Okay, so I looked around and I found a lens I thought would be best for concert photography. It is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I photograph mostly local bands, so distance is not a problem.. most of the time I can get relatively close to the stage. Do you think this is a wise decision? If you have a better lens in mind that would work well for what I would like to do, then PLEASE let me know!! Thank you!!!!
2007-12-06 22:41:00 · 7 answers · asked by Jori 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
A 4-5.6 aperture lens for concert photography is not a wise decision, and it's a decision that you will hate yourself for later. Basically, what you should concern yourself with is the aperture (how big the hole in the lens is, in this case 4-5.6). Unless you can get right up in the face of the band, ur gonna need to zoom that lens in towards the higher end, and when you do that, the minimum aperture of the lens gets smaller, to the point where if you're zoomed to 85mm, it's going to be a 5.6 aperture.
I don't know what your budget is, but get the lowest aperture lens you can afford. A fixed 2.8 would be ideal, but quality lenses with a fixed 2.8 aperture are rather costly.
Good luck to ya.
2007-12-07 00:52:30 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would actually be better off buying the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, in my opinion. It doesn't have the same reach, but it's faster, for the low light of a concert, and has gotten rave reviews. They say it's as good as an L series lens, though cheaper. It's still about a grand, a great investment if you can afford it. Just a thought. If I had a canon digital body, I'd get it. I only use canon for film, so I can't use an EF-S lens, too bad really. It's a good lens though.
2007-12-07 00:53:47 · answer #2 · answered by Joe Schmo Photo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with the poster who mention the 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM - but if distance really is not a problem and you prefer the wider end of the lens, the 17-55 f2.8 IS is great too.
f4 is can be too limiting for concert - there are people moving here and there and even though the lens has an IS it will not help with moving objects.
2007-12-07 00:48:08 · answer #3 · answered by dodol 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no this isn't a wise decision. I had 17-85 and its not a very good performer. #1 it sucks dust, so after a week you have a lens full of tiny white stuff inside. #2 horrible sharpness at 17-35mm it gets better on the long end. #3 this lens is f/4-5.6 not fast for concert photography. I would recommend getting 50mm 1.4 or 85 mm 1.8 depending on your shooting style and focal length preferences.
http://www.sandrophoto.com/
2007-12-06 23:23:45 · answer #4 · answered by Photographer 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on your budget. A faster lens - f2.8 - would be a better choice. One stop (approximately) may not seem like much but it could be the difference between using ISO 800 instead of 1600.
2007-12-06 22:46:22 · answer #5 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i might advise a type of three next. 50mm top 80mm top 28-135mm IS Tripod might probable be interior the offing additionally. that's a undergo to handhold that lens while that's stretched out to 300mm. in case you spend any time taking pictures interior the portrait place you will elect the battery grip. not purely does it carry a 2d battery, this is massive, even though it has each and every of the controls. additionally, I even have great palms so it supplies me some thing extra to hold directly to in the two place. in terms of memory enjoying cards I want the smaller memory enjoying cards because of the fact my downloads don't get so huge and unmanageable. i don't elect to seek a number of hundred pictures to %. and choose acquire. own selection.
2016-12-10 15:22:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is still a little too slow, save your money and go for the Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 IS USM.... it will be worth the extra $$$$.
2007-12-07 00:38:38 · answer #7 · answered by Foggy Idea 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋