pretty nice myself. :)

I just purchased the version I and I love it wiht the limited use I've put it through, but I am having a problem in low-light situations where it seems the lens is just plain... slow. And I'm missing my shots or they're coming out blurry because the lens is not focusing fast enough. Has anyone else had this experience? This is my first telephoto lens - I have been wondering if the battery drain on my D70s is the problem, and if so, do you think a grip with two battery cells would help the problem? The lens honestly does me no good unless I can use it in low-light conditions, and I am not having these issues with my other 2.8 lenses (although the biggest lens I have there is a 28-75 zoom) Here's a pic I took with mine, from a balcony. This was at 150mm. Slight vignetting, but I don't think it detracts at all from the pic. I DO love the sharpness and the image depth, however. This was in near-dark, however, from the balcony I had no problem with the lens. Up close, in the stage pit, it just wouldn't focus fast enough for all the movement.

 

<a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/shira_uma/misc/9227c06b.png">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/shira_uma/misc/9227c06b.png</a>

Dan, I have noticed your responses in regard to the Sigma lens in a few places throughout the forum. Actually, in deciding what telephoto to buy for myself, it was your Sigma/Nikon comparison post that prompted me to try it. So far I love the lens, but I have not had the opportunity to use it much, yet. <p>

 

I definitely see what you mean about the corners - and had read something about the vignetting as well - but I think it kind-of looks nice in a way. Here is something I shot with it last week: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/shira_uma/misc/9227c06b.png, which I thought came out very nice despite the corners. This was taken at the full 150mm, from a balcony.<p>

 

My question for you, or the original poster, is whether you have noticed this lens to be particularly slow in low-light situations? I had it out at this concert for the first time and - whereas I normally shoot a very fast Tamron 2.8/28-75mm zoom, my Sigma just could not keep up with the movement in the low light. I used both lenses this night, too, so I know it wasn't simply a matter of the light being worse when I shot the Sigma. Everything I shot with it in front of the stage came blurry, and I missed half the shots because the lens would not focus fast enough, or the camera would not shoot.<p>

 

One thing I am wondering... this is my first experience with a telephoto lens. I use the regular internal batteries in my Nikon D70s. Do you think my problem was probably that the lens drew so much from the battery that there was not enough power to focus it properly? Incidentally, I bought my Sigma off this site, used (but hardly at all) and only 8 months from the original purchase date, for only $500, so I'm hoping I get it worked out, as it seems like I got a decent deal.

Great review, Duncan. I, too, am looking for information on which telephoto to buy for my D70s. I shoot concert photography only. I love the lens, but the biggest question that I have not been able to get answered is whether I necessarily need the VR, or whether I can get away with a lens that doesn't have that, and costs half the price? Any opinion on that?

Thanks for the great advice, everyone. I have my work cut out for me, to learn how to deal with the exposure settings and the shutter speeds. :)

 

Roger, in reading your reply, yeah, I agree with you about the desaturation, and either leaving a pic red, or just switching it to B+W. So I'm going to assume then that your reply remains the same, whether in regard to an entire image looking red, or to just the shirt looking red? Again, the issue I'm having is that the clothing that I know to be black is showing up red - and this is with already black, blacks in the rest of the image - so adjusting for more black kind of makes the image too dark.

 

I changed one to a duotone using one of the blues that appeared in the image and it looked nice, and kind-of artsy in a way. I'm guessing now that whether the red is the entire image, or just part of it, there's still not much that can be done... but can it be prevented? Apparently this must be happening by how certain fabrics absorb certain lights, and I have no clue if there is a remedy for this that will prevent it from happening while shooting, other than using flash, which isn't an option. Quite frankly too, to me, flash used in concert photography removes a lot of the depth and warmth of the image. I would much rather shoot without the flash even if I could use it at bigger shows.

 

Thanks!

Yeah, I'm trying to tackle the problems now that I can consistently get good images with good lighting, so you're absolutely right.

 

As for the other photog, I'm thinking that exactly what you've suggested here is what he must have done; the lighting wasn't really that dark, though there was a red tint to everything on this particular night.

 

So in order to set shutter speed in shutter mode, this leaves the camera to chose its aperture rather than force the 2.8? Or am I supposed to be looking up how to set them both at the same time? (Sorry if this seems really dumb, but I am of the impression right now that I would either be able to shoot in aperture mode or shutter speed mode, but not both at the same time).

 

Thanks for your reply.

OK, what does that mean, please? I'm sorry. I've just never heard that term. Do you mean he's shooting out of the main light so it's not so prominent?

No, actually, I shot the same show with him, and neither of us used any kind of flash, and his came out better, with similar lenses. He's shooting a Canon, not sure what kind, but we both had f2.8 lenses.

Hello everyone. This is my first post here and I did search a little bit but

did not find any past questions that answer this question, so here I go.

 

I am a learning concert photographer shooting a Nikon D70s with both a 1.8/50mm

and a 2.8/17-70mm lens currently, for no-flash, low light photography. Recently

I have really started to get some gorgeous shots in reference to color, and I'm

really pleased with the results I've been getting overall. However, I have been

having continual issues with red light (as all concert photographers do), and

I'm not really experienced enough to know what I should be doing to fix these

issues.

 

Firstly, I am getting a lot of clear shots that look just fine in every way,

except for the fact that the band members' shirts/jackets, which I know to be

black, are showing up as maroon/dark red. Playing around with selective

color/saturation/color channels in PS hasn't helped - they continue to look

reddish and I can't get them even grayish, let alone black. But I know this is

a lighting issue, because I get other shots where the blacks are perfectly dark

and black, needing possibly only a little more darkening in PS.

 

Secondly, I have shot a few shows now where the use of red lighting has

basically ruined all of my shots. On another forum we got into discussing

playing with white balance, and I just taught myself how that all works on the

camera (though I have not had the opportunity to try it out yet). But in

talking to another photographer at a show one night, he told me that the way he

combats really bad red light is to "push his shutter to 5000 or so," I think he

said, while shooting at 1600 ISO. Now, I understand what he means in that I

know he's speeding up the speed of the shot, but what I don't understand is 1)

how I do that and 2) why this makes a difference in the red lighting. He says

he gets warm orangey/browns, which in some cases is actually a lot better than

the musicians looking as though they've had a bucket of red paint thrown on

them, the red light can sometimes be so 'heavy' and opaque.

 

Can anyone explain some of this to me?

 

Thanks!

 

~Lynn M.