Given the shooting constraints of concert photography, from song limits to bad lighting, the last thing you want to do is show up for a gig lenses that aren’t cut out for the job.
If you’re just starting out with gig photography, here are a few suggestions for lenses that are up to the low-light challenge of concert photography.
Lens Upgrade Path:
Maybe you’ve shot a few shows with the kit lens or perhaps you’ve stuck it out for years and you’re looking for some new glass. Assuming your current lenses don’t cut it, here are a few standard lenses available in the most popular mounts, including Nikon and Canon, that are up to the task.
50mm f/1.4 – The Fast Prime:
The ubiquitous 50mm lens gets around for a few reasons, not the least of which is its fast aperture. At f/1.4, this lens lens is a full two-stops faster than the zooms in this list, an attribute that which can help open up even the darkest venues.
I recommend this lens over the slower and less expensive f/1.8 lens for a few reasons, including better wide open performance, more light gathering ability, and better build quality. Any way you slice it, this is still the cheapest f/1.4 glass you’ll buy.
If your shooting conditions require something a little wider, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is also a great low-light solution.
17-55 mm f/2.8 – The Midrange Zoom:
This is my favorite zoom range for cropped-sensor cameras, as it gives you everything from wide-angle to short telephoto in a convenient package. If you’re photographing bands up close at the front of the stage, this lens may just have all the range you need.
Tamron makes a great little 17-50mm lens that gives the OEM lenses from Nikon and Canon a run for their money. Sigma makes a well-regarded 18-50mm f/2.8 lens and Tokina produces a very solid 16-50mm f/2.8 lens as well.
24-70mm f/2.8 – The Other Midrange Zoom:
For APS and “full-frame” sensors alike, the old standby range of the ~24-70mm f/2.8 is a solid bet. Like the newer APS-only 17-55mm range, this lens was designed as the go-to midrange zoom for film. On APS-sensors, this range provides a little more reach than the shorter 17-55mm range, at the expense of the wide-angle.
All the major players produce a lens in this speed and range, with the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 being popular third-party options.
70-200mm f/2.8 – The telephoto Zoom:
One of the more expensive options in this short list, the 70-200mm range is a staple for telephoto shooting. I find this range particularly useful for large or high stages, picking up the drummer, and for tight shots of individual performers.
All the major OEM brands produce lenses in this range, and third-party manufacturers like Tamron and Sigma also produce more cost-effective versions of this popular range.
For those who want a little more reach without the size and weight of a telephoto zoom, an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 can help fill out a kit to act as a short telephoto.
End Notes:
Whatever the focal length and application, I would highly recommend going with the fastest lenses you can afford for concert photography. With such demanding conditions as live music, f/2.8 zooms are often a necessity, if not f/1.8 or f/1.4 primes.
Also, overall, I highly advocate buying lenses from the original manufacturer of the system you use, be it Nikon, Canon, Pentax, or Sony. While these lenses are often more expensive than third-party options, you only have to buy it once. Also, these lenses often provide the most reliable performance cameras of the same manufacturer.
That said, there’s also great glass to be found from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. Often, it’s a case of diminishing returns with brand-name products, so you should weigh your needs and preferences against cost.
For more information on the above lenses and more, please visit the Gear Guide, where I discuss some more detailed applications for these events.
What do you say?
What was your upgrade path once you ditched the kit lens? What’s your most-used lens? Please feel to have your say in the comments section!
76 Comments Add your own
1. Keith | July 17th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Well, no matter what you buy, you’re gonna want more. I started with the Nikon d70s and the 18-70 3.-4.5. I picked up the 50 mm 1.8.
After a year and a half, I now have the 17-55 2.8 and 80-200 2.8 on the Nikon d300. The upgrades across the board…faster / sharper glass, better autofocus, better hi iso quality, are starting to make a real difference.
My biggest comment would be to test as much as you can to really have an idea of the shots you want to create. Then shoot for the best glass / body you can afford!
2. Ignasi | July 17th, 2008 at 12:56 am
I don’t take to much concert photos, but when I did it, I did it with a Leica 80mm f1.4 Summilux in Canon eos 5d body. I bought it for a good price in eBay.
I appreciate too much your work and your advices, and I dream a day when I can take photos like yours. But in some cases it’s impossible to take photos with f2.8 and iso 800 (higher iso value have some noise in my camera), that’s because I use this kind of lenses.
You can see my work here.
Thanks!
3. Joel | July 17th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Scarily Todd you’ve just described my path of lens purchases (with only a couple of additions).
Canon EOS300 (film!!!) kit -> Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime -> Canon EOS 20D -> Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 -> Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L -> Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L -> Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L
Just waiting to grab a 50mm prime when the 5D replacement hits the shelves ;)
4. Jonas | July 17th, 2008 at 4:38 am
I started out with the Nikon D70 and a 18-55 kit zoom. Needing a budget low-light option I bought the Nikon 50/1.8D. The next purchase was the Nikon 55-200/4-5.6 which hasn’t seen much concert use (one exception being a festival where I used it a couple of times during daytime concerts).
Feeling that I needed faster zooms I bought the Tamron 17-50/2.8 a while ago and just a couple of days ago I sold the two slower zooms and added the Sigma 50-150/2.8 to my collection of lenses instead. I will probably take it out for a first shoot at a concert later today.
Considering photography is just a hobby so far and that I’m living on a student budget, fast Nikon glass is just too expensive for me at the moment. I haven’t been disappointed by the third party lenses yet though.
5. Terry Lee | July 17th, 2008 at 4:47 am
I’m completely missing the midrange lenses. I bought a fisheye lens thinking I would use that more, but I mis-timed that purchase. I should have invested in the 17-55mm. Oh well, if only I had read your article before I bought it! :-)
6. Robert Daniels | July 17th, 2008 at 5:25 am
Hey Todd, for years I used a D70. But for many starting out like I did, the one thing you should invest in is FAST GLASS. The reason being, you will never ever regret it!! You just won’t. Get the best glass you can if you using a certain manufacturers camera and stick to their lenses if you can. I for instance 10 years sacrificed and bout a 28-70 afs, 80-200mm/ 2.8 a 50mm/1.8 and a sigma 28-105mm 2.8-4. Now I use a D300 and I am still using these lenses which are over 10 years old. One thing I must say is now I’ve ditched my monopod for exchange of faster shutter speeds and higher ISO’s. Everything turning out pretty sweet! Now All i need is is that elusive 14-24mm/2.8 before the Bermuda Music Festival in October featuring Beyonce and Alicia Keys. Oh my some great times ahead!
Wissh I had lighting like you guys in states though WWOW! Here is my contribution of a recent show.
http://www.bermynet.com/Pictures/June-15-2008-MorganHeritage-Aa/slides/MH-5127%20copy.html
http://www.bermynet.com/Pictures/June-15-2008-MorganHeritage-Aa/slides/MH-5204%20copy.html
http://www.bermynet.com/Pictures/June-15-2008-MorganHeritage-Aa/slides/MH-5345%20copy.html
7. andy stenz | July 17th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Since I do a lot more portraits than concerts, I picked up the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 which has worked out nicely in concerts as far as primes go. Since I had the 85mm, I went with Sigma’s 30mm f/1.4 because it was cheaper and wider than the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and have been happy (although I’ve heard rumors about Nikon releasing some wide f/1.4’s in Sept.
I look forward to the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR. I’ve played with VR and non VR versions and I’m thinking that the Nikon VR is worth the extra $900 over the off-brand zoom – especially in low light (which is why I’m buying that thing in the first place).
8. Olivier | July 17th, 2008 at 6:39 am
The Tamron 28-75 2.8 XR Di is also a really good lens.
Sharp and fast.
I do have enough lens I think (Tamron 28-75 2.8 + Nikon 1.8 + Nikon 85 1.8 + Nikon 80-200 2.8)! but the missing piece is a wide. Still doubting if I would take a Tokina 11-16 or something else. Camera is DX format not FX so I think the 11-16 wil help a lot !
9. Celso | July 17th, 2008 at 7:46 am
Well I’m dumb as hell, as I’m a sucker for a good deal… Let me explain. I had a Nikon D40 with the kit lenses bought this April, I also bought the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 in May and then I sold it all…
I saw a sweet deal on a Canon 400d with the kit lens from the 450d, the IS version and I bought it and a couple of extra accessories like batteries, a grip, backpack…
So I was decided to save some money to buy a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 now, I really need to stop wasting money and putting it into fast lens… So as I was saying, I was saving money for the sigma, when I get this e-mail about this “festival” in the area…
The artists are very well known, some nation wide and others internationally… So now I have till August 1st to get tho money for a fast prime as I can’t get the money for that sigma in two weeks… I think :/
My advice is, don’t spend your money on lower grade lens just because you get the urge to photograph a new kind of situation… You’re far better of if you gather money for a couple of months for a better lens, and you’ll have more “decision” time.
As I told you I’m not going to follow my advice as I need a f/1.8 for Canon (at the least) for those gigs, and I was saving for the Sigma…
10. Jason Sheesley | July 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
I bought body-only.
However, I’m planing to upgrade all of my kit in about three months, and the next lens purchase is the last remaining sticking point.
As much as I love Todd’s wide shots, I’m leaning more toward longer focal lengths. All of my shooting is on small stages and I prefer a tighter angle of view. A 4-5 piece group on a 30 foot wide stage is way too cluttered for wide stuff IMO. Too many mic stands and other crap clogging up the shot.
I’m shooting with the 50mm 1.8 at the moment, but I continually find myself wanting a bit more focal length. Seeing as I’m not shooting in a pit, I find that I can always back up a bit (with due respect to Robert Capa). Plus, that lets the fans get to the front of the stage and helps me be less annoying.
I also want to switch to full frame, so I have to take that into consideration.
I’ll probably just spring for the 70-200 and be done with it for now. As much as I’m leaning toward the fast primes, I’m just not sure I want to invest in a normal lens when the zooms nowadays are so good. Of course, it’s always nice to have the 1.4 and 1.8 lenses to make absolutely sure I can get the extra light if I need it. I’m just not sure I need to pay for the flexibility of a zoom if I don’t think I need it.
Anyway, no sense in stressing about it before Photokina at least.
Anybody shoot shows with that 105mm 2.8 macro?
11. Todd | July 17th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Hey all,
Thanks so much for adding your thoughts to this post, you’ve turned it into a great read. It’s especially interesting to see what choices everyone has made in their purchases.
12. Tony siciliano | July 17th, 2008 at 11:59 am
The first lens I bought was the nikon 18-70, which is great for photojournalism, but at f/4.5 is un-useable for concerts. Next I got a 105mm f/2.8 macro, which is great for close portraits during concerts, usually of the people in the front, and good for drummers in the back. Next I got a 50 f/1.8 (garage sale, 12 bucks lol). Best one so far. Next the 70-200 f/2.8 which is a dream machine and blows my other lenses out of the water, if not for its heaviness. Next a manual 28mm f/2.8 which is decent for shots of more than one performer. More recently, I picked up the AF 50mm f/1.4 and its a dream to use. 1.4 is a great number lol. I havn’t got a chance to use it at a concert yet, but coming this sat/sun I will! Hoping to get the 24-70 next, to replace the 18-70 i use now.
13. Tony siciliano | July 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
@Jason- Yes, I shoot with the 105mm macro, check these pics out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scis/2644433875/in/set-72157606021324610/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scis/2555458202/meta/in/set-72157605461696525
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scis/2488879222/meta/in/set-72157605027754122
Good for getting nice head shots of the performers a few steps back from the pit or even getting the drummer (which, oddly enough, most people neglect to do :( )
14. Todd | July 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
In the words of a guitarist for a band I befriended when I first started shooting gigs:
Don’t forget the drummer.
This has always stuck with me, so I always try to get at least a few shots of the drummer during a set. Which is often when the 70-200mm comes into play.
15. Tony siciliano | July 17th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Ya like didja ever notice how they don’t light the drummer as well? he’s all the way stuck in the back but they completely exclude him from sweet colored light lol
16. Daniel | July 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Well, I’ve been dying to get something other than my 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, which will allow me to finally start taking some decent concert shots.
I thought for a long time, if I should buy something right now, or gather some decent money and go a few steps higher (this means, buying the Canon 50mm f/1.8, or save to buy the tamron 17-50 f/2.8).
Well, I’ve decided to buy the prime mainly because I didn’t want to get stuck with the kit lens. This way, I might be spending money that I could save for the tamron, but at least I’ll have a decent lens to start taking some shots, while I save some more.
This is like a commitment: either you don’t mind not doing concerts while you save, or you don’t mind taking a little longer to get a better lens, and buy an decent entry-liner (like a 50mm prime) which allows you to start shooting sooner, and gaining experience.
Don’t know if it makes any sense at all, but that’s the road I took.
17. Celso | July 17th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
The way I see it, you can always see what angles you like the most for the closeups with some crops, trying to mimic closer lens that you can buy afterwards… I guess you will use more those lens with more focal length than the wider ones… That’s why I’m aiming at the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8
18. Joel | July 17th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
@todd: totally agree with you regarding the drummer – often forgotten are they! Though I would love to see the bands somehow bring them more front + center!
19. Craig Norris | July 17th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I’ve been shooting shows on the east coast of Canada like a mad man for about 6 months. I’ve been rockin a 50mm 1.4 USM. Awesome glass but it’s a little long on a 30D, especially in small bars. At the moment I’m gitty with excitement because I’ll be picking up a brand new 35mm 1.4L, and a 16-35mm 2.8L… My first L glass – Good bye RRSPs! I’m also a little gitty because I have my first paid gig tomorrow night with Hey Rosetta… And I’ve scored a press pass for a big show in Halifax with the Black Keys, City in Colour, and Stars. First time in a proper pit! Just wanted to share the excitment with the rest of you camera geeks!!! Love the site Todd!
20. Todd | July 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
This discussion is great, everyone. I’m loving it.
Joel: I would also not mind one bit if drummers were moved up to the front of the stage more often. The Roots did this with ?uestlove recently and it made for great shooting.
Craig: Congrats on the paid gig, and also for the press pass. Feels good, doesn’t it? I respect that you’ve been sweating it out without a barricade for months, too – street cred, my friend.
21. Mike C | July 17th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Todd,
Been following your site for a while now and I am always amazed at the sharpness of your pictures. I shoot concerts and band promos mostly. So far my go to lens was the 50mm f1.8 and the 150mm f2.8 for the drummer shots. Drummers are always a challenge since they sit far in the back and move a hell of a lot. Also they always seem to be obstructed by something or other, hard to get a clear shot. I just got a 24-70mm f2.8 from Sigma. Love the lens, will be using it for gig tomorrow night for the first time.
22. Celso | July 17th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The drummer shots are complicated in it self by the instrument itself, the size and display of the drums make it difficult to capture that shot, and in high stages it’s really hard to have a clean line of sight to the drummer…
At least from my experience as being one among the crowd… AS a photographer I only have a 4 day experience with very few resources so the problem there was to get enough light for the shot, If I had the 50mm f/1.8 then I would be in the clear…
Wish I had more money for the f/1.4 version now or something more usable like a fast zoom… It think I’ll just have to pace myself down… I’m thinking of lens and concerts and lots of stuff and I really should slow down and stick to my possibilities at the present time…
23. Olivier | July 18th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I agree with Celso: complicated due to the instrument.
I don’t see myself getting on stage for taking him in picture at a festival :-)
The only times I di try, the picture turned horrible. Really painful for the eyes.
The only descent picture I could ever take was some weeks ago at The Main Square Festival in Arras (FR). It’s the drummer of Sigur Ros. Did it with my 80-200 (I love this lens but already to deep when close from the stage).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/olliec/2646825409/
About the Tamron, I did find that on a D200/D300, under 1/100 or 1/125, the pictures are not sharp sharp. At or above these S speed, great lens. But nothing would ever beat a Nikon 24-70. But really too expensive for an amateur like me..
24. Artur Rawicz | July 18th, 2008 at 12:29 am
“Don’t forget the drummer.” – holly words :)
25. Craig Norris | July 18th, 2008 at 4:47 am
With regards to drummers… For anyone that’s shooting in smaller venues with less known bands no doubt lighting, especially on the kit, has been a tough issue. To combat this I purchased 5 125 watt indoor flood lights. I duck tape em to the stands, and shine them up through the drum skins. I really dig the effect… it makes the whole kit glow. Obviously it’s not something you can do for every show, you have to work it out with the band well before hand, but it has been my experiance that the smaller bands are generally open to experimentation. It has allowed me to spend a lot more time practicing drummer composition.
26. Martin | July 18th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Indeed, the drummer often gets left out. If you can, getting in close with a wide angle can work really well, but is generally limited to rehearsals.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverspark/2582774046/in/set-72157605631633892/
Also, shooting from the side is often a good way to get a clear shot. But it’s not often easy to get clearance.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/silverspark/2602492439/in/set-72157605760719752/
27. Todd | July 18th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Hey all, I’ll definitely be making a post on drummers soon, so save some discussion for that post, too!
Martin: Nice examples with great lighting!
28. Robert Daniels | July 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
yeah put the drummer up front like this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kR9-VMwgsI&feature=related
29. maryelle | July 19th, 2008 at 10:49 am
My lens-buying upgrade path:
I started with the 50mm 1.8 and the kit (Nikon) 18-55. Then I got the 55-200. Then I bought a D300 and knew the kit and the 55-200 weren’t going to cut it for most venues (although they are pretty darn good during daylight), and the 50mm was too short for some. So from there I went:
85mm 1.8
20mm 2.8
24-70 2.8 (rented)
24-70 2.8 (bought)
17-55 2.8 (bought, hasn’t arrived yet)
70-200 VR 2.8 (bought, hasn’t arrived yet)
I used the rented 24-70 the other night and it was worth every last cent although still slightly short because of where the venue made me stand. I bought one two days later, and ordered the 70-200. I may end up selling the 20mm once the 17-55 arrives, but I’ll keep the 50 and 85 because of the larger aperture and I love primes anyway.
30. Todd | July 19th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Hey Maryelle,
Thanks for input on this discussion. I see you’ve picked up some great glass that will be fitting to the excellent D300.
As I’ve mentioned before, I really love the range of the 17-55mm on the DX frame, I think you’ll like it.
31. kathryn | July 20th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Just though I’d point out that the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is optimized for cropped sensor cameras. If you have a full frame camera, you’ll get vignetting in the corners, so it’s up to you whether or not it works for you.
Also, a lot of people don’t realize that f/1.4 is actually 2/3rds of a stop faster than f/1.8. If you are deciding between two prime lenses and have the cash, get the f/1.4 version! It will save you headache over the long run.
32. George K. | July 21st, 2008 at 9:59 am
I’ve been shooting concert photography for years and while I rely on my Canon L lenses for most of my work, it’s only because I’m making money from shooting photos. For everyone else, I can’t talk up Tamron lenses enough.
The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 is a fantastic low light lens that is only a little slower at autofocusing than the Canon equivalents and cost a ton less. It also weighs a lot less, which can be a big help when you’re lugging around gear at a show.
They just released a new 70-200mm 2.8 that got great reviews in the mags and might give the Canon L version a run for the money. The Tamron model doesn’t feature image stablization, but that isn’t always necessary when your photographing a fast moving concert.
Again, you get what you pay for with lenses, but with Tamron you do get a lot of bang for your buck. Just my two cents.
33. Todd | July 21st, 2008 at 11:03 am
DPReview.com recently posted reviews of all the major 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses.
The Tamron 70-200mm actually stacks up quite well to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, third-party lens or not. On the 5D, according to DPR’s test data, the Tamron actually out-performs the Canon lens at f/2.8 and f/4.
Here’s a link to a comparison:
Tamron vs Canon: 70-200mm f/2.8s
34. Celso | July 22nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
If you read the full review of the Tamron you will see that it’s focusing motor is quite slow and VERY noisy… Plus this part:
written about a test of focusing accuracy wide open…
35. Todd | July 22nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I would be very curious to see how the new Tamron 70-200mm works with Nikon.
Tamron was touting the new in-lens focusing motor for Nikon-mount, which may be different than whatever in-lens AF motor is used for the Canon version.
36. Kylie | July 22nd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
I currently use two Canon 30D’s mainly because I know my way around them and once I get the money I’ll upgrade to something more flash, I am still crossing my fingers for Canon to get a nice 6200ISO as I’m not that good on a Nikon and my lenses are all Canon brand.
50mm f/1.8
24-70mm f/2.8
70-200mm f/2.8
I am wanting something wide, I was thinking a 15mm f/2.8 fisheye but also tossing up a 16-35mm f/2.8 or 17-55f/2.8.. price ranges between both are quite a bit so I need to make the correct decision
37. Jacinta | July 24th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Spot on as usual Todd. My upgrade from my kit lenses involved the two Tamron mid-range zooms you mention there, as well as the Canon 70-200 2.8L, and when I went full-frame I upgraded once again to add a 24-70 2.8L and a 17-40 4L. I like to keep my kit very minimal. Three lenses to do just about everything! :)
38. Tim | July 29th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Todd…thanks for this great website.
I work for a company that makes cymbals and have been going to several shows to get shots for our websites and man…the folks here are right. Drummers are leftt in the dark way too often.
Here is my stuff:
Started with a D40 and bought a 50mm 1.8 (lots of fun, but manual focus was tough)
Upgraded to a D300 and purchased a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and generally love it but i wonder how much faster the focus would be on the Nikon version.
I am hoping to get a 70-200 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 in the future.
Thanks again for the great site and I’m looking forward to your drummer talk!
39. Jorge | August 12th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Im starting in photography and concert shoots. I shoot punk rock concerts in very small venues. I have the Canon Rebel XT, the kit glass and the 50mm 1.8. 18mm it’s great for some pictures, but the glass is too slow…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kokiperex/sets/72157606567798124/
Todd, what about the flash, is it good use a external flash pointing the roof?
40. Michael Zampelli | August 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Todd,
Us aspiring photogs appreciate the tips! Please keep them coming.
41. Janice | August 17th, 2008 at 3:52 am
Todd,
I’m a photographer for an entertainment news paper called fresh!nk.
I’m only 17 and I don’t have the money for any new lenses, I’m still paying payments on my Nikon D80 I bought over a year ago.
I shot Coachella a few months back and as soon as the sun went down so did the quality of my pictures. (I try to never use flash when shooting shows.)
so I’m kind of panicked because I’m driving to LA tomorrow to shoot warped tour and still all I have to work with is my silly kit lens. (18-135mm f/3.5) ) :
so anyways I have a couple of questions for you:
how do I make the best use of my kit lenses? any advise?
should I consider buying a used lens from like a pawn shop? eBay?
Love the site by the way, creepy as it may sound, you’re an inspiration.
42. robert daniels | August 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Janice if its anything you can do purchase a Nikon 50mm/ 1.8 this will get you through the rough times. Punch that iso up to 1600 and blast away. I also use a D80 and D300.
43. m0n5t3r | September 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
my upgrade path was a little different:
I bought the Nikon D60 a few months ago, together with the 18-55 non-VR kit lens;
then I got the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, and, soon after, I managed to get a photo pass to a festival around here, and I got around reasonably with the Sigma and a borrowed 55-200 mm (I was still exploring the camera, anyway);
based on that experience, my next lens was the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, which works just fine if you are reasonably close (front/2nd row too)
finally, 2 weeks ago I got the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8; I tested it in concert conditions a few days ago (public square concert, all shooting allowed), and I can say I’m satisfied with it; now, all I have left is to improve what’s behind the camera :D
44. andrew bird | September 19th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
More questions!
Any mention of using on camera flash or is it simply waiting for the right timing with the front lights? Obvously balance for tungsten but i’ve found even that doesn’t adjust for the red hue. Do you do a manual white bal adjust?
;)
45. CW | September 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
The 85mm 1.8 has worked wonders for me in extremely poor lit rock shows.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18097936@N00/2574135956/in/set-72157605582765767/
46. Doreen | October 20th, 2008 at 6:02 am
I started with my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and a few weeks ago I bought a Nikkor 50 f/1.4.
When I have enough money I will buy also the Nikkor 70-200, but I ussually shoot small concerts, so it’s not worth it yet. And the next thing I will buy is the Nikon D90 :). After that some other glass like the 70-200 and the 85 mm and 35 mm.
47. Tracy Ellen Photography | November 12th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Hi! This article really helped me on choosing what lens to get next, but I’ve been getting on advice on buying the 50mm f/1.8 I shoot shows too and I have a Canon rebel xTi. Your photography really blew me away, I enjoy your photos! If you could please help me on lens and deciding, I would appreciate it! Thank you.
-Tracy Ellen
Feel free to contact me.
48. Todd | December 25th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Hey Tracy,
Did you ever get your lens upgrade sorted out? I think a 50mm f/1.8 lens is a great option, but I prefer the faster f/1.4 lens. It’s a little more, but you gain 2/3 stop and the performance of the f/1.4 is generally getter at wide apertures.
49. 2008: Year In Review | is&hellip | January 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
[...] Photography: Tutorial Series How-To: Metering & Exposure, pt. 1 How-To: Metering & Exposure, pt. 2 Choosing Lenses For Concert Photography 8 Tips for a Great Photography [...]
50. Jean Luc Meisel | January 9th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I was curious aout the 70-200 you use, is it the VR version I have the version without VR but was hoping that using a fast shutter speed would make up for the missing VR?
Any thoughts?
Thanks for a wonderful and creative site.
Cheers
51. Todd | January 9th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Nikon only makes one 70-200mm f/2.8, which has VR. Do you have the 80-200mm f/2.8?
Yes, using a faster shutter speed will negate the need for in-lens stabilization. At a certain point, a faster shutter speed with counteract camera shake, just as it will freeze motion blur in the subject.
Hope this helps, glad to hear you enjoy the site.
52. Jean Luc Meisel | January 10th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
sorry about that, foolish of me, I meant 80-200mm f2.8 got misguided with all the 70mm listings, or maybe I wish I had that one! :)
Been thinking about getting a long VR version lens and wondering if I need it or can use the suggestion that you made, guess I will have to try it out and see who much light and blur I get.
I often see statement that VR will get you extra stops and I suppose I was thinking that the VR will get me more light, etc.
Thanks for the help and your patience with me.
Cheers
53. Todd | January 10th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
VR is most useful in situations where the subject motion (or lack of it) allows one to use shutter speeds that are slower than “normal.”
For example, a motionless singer at a microphone would allow one to use much slower shutter speeds than a singer thrashing around with a guitar if the goal is to freeze motion.
VR allows one to counteract the camera shake that becomes more evident at slower speeds. You’re not really getting “more light,” but you will be empowered to shoot in worse light without having to worry as much about camera shake for certain subjects.
Hope this helps.
54. Justin | January 15th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Hi Todd, everyone,
Having just entered into the world of concert photography, I’m shooting mostly with a Canon 400D and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I’m actually planning on upgrading my body to a 50D first, but I’m wondering, price considerations aside, if the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is worth the upgrade? Anybody have experience with both the Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-55 lenses?
If it’s not worth it, I’m going to take that money and put it towards a 50mm f/1.4 (already have the f/1.8) or possibly a 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
Thanks! (And thanks for the awesome site and work Todd!)
Justin
55. Todd | January 19th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Hey Justin,
I think that in the case of brand name (Canon 17-55) vs third-party (Tamron 17-50), it’s going to be a case of diminishing returns when you go for the more expensive lens. For some, the upgrade is worth it for the details.
To that end, I’d ask: what isn’t the Tamron doing for you? Optical performance aside, one thing I suspect is that the Canon lens (being USM) would focus more quickly and more precisely under difficult conditions.
56. Justin | January 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Todd,
What isn’t it doing? Truthfully, I can’t rag on it — it’s been a solid performer. I’m mainly interested in how much better the Canon lens is compared to the Tamron (if any), especially when fitted to the 50D.
57. Todd | January 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Hey Justin,
I’d recommend renting or otherwise trying to borrow the Canon lens. Even just going to the store to try it out (along side your Tamron) might give you an idea as to the AF speed and such.
Hopefully someone can chime in here, but good luck.
58. Sean Molin | January 28th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I shoot local concert photography with a D700, and I use EXCLUSIVELY:
14-24mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8
85mm f/1.8
I’m fortunate enough to be able to get ON stage (sometimes laying on the ground at the feet of a guitar player in a show where he can step on me) most of the time, so I let me feet do the zooming.
59. Andi | March 1st, 2009 at 2:54 am
Hi All,
I use:
Nikon D200
Tamron 17-50 2.8
Nikon 80-200 2.8
60. Andi | March 1st, 2009 at 2:55 am
… a bit slow but i like this gear :)
61. Zach Armstrong | March 15th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Just purchased the Tamron 17-50 mm f/2.8, since the Nikon is a bit out of my price range and most reviews I’ve read have been nothing but glowing. Should arrive mid-week! Can’t wait to give her a try.
Thanks for the tip!
Zach Armstrong
62. Keep Learning | Chris Owy&hellip | March 19th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
[...] aspect of the craft. Find a mentor, read a book, or check out really awesome online tutorials from Todd Owyoung and Zack Arias. addthis_url = [...]
63. Ranjit | April 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Sigma 70-200 –> Nikon 20/2.8 –> Nikon 50/1.4 –> Nikon 24-70 and 70-200 VR (when I can afford them).
64. Todd | April 3rd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Hey Ranjit, thanks for your experiences here on how you built your kit.
65. Tracy Ellen | April 3rd, 2009 at 5:17 pm
How much does this lens (70-200mm f/2.8 – The telephoto Zoom) usually cost? Is Calumet Photogenic an good store for buying lens too?
Thanks.
66. Todd | April 3rd, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Hi Tracy,
The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 is about $1,900 right now after the recent price raises. I generally buy my gear from B&H in New York.
67. andrew bird | April 4th, 2009 at 1:34 am
70-200mm Is quite a slow lens for concert photography, the IS gives at least another stop though: i’ve used it on the 5DII as his camera has very low noise at 1600iso. It’s around £1500 to £1650.
Calumet Photographic seem to be the most expensive, B&H in New York are cheaper if you just want to get in and get out. If you prefer friendly people who are interested in you, theflashcentre.co.uk are awesome.
68. Chad | April 7th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Started with my Canon 20D about 24 months ago. 17-85 4-5.6 IS – kit with a 75-300 4-5.6. I was just dabbling a little in concert photography and realized this just wouldn’t work.. Purchased the cheap $100 Canon 50 1.8, and a sigma 30 1.4 (great lens!). Both of these primes opened me up to a new world of what I could shoot. A couple months later purchased the 10-22 3.5-4.5 to go wide. I realized that even @ 3.5 when focusing @ 10mm I was able to gather a lot of light.
About 16 months ago, I upgraded to a 40D with a 24-105 4L IS and 70-200 2.8L IS.
My bag then consisted of the Sigma 30 1.4, Canon 50 1.8 (upgraded to the 1.4), 70-200 2.8L IS, and 17-85 4-5.6 IS.
About 10 months ago, I went full frame, I couldn’t wait and added a 5D and a 16-35 2.8L to my bag. Music festival season approached and I was looking for a way to lighten the load so I added a 28-300 3.5-5.6L IS ( dont listen to all the bad press on this lens, it is extremely versatile, well built, and relatively sharp between 35-270 5.6. . During the day my festival bag consisted of the 28-300, 16-35(current) or the 10-22(past), and 15mm fish. At night it was a different story.
My current bag (Crumpler’s Brazillion Dollar home), when packed full for a night of prepared for anything, 2x 5D MKII’s, 70-200 2.8, 16-35 2.8, 15 2.8 Fish, 35 1.4L, 50 1.4, 85 1.2L, 28-70 2.8L(got a great deal used- It is softer than the new 24-70, but better contrast. The AF is a bit slow in low light, but the 24 1.4L was a greater necessity for me vs. a new 24-70..I am renting a Sigma 24-70 to try for a week), and soon to add the 24 1.4L II (currently on order), and a 1.4x tele. (All Canon Glass). There is a lot of stuff in here and it gets heavy when loaded with Speedlights and accessories, but if I am shooting a new band in a new venue, I am prepared for just about anything. If I am familiar with the band and the venue and only carrying 1 body, I usually pack the 70-200, 35 1.4, 50 1.4, 16-35, and either the 28-70 or 85 1.2 ( depending on the venue and band). The combination of primes gives me the same coverage as a mid range zoom.
Regarding, where to buy- I have purchased several lenses from B&H, and shop @ Calumet. B&H is great when you know what you want and want a competitive price. The sales people are generally pretty helpful. Calumet is 99% of the time @ list price, however the level of knowledge and customer service that their staff has is outstanding and at times worth the extra $.
The smallest amount of gear I will carry with the 5D MKII’s is typically the 70-200 ,28-70 and 16-35. Primes arent as much of a necessity now with the higher ISO, however I still like shooting with them whenever possible.
69. Paul | April 13th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
What i find difficult to understand coming over from a digital pint and shoot is what length lens I need. I always sit ini the 8th row or closer or I genrally dont go. I figure from the 8th row of most smaller venues its about 25-35 feet (just a guess).When I sit closer the choices are easier but from 30-40 feet it is hard to tell. I want to be able to get close enough with my Canon XSI to get good photos, closeups when I can either with the lens or with photo shop.
A 70-200 is a big lens, if I knew I could do a good job with a 150mm I could save some time and weight. The low F stop is a given. Any advice??
70. Jenn | May 1st, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Is it better to buy a camera that comes with a lens or just buy the camera body and a lens separate?
71. Todd | May 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Hey Jenn,
It all depends on the lens that comes with the camera, but if you’re talking about standard kits (often a ~18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 for cameras with 1.5x crop sensors), then I certainly don’t recommend those packages.
If you have the choice, I’d suggest going with the camera body you want and then purchasing the lenses most suited to concert photography a la carte.
72. david | May 31st, 2009 at 8:01 am
Hi All,
is anyone shooting shows with the Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM II?
I have gotten photo passes to a music festival in late June and was thinking about buying this lens.
Currently my rig is: Nikon D80, a 50mm 1.8 and a kit lens 18-135 f3.5-4 and SB-800 flash.
No way can I afford the Nikon VR lens and so I’ll just be working with the gear that I have.. which so far has kinda worked ..with the help of noise ninja, I’ve been able to produce some fairly descent work.
So if anyone has any actual experience with this lens shooting shows I’d love to hear it.
73. david | June 4th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Follow up to my sigma post … I just discovered for the same price as the Sigma I could get a used Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED AF-D …
Would that be a better buy then the sigma?
74. 5 Tips for Better Concert&hellip | June 4th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
[...] Photography: Tutorial Series How-To: Metering & Exposure, pt. 1 How-To: Metering & Exposure, pt. 2 Choosing Lenses For Concert Photography 8 Tips for a Great Photography [...]
75. Leslie | June 8th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Hi Todd, I’m an amateur concert photographer in New York. I’ve been using a point and shoot digital camera for a couple of years and I’m about to invest in a Canon Rebel XS or XSi with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I can’t really afford to shell out $1500 for a good lense, so I’m currently deciding between the 50 f/1.8 or 1.4, the 28-70 f/2.8-4 or something similarly priced. What would you suggest? Occasionally I do outdoor shows or huge venues, but usually I’m very close to the stage at smaller venues with either extremely low light or flashing lights/strobe lighting.
I’d really appreciate your advice, thanks!
76. Yalcin | June 29th, 2009 at 11:47 am
I started with XTI+Ef 28+135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, very good lens but not for concerts, I liked to use long exposure shot, especially the drummers as they are my favourite subjects.
Then I discovered the MF world and swithed there with 5D. Used Rolleinar 135/2.8 and Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/85 there with nice performance but focusing in those low light environbments are not easy and if you have the time limit then AF is the lifesaver. Now after trying a lot of different MF lenses and trying them, was shooting macros and fall in love with Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/35 I again changed path due to my new work and now swithing back to AF lenses. I still love to shoot concerts as a hobby so can’t afford to buy expensive gadget for now. But I can easily say that the way to go for is the fast zooms as primes limits your composition. I used Canon EF 70-200/4 L IS USM and got very good results with it but at ISO3200 (NR off) and NR software usage you loose some detail so faster is allways better.
I’ve traded my MF Zeiss 2.8/20 with a Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG Macro which a decent performancer and not a wrong choice (also compatible with 5D MkII). The next aim is the 70-200/2.8 lens, optical wise Tamron is a safe choice but AF speed is scary. Canon is a decent performer but with a lot more USD, EF IS USM is the best but too pricey if you are not earning your life from this but it will my definite lens :)
So if you say cut the crap here is my Canon FF suggestion:
- Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG Macro for Budget, Canon EF 24-70/2.8 L for the money is no problem guy
- Sigma 70-200/2.8 for the budget (better AF performance than Tamron), Canon EF 70-200/2.8 L IS USM for the money is no problem buy.
- For small dark venues you can even feel desperate with your f:1.8 (I got 1/10 in one venue, f:1.8, ISO1600 on XTI) so faster is allways better, my choice is EF 85/1.2 L II, I know it is pretty expensive but it is a special lens. For the whole group shots I would choose the Sigma 20/1.8
- as a body 5D MkII is the dream but if you are tight in budget original 5D is still a good performer. If you need the speed than you can think 40D.
speak up
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>