Lens for Bands

[Richard A Busch]

ok f stop as fast as possible 50mm or 30mm is better and why f1.4 in each

Richard

[LuisV]

Talk about an open ended question........ ;-)

OK. There are a number of things that I would say to you about this choice but I'll keep it in the range of the specifics you asked.

First, I would tell you to go with the 5mm over the 35mm. Assuming you are shooting a cropped sensor (DX in the Nikon world, APS-C in the Canon world) then you can expect this lens to give you the angle of view of a 75mm lens on your camera which would be better than the approximate 50mm you would be at if you used the 35mm lens. I haqve to assume you will not be within 5 feet of the musicians, so you want the longer of the two choices you gave me.

Second, the question of f/1.4 vs. the f/1.8. Here it gets a bit more into the grey areas. Many feel (I include myself in there) that the f/1.4 is the better choice in lenses. It is not just about the larger aperture. It's about the lens performance at the widest (wide open) apertures. While both the f/1.4 and f/1.8 of the 50mm primes (regardless of brand) are very sharp in the middle apertures (f/4 to f/8) the f/1.4 versions tend to shoot better wide open than do f/1.8's at their maximum apertures. While there are many opinions on this in both sides, I and many portraiture photographers I know tend to the f/1.4 version of these lenses. Another thing about the Nikon specifically (I shoot Nikon and am very familiar with the different lenses there) is that the difference in the number of aperture blades in the lenses. In the 50mm f/1.4 there are nine blades. In the f/1.8 there are 7. While, again, there are opinons on both sides, I feel the out-of-focus renditions (bokeh) are far better in the f/1.4 versions.

Lastly the lens build. While the 50mm is such a compact lens, I feel lens build is still an issue. There is a difference in the build of the two lenses. (Again, in the Nikon world) I don't consider the f/1.4 lens to be bullet proof, I do think it is sturdier than the f/1.8 and above average. I like the feel of the focus ring when I am manually focusing with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8. Other than that, you are about the same. They both have metal mounts, they both have similar AF speeds. (Comparing Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF to the 50mm f/1.8D AF). Nikon has a new AFS version of this f1.4, but I have not shot it to see if it is worth the upgrade.

In the Canon stable they also have an f/1.2 version of the 50mm lens. I hear wonderful things about the Canon 50mm f/1.2, but at $1,500 I think they are smoking something.

In the end, I would tell you 50mm f/1.4. The additional lens speed will let you shoot 2/3 stop faster shutter speeds when shot wide open, if needed. That could make a difference. On top of that, when shot at it's widest, you will get nicer out of focus rendition than you would with the f/1.8 (my opinion). The lens is a little better in terms of build so the investment will last a while. I have had my current 50mm f/1.4 for about 7 years now.

[savona]

Is hard to tell you which is better 50mm or 30mm, that is up to you and how and what your shooting.

50mm will get you a little closer to the action if your shooting bands.

As far as the 1.4, its a good idea to have the fastest lens possible when shooting bands because of the limited light available at concert venues. 1.4 will let in more light that 1.8.

[Adaptive]

I think I would rather have a 50mm for shooting bands. You can always step back into the crowd if you need a wider shot.
But if you have a 30mm lens and need a closer shot it is more difficult without having to actually jump on the stage to get your shot.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Trinity, man...trinity. 35, 85, 135/200. A 70-200 2.8 IS could take the place of the latter two if you don't feel comfortable with just primes. You should have no less than 2 bodies with you for any paid gig, and I like to hang one over my should (messenger style) so I can quick change if necessary. You can use the 85 for environmental portraits/ group shots, and switch to the 135 for single musician portraits and action shots.

Oh, and make sure they're all f/2 or faster.

IT.

JUST.

WORKS.

[Walkabout]

I have been shooting bands professionally for 17 years, and the one lens I use almost exclusively is an 80-200 2.8

Here's why...depth of field is critical, the difference between having focus on a microphone or a face...2.8 works well, and allows you enough light. I used to use TMax 3200 B&W film, and 800 asa color film with good results. Especially if the stage lighting is adequate. Now I use a digital body (Nikon D300 and soon, a D700) and set my iso at 1250. 80-200 allows both extreme close up of an artists face or a full shot of their entire body. You rarely have the opportunity to step back into the crowd, if you do, shoving and dancing folks will disrupt your focus...if you have a pass, and are in the area between the stage and the rail that seperates the crowd, you have very limited area to step back, sometimes just 3 feet. Always keep in mind your position prior to the show, if there is a certain guitarist, for example, you want to focus on, make sure you are on the side to shoot the front of him, with his guitar in full view, not from the other side where his guitar is angled away from him, and your shot. Most bands use the same stage set up each tour, so doing some research will allow you to know where you want to be, so when the time comes to position yourself, you know right where you want to go. There may be several other photographers and security, so it will be distraction to the other shooters, and everyone involved to constantly change your position. finally, get a pass! There are numerous ways to obtain them! Have a look at my performance website for some ideas, and to see the range of that 80-200 lens, just about every image on there was shot with that. Its at www.loudlightphotography.com
Hope this helps. Performance imagery is a passion of mine, and I love to see other shooters immerse themselves in it. An excellent way to combine a love of music and film, yes?

[Adaptive]

Trinity, man...trinity. 35, 85, 135/200. A 70-200 2.8 IS could take the place of the latter two if you don't feel comfortable with just primes. You should have no less than 2 bodies with you for any paid gig, and I like to hang one over my should (messenger style) so I can quick change if necessary. You can use the 85 for environmental portraits/ group shots, and switch to the 135 for single musician portraits and action shots.

Oh, and make sure they're all f/2 or faster.

IT.

JUST.

WORKS.

Did you post this in the wrong thread?
He's debating between 30 and 85 1.4.
We're not exactly talking L lenses here.

Oh you're looking to get a BMW or Mercedes?
ahh forget those cars get a Ferrari or Lamborghini

[tims]

Based on walkabout's advice, here are some options ...

On the $1,700 lenses you are paying for Vibration Reduction/Image Stability, which should give you 2-4 more stops.
This might come in useful for hand holding in dim lighting at the long end, but many don't like lens stabilization and do fine without it.

Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G AF-S VR - US$1,700
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM - US$1,700

So this is basically the battlefield of non-stabilized lenses for that range in price order.

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM - US$1,200
Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 - US$920
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro - US$800
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 DI LD Macro - US$700

[Adaptive]

To give you guys an example how far off the beaten path we have gotten....

Original question was 50mm or 30mm lens
50mm f/1.4 ~ $364 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...Autofocus.html
30mm f/1.4 ~ $400

No where do I see mention of any lenses that cost more than $400...
Thread has become way off topic and I'm about to start trimming some fat...
Please get back on topic or start a new thread (maybe for example: "what's the best lens to shoot bands?") where your good input will be relevant.

[Walkabout]

Perhaps we are just trying to explain to him that neither a 50 OR a 30mm lens are ideal for shooting bands. I think it's spot on the path, trying to make suggestions on the proper lens for shooting a band. It's like someone asking "What's the best way to shoot a lion, with a spitball or a dart?" and someone answering, "Actually a rifle would be better..." Sure, you could say he asked specifically about a "spitball' or a "dart", but guaranteed, when he was face to face with the situation, I'm sure "he" or "she" would be grateful for more relevant advice.
The title of the thread IS "Lens for Band", and for shooting a band (assuming it's performance, out of 50 or 30mm, neither is the best.)
And remember, the question being "What's best?" means just that, not "what's the cheapest I can get away with?"
We're all just trying to help by offering the best advice we can give