For anyone interested in pursuing what’s been described as “low-light action portraiture,” the issue of the most appropriate equipment is an inevitable question.
Considering the ubiquitous low light of indoor venues, song limits, energetic performances, and the generally frenetic pace of rock shows, the proper gear can ease some of the intimidating constraints of concert photography.
Just starting out? Please see my article Choosing Lenses for Concert Photography first.
Below is the list of gear that I regularly use or have used for concert photography.
Lenses (zooms)
Tokina 12-24mm f/4 (retired)
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (retired)
Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VRLenses (primes)
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Nikon 85mm f/1.4Supplementary Gear
SanDisk Extreme 4gb CF Cards
Nexto CF OTG
Kinesis bags
Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home
Below you’ll find more in-depth descriptions of why this kit works for me and my concert photography. For other thoughts on gear for photographing live music, please check the General Recommendations at the bottom of this page.
Camera Bodies
The D3 is Nikon’s latest flagship and the first DSLR to boast a native ISO 6400, let alone extensions to ISO 12800 and ISO 25600. I acquired this camera to replace the venerable D2x and have been delighted by the quantum leap in performance over the old workhorse.
The D3 offers incredibly clean files right up to ISO 6400, and even very usable images at ISO 12800, creating an excellent platform for concert photography. Combined with fast f/2.8 zooms, the new high sensitivities the D3 ushered in a new approach to low light shooting that has me reaching for fast f/1.4 primes much less often. For me, the camera’s incredible high ISO performance is an even more key selling point than the full frame sensor.
In addition, the camera offers a very wide dynamic range, especially when combined with tone-mapping via RAW. The 14-bit image processing and a huge 8.45µm pixel pitch don’t hurt either.
One great new feature over the D2x is the inclusion of two CF slots in the camera, which effectively doubles one’s shooting capacity before having to change cards. For demanding, fast-paced events with a high image-yield, this is a huge boon, especially considering the song limits for music photography.
The D3 is also UDMA-enabled, meaning that it can take advantage of the fastest CF cards for incredibly fast transfer rates. What this translates into is a fast drain of the buffer, and for me, almost never bouncing an image.
Just like the D2x, the D3 has the great ergonomics for which Nikon is renown, and a bright, 100% coverage viewfinder that is great for concert work in dim venues.
Nikon D2x:
I used this camera extensively for concert photography in the 2006 and 2007 seasons, though it has since been replaced by the Nikon D3.
While the high ISO performance is only fair compared to more recent offerings, lagging behind that of models like the D3 and D300, the D2x still offers very good image quality through ISO 1600. At ISO 800, the files are very clean.
For telephoto work, the 1.5x crop factor of the DX sensor adds some welcome reach, and the high pixel pitch and low-strength AA filter produce great detail overall. For daytime festivals, this camera is simply excellent.
Zoom Lenses
On a cropped-sensor body, this lens lens offers a very dramatic field of view, at the expense of a fast aperture. While the slow f/4 aperture may be prohibitive for indoor concert photography, this lens excels at festivals, in brightly lit arenas, and when used with flash.
If you’re looking at this lens, you might also consider the new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens, which offers a more narrow zoom range, slightly wider field of view, and a brighter constant aperture.
Aside from range, I like these Tokina lenses because the build is rock-solid. In addition, the full-time manual focus override is nice when using the lens for other applications besides concert photography.
The Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is a lens that is wrong about 80% of the time, but that doesn’t stop me from trying to use it every chance I get.
The ultra-wide perspective of this lens can bring a hugely dynamic feel to a concert scene, stretching out limbs, exaggerating distance, and generally kicking it up a notch.
I love using this lens up close and personal at the front of the stage. In fact, the close, the better.
When used on a full-frame sensor, the dynamic perspective of this ultra-wide angle zoom is highly addictive and has brought home a very large percentage of my favorite images from the last few months.
The biggest downside of this lens, aside from the price, is the enormous, bulbous front element, which does not allow for the use of filers on this lens. The lens does feature a built-in hood, but keeping the exposed lens element is a constant struggle, especially when it loves being shoved into the faces of sweaty, headbanging rockers.
On the Nikon D2x, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX lens was my bread and butter optic for indoor concert photography shooting from the pit.
Just like the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 that I replaced it with, this Nikkor offers a great wide-to-short-tele range that is perfect for front-stage action
“Standard” zoom lenses like this are my preferred lens for shooting from the pit, and pair very well with either an ultra-wide or telephoto zoom.
Just like the 17-55mm, the new 24-70mm f/2.8 features a range that is highly useful for stage-front photography.
I love the wide-to-short-tele zoom range of this lens, which provides a highly utilitarian spread of focal lengths on a full-frame sensor. At 24mm, the lens renders a nicely wide field of view that’s great for stage and full-body shots, while 70mm is tight enough for more isolated captures of individual musicians.
In addition, the lens performs exceedingly well wide open, which makes it highly suitable for concert photography and PJ work in general.
If I don’t know what to expect in the pit, this lens is where I’ll start. And when I do know, this is still the lens I’ll pick.
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR:
The Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 telephoto lens is perfect for tight shots of individual performers and grabbing the drummer at the back of the stage. On a 1.5x crop frame, the wide end isn’t very wide, but the isolation and reach of the 70-200mm make it indispensable for bringing home high-impact shots of individual musicians.
The addition of Vibration Reduction (VR) makes this telephoto a solid choice for indoor concert photography, especially in middling light that might otherwise make such a telephoto an unreasonable choice. The Canon version that features IS is likewise an excellent choice.
I’m most likely to use this lens when there’s a more notable singer on stage or in larger venues where the performers are farther back and/or greatly elevated from the pit. Also, if there are shooting restrictions like shooting from the sound board or from the wings, this telephoto helps close the distance.
At outdoor festivals, where speaker stacks may be placed in the between between the stage and photographers, the range of this 70-200mm lens is also very welcome.
Prime Lenses
Replacing the standard 50mm field of view for 1.5x crop sensors, the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 performs admirably well in low light in a focal length that’s very well suited for work in the pit at the front of the stage.
With a fast f/1.4 aperture and a performance curve biased toward wide-aperture shooting, the Sigma delivers great flexibility for those dark venues when f/2.8 zooms are stops too slow. As a bonus, this lens is surprisingly flare resistant compared to its 50mm counterparts.
I find the 30mm best for waist-up shots of performers and catching slightly more environmental shots, while I’ll switch to the below 50mm or 85mm primes for tighter framing.
While this lens was designed for the DX frame, I’ve found that the lens is surprisingly useful on the FX sensor of the Nikon D3. There is severe corner shading, as one might expect, but the actual area of the usable image circle is actually quite large, making this fast, “wide” lens a nice option in failing light.
Nikon 50mm f/1.4:
As the once-standard lens for 35mm cameras, lenses in the 50mm focal length are abundant and relatively cheap in all mounts, especially the f/1.8 versions. Even the faster f/1.4 models are affordable compared to other primes with this fast aperture.
On a 1.5x crop sensor, like that of the D2x, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a short telephoto lens that I find more manageable than my 85mm lens, and which works well for front-stage work. While I generally find the lens too narrow in its field of view as a single-lens solution, the fast aperture and acceptable quality at wide apertures make this a clutch lens situations when f/2.8 glass isn’t fast enough.
When used on a cropped sensor, the only hesitation I would have in recommending this lens is that its field of view can force awkward compositions. This factor isn’t so much a mark on the lens so much as it is a consideration when working with primes in general.
For the Nikon D3, 50mm is once again a nice focal length that is wide enough for general use.
Nikon 85mm f/1.4:
The fast aperture and excellent wide-aperture performance of the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 make this lens highly useful for portraits of individual performers. I often find myself reaching for this lens when photographing singer-songwriters, who are not often light with light of much intensity in smaller venues.
Though the fixed focal length demands more care to produce exacting compositions, the excellent low-light performance of this lens secures its place in my gig bag. This is especially true when the slower speed and/or weight of the 70-200mm is inappropriate for a gig.
I find the 85mm particularly well suited as a short telephoto pair to the Nikon 17-55mm or Nikon 24-70mm, as it nicely compliments the general range of the zoom with a nice tele option, all in a relatively small profile.
Supplementary Gear
The Nexto CF OTG is a portable storage unit that accepts compact flash cards. The drive can copy or move the entire contents of a memory card, verifies transfers, and offers limited file-browsing for additional verification. Unlike many other similar devices, the Nexto’s tranfer speeds are relatively fast – the unit is capable of moving 1gb of data in a little less than two minutes.
The Nexto case features a small LCD that indicates progress and tasks only; images cannot be displayed or reviewed.The Nexto hardware itself is simply a casing with minimal hardware and firmware, and accepts standard 2.5″ laptop harddrives. I’ll be bringing a Nexto with a 100gb drive installed, which is more than enough for the two days I’ll be shooting the festival.
Kinesis Bags:
I’m a big fan of the Kinesis camera bag system, which is a modular system that is truly as functional as it is a disaster for the fashion conscious. While the bags accept conventional shoulder straps, a modular belt system lies at the core of this product line’s functionality. The company’s myriad line of bags, pouches, and holders all connect interchangeably to the belts. I can carry my D2X, 70-200, 17-55, Nexto drive, and more. Comfortably, all day long. Not something I’d want to try with a shoulder bag.
For long events, I’m not above sacrificing my personal dignity to save myself from some backache, so I’m willing to rock this belt system. Not only is it much more comfortable than an over-the-shoulder camera bag, it’s also highly functional. Everything is close at hand. As my equipment is connected to my waist à la a Batman-esque utility belt, there little that can swing around, get snagged, or otherwise get in the way of shooting. Just my pride. For single concerts, I’m more likely to use the shoulder strap with my Kinesis bags.
Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home
In addition to the above Kinesis system, I also use Crumpler bags when a single carrying unit is preferable. For me, the best thing about Crumpler products is that they are absolutely bomb-proof. While I might cringe at dropping the very lightly padded Kinesis bags from a height of even a foot, I wouldn’t blink if my Crumplers happened to fall off my shoulder. Not that they would, of course, thanks to big fat shoulder pads that distribute the weight quite well.
The Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home probably holds more than you should ever bring to a single-headliner event and will house your entire kit of huge f/2.8 zooms with ease. Loading up the messenger-style bag, I can fit the D3 with 24-70mm mounted, along with the 14-24mm, 85mm, and 70-200mm, with enough room left over for the 50mm or an external flash.
For lighter shoots, I also use the Crumpler Bucket in one of the company’s messenger bag, which will fit the D3 with 24-70mm mounted with room for with the 85mm and 50mm. Just like the 7 Million Dollar Home, though I might cry on the inside, I wouldn’t shed any tears if this bag took a dead drop to a cement floor at a show.
SanDisk Extreme IV 4gb CF Cards:
Upgrading to the Nikon D3, which is UDMA-enabled for very fast write/read speeds with compatible CF cards, I decided to pick up four of the SanDisk Extreme IV 4gb cards to replace my Ridata cards. While the new SanDisk cards are the same capacity, the promise of faster transfer speeds was the main reason this upgrade.
I’m very happy to say that the performance of these new cards is excellent, and I have yet to bounce the buffer of the D3 while shooting performances. However, the best part about these new cards is that, when paired with a UDMA-enabled Firewire 800 cardreader, I can suck a full 4gb card to my computer in about two minutes. That’s nice.
It’s very important to note that the best selling point for this line from SanDisk is the high transfer speeds, exclusively made possible by UDMA. For cameras that do not support this feature, I would highly suggest saving your money unless you plan to upgrade to a camera that supports UDMA transfer in the near future. Check out Rob Galbraith’s CF/SD testing guide to find the best option for your camera.
General Recommendations:
My specific kit is a set of tools that works well for me and the venues in which I shoot. Aside from a few borrowed pieces of gear for specific shows, the above items were used for the entirety of my portfolio.
Cameras:
In both the consumer and professional lines, just about any current DSLR on the market is capable of producing very usable results at ISO 1600 and should make a reasonable fine base for exploring concert photography.
While high ISO and AF performance will vary from model to model, for the most part, lenses will have a more dramatic affect on one’s ability to make images in low light. Even a relatively inexpensive DSLR can produce excellent quality images with good glass in front of it.
For Nikon shooters, it’s important to note that the Nikon D40x and D60 do not feature build-in focusing motors, and can only use newer lenses with their own AF motors.
Starter Lenses:
Throw away your 18-55 f/8-32 kit lens. The range is great. But, as they say, speed kills.
For anyone starting out with concert photography, I would recommend investing in lenses with wide apertures – as fast as you can afford. Though often a stop or two slower than prime lenses, zoom lenses offer unparalleled flexibility, which can be essential for the quick pace of concert photography.
As you can see from my kit, I would recommend a midrange zoom with a constant f/2.8 aperture. For cropped-sensor cameras, this means a lens in the range of 17-55mm. Nikon and Canon both make such a lens. In addition, almost all of the third-party manufacturers also produce a lens that fits the bill.
More?
If you’d like other recommendations on gear beyond the gear I use, I’d be happy to give you suggestions and advice as I’m able. Just leave a comment here or on any of the relevant posts.
124 Comments Add your own
1. Stephen | July 18th, 2007 at 7:13 am
“low-light action portraiture” - ha! That’s a great description for it!
2. Equipment Features: Gear &hellip | July 18th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
[…] Gear Guide […]
3. Stephen | August 16th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Just a few minutes ago I received a parcel in the mail - a shiny new Nikon 17-55! I hold you fully responsible for this purchase, Todd!
4. Todd | August 18th, 2007 at 4:12 am
Let me know how you like it, Stephen. It’s a great lens and I use it for the majority of my general shooting. Congrats.
5. Stephen | August 19th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Well it’s early days still but I really like the feel of the 17-55 and the results have been great so far! Can’t wait to try it out properly… I don’t know why I waited so long to get it!
6. Stephen | October 4th, 2007 at 2:55 am
I think you need to update this page, Todd. The iPhone is missing from your list!
7. Todd | October 4th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Stephen, ha, you’re right. After the Flaming Lips debacle, I have a new bit of gear at my disposal. By the way, how’s the 17-55 treating you?
8. Nada Surf @ the Gargoyle &hellip | October 23rd, 2007 at 10:54 pm
[…] thanks to fast primes, slow shutter speeds, and photographic tenacity. The 17mm focal length of the Nikon 17-55 was employed for the group shots, while the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 picked up all of […]
9. tricia | November 3rd, 2007 at 5:51 am
Hi,
Can I pick your brains?, what would you recommend for an amatuer who likes taking photo’s at gigs but I usually end up with dark grainy shots, I use a kodak p850.
regards
tricia
10. Todd | November 4th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hi Tricia,
I’d recommend looking at some of the entry-level DSLRs like the Nikon D40x and Canon 400D. These cameras are going to offer much better low light performance than your current camera, especially paired with a lens more suitable for concert photography.
Hope this helps — let me know if there are more specific recommendations I can give, I’m happy to help.
11. Avenged Sevenfold @ the P&hellip | November 7th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
[…] Avenged Sevenfold’s set, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 never left the camera. As per usual, the wide-to-short-tele range was perfect for capturing the […]
12. julia | November 8th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
hi todd,
i’ve actually picked up your website a couple different ways in the past month and really love it. so thanks for that first off..
secondly i’m about to purchase a P&S camera for taking to concerts. short answer as to why i’m not getting an slr is that i’m not looking to go professional.. do you have any recommendations for me?
13. Todd | November 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Hi Julia,
Glad you’ve found the site and have enjoyed it. For a concert photography P&S, I would recommend the Fuji F30, F31, F40, and F50 cameras. The F30 and F31 are now discontinued, but offer very nice high ISO quality for such a compact camera. The newer F40 and the F50 that replaces it both have more megapixels, which unfortunately means a little more noise, but shooting at a lower resolution actually seems to render good results with these two.
These Fuji cameras would be my first suggestions for compact concert camera. Hope this helps.
Todd
14. Operator @ the Pageant --&hellip | November 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
[…] The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 ruled this set, especially the wide end. 17mm came into play heavily for the sweeping gestures of […]
15. The Death Set @ the Gargo&hellip | November 11th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
[…] the f/2.8 aperture of the Nikon 17-55 would have allowed for faster shutter speeds, the added cover of the Tokina was invaluable for this […]
16. The Mountain Goats @ the &hellip | November 11th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
[…] Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 was the lens of the night, even with the mediocre lighting. The wide angle of the lens was […]
17. Nic | November 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
You’ve got a long gear list there. If I want to start out slow & I have a Nikon d70….which lens do you think I should purchase first for concert photography? which two, and list in order…
Thanks!
18. Todd | November 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hey Nic,
For the first show I shot, I used a D70 and the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 that is listed above. You can see shots from that show here.
I’d be happy to suggest a kit plan for you, though I think it would depend on a few things, but namely budget and the types of venues you will be shooting in.
However, without that info, the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a very nice lens on the D70 — while it’s wide aperture performance on the more unforgiving D2x is not that great, the lens is very sharp on the D70.
Beyond the 50mm, it depends on the venues. If you’re starting off in smaller venues were you’ll be close to the stage, the Nikon 35mm f/2 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4 will be very useful.
Though it’s large and expensive, the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 is my favorite concert lens for a variety of reasons, including its range, constant aperture, and great performance at f/2.8. If I could only have one lens at the front of the stage, light permitting, I would pick this one without hesitation for most shows.
If you get back to me with a budget and more info on the types of gigs you’ll be shooting, I can give you some more suggestions.
Todd
19. Regina Spektor @ the Page&hellip | November 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
[…] this show, I used the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 and Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 for the majority of the three alloted songs, while the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 […]
20. Don Talley | November 14th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I’m brand new to the world of concert photography and due to budgetary limitations, will be starting with a Canon Rebel XTi. Concert Photography will be a hobby for me rather than a business.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the ‘net to determine what lenses I should go after for my typical venues which will be small dimly lit clubs where I’ll be up close to the stage.
Your website has been the most helpful and clearly written information…..by far.
Found your site via the Flickr concert photo site.
Thanks for putting together such a great site.
21. Todd | November 14th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Hey Don,
It’s great to hear that this site has been helpful to you, thanks very much for the kind words. The Rebel XTi is capable of producing some very nice files at high ISO, so I wouldn’t be afraid to crank up the ISO when the light is low. Regarding lenses, let me know if I can be of any help, I’d be happy to make suggestions.
Thanks again, I’m glad to share any info I can.
Todd
22. Ebony | November 27th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Todd, OMG! You totally inspire me! For the longest I have done some concert photography on & off. I have connections with the radio stations and clubs in my area [Little Rock, Ark.], but I have been really afraid to go ahead and jump on in the concert photography business, itself. I already do some portraiture and other freelance jobs, and I do live off of my photography work. I am just having a hard time making sure that I am getting paid what I am worth and not selling myself short. When you got started, how did you go about setting your pricing???
Thank you for your excellent work!!!
23. Todd | November 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hey Ebony,
Thanks for getting in touch, I’m flattered the work and/or anything on the site has inspired you. Your connections sound like the perfect in for stepping up your concert photography work.
I should say that portraiture and other commercial photography is another game, and that it’s really quite difficult to make a living doing solely music photography. And as I imagine you’ve found out, being paid all can be a struggle!
I think that for concert photographers starting out, there’s really a tough decision between the temptation to give images away for nothing to get a foot in the door, and the real need to be recognized for images and the value they bring to the music industry.
My advise would be to establish a price list for web images and full-resolution, royalty-free images. You may decide to break out two price lists for unsigned bands, those on indie labels, and then prices for major label artists.
Feel free to comment or e-mail me if you have any specific questions.
Best,
Todd
24. Solange Moreira Yeoell | November 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Todd,
Hi, I always like having a look at your pictures in here too.
It is a nice site. All the info and help, you’re great.
I don’t know if I said before but your shots are inspiring. They are gorgeously done.
Thanks for the visit in my flickr. I love music and I am an enthusiastic amateur photographer. Every gig I get to I need to try to capture some of the moment as best as I can and with what I am allowed in. It’s fun to hide from security, they always think my sony DSC-H2 is a pro cam, I wish, it would save me lots of money.
I was amazed when you wrote that the shot of VHS or Beta was taken at 1600 ISO, amazing results, I know it’s a small file but it shows no noise and brilliant details. As most of your shots really.
I have been in a fun Canon x Nikon debate the other day and I have to swallow my pride being a canon user but the live shots and photographers I enjoy most in flickr use Nikon. Shame, shame or maybe I am just dreaming, hehe.
What do you think?
I’ll be coming back to appreciate your work. Good Luck and take care. xx
25. Todd | November 27th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Hey Solange,
Thanks very much for the feedback, I appreciate it. I’m glad to hear you enjoy the site and work. To hear that the images are inspiring is a very high compliment to me.
It sounds like you have the very heart of the best music photographers in your intentions. When we love the music, I think it shows in our images.
Yes, almost all the VHS or Beta shots were made at ISO 1600, which is where I often shoot. Shooting at ISO 800 is a rare luxury.
I don’t buy into Canon vs Nikon debates very much — the camera I use is hardly new, and yet I think I manage along with it well enough. Also, I shoot Nikon and my brother shoots Canon, but we’re perfectly friendly to each other, ha.
If there’s anything I leave out on the concert write-ups that you’d like to know, please let me know.
Thanks again for your comment.
Best,
Todd
26. Rick | November 29th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Hi Todd,
First off, I would like to say that I admire not only your work, but your overall willingness to share & teach. Too often, photographers give each other the cold shoulder when it comes to tips & tricks of the trade, almost like they are magicians who don’t want to share their secrets with other magicians.
Anyway, I wanted to get your thoughts on how I could maximize the overall quality of my concert photos. Too often, the images end up either too noisy, fuzzy, motion blurred, etc.
I am shooting with a FinePix Fuji S2 Pro (Nikon body) with a Tamron 28-200mm zoom lense at 1600 ISO.
Don’t get me wrong, I end up with a lot of awesome shots, but out of every 100 shots, maybe 30 or more are unusable. I blame bad lighting for most of it, but what tips can you give me to ease my pain? :o)
thanks,
-Rick
27. Todd | November 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Hey Rick,
Thanks very much for the comment, I’m happy if any of the info on ishootshows has been helpful to you. I have no problem sharing the tech info, as I know it’s a constant problem in concert photography.
It sounds like you’re running up against an issue of slow shutter speeds negatively impacting your work. I would immediately suspect the Tamron 28-200.
With an aperture range of f/3.8-5.6, the lens costing you a lot of speed as you zoom in, which is going to translate into slower shutter speeds.
It depends on how active the performers are, but I like to stay above at least 1/80 second, and 1/160 and faster is my preferred range for shutter speeds.
At wide angle, it’s possible to get away with slower shutter speeds, but if you’re at 200mm, vibration will be magnified and you will probably want to be around 1/200 second at least, and 1/250 and higher would be even better.
Hope this helps, let me know if there’s anything else I can answer.
Best,
Todd
28. Allison Busse | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Hi Todd,
Your pictures are amazing and very inspiring. I am just starting with concert photography and am using a Canon Rebel XTi for now. I saw that someone else mentioned that camera but never followed through with asking for lenses. Can you make any recommendations for me? I will mostly be shooting in pretty small venues. Thanks!
29. Todd | December 2nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
Hi Allison,
For smaller venues were you’re going to be right up to the stage, I would look at lenses 50mm and below. If the lighting is also very low (as it often is in small venues), I would look to the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4.
As a single option, 50mm can be a little tight, but it depends on how high the stage is and how close you’ll be to the musicians.
If there’s more light, a zoom that offers a wide-to-short-tele range like a 17-50mm f/2.8 would be a good choice. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, and of course Canon all make lenses in this range that will fit your camera. For concert photography, f/2.8 is probably as slow as you’ll want to go unless you can use flash.
If you have a specific budget you’re working with, I’d be happy to help you pick out some lenses. Hope the above is helpful.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Best,
Todd
30. Zach Stern | December 13th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Hey Todd, I just bought a D40x (literally 2 or 3 days ago), and I was wondering if you could reccomend any lenses for shooting shows specific to that camera. The reason I ask is because as you probably know the D40x is one of those weird ones where the motor for the autofocus isnt built into the camera, so it only takes specific lenses that have the motor built into them. Or thats what everybody keeps telling me anyway.
On the other hand, maybe I should just forget about the autofocus all together?
Was wondering what you thought about it. Thanks!!
31. Todd | December 14th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Hey Zach,
Thanks for the comment. As you well know by now, the D40x is a tricky camera, as the lens choices are limited to new lenses. However, I wouldn’t be too bothered by this, as there are some great choices available for the camera.
For me, my favorite concert lens on a 1.5x camera like the D40x is a midrange zoom in the 17-55mm range. Sigma makes the 18-50mm f/2.8 with HSM, which is like Nikon’s AF-S lenses with a built-in focusing motor.
With concert photography, even f/2.8 lenses are considered somewhat slow, depending on the lighting, so I would highly recommend at least an f/2.8 zoom.
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 also has a built-in motor, and works very well as a low light concert lens. This prime would be best suited to smaller clubs with dim lighting where you can get right up to the stage.
If you’re going to be shooting in larger venues with high stages, a lens like the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 HSM could be a good pick.
I’d recommend staying away from variable aperture kit lenses like the 18-55mm and 18-135mm, as the slow speed is going to be prohibitive for concert photography.
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions.
Best,
Todd
32. Zach Stern | December 14th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Hey Todd,
Thanks for the advice. Oddly enough, I can’t seem to find the sigma 18-50 F2.8 with HSM
I’ve found a Macro version of that lens with HSM, but thats all. Any ideas?
Or is that the lens your speaking about?
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3328&navigator=6
33. Todd | December 15th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Hey Zach,
Yes, that’s the lens. Sigma has been updating a lot of its lenses to include the “macro” designation, which just means that the minimum focusing distance has been decreased.
That is one of the only economical f/2.8 zooms from a third party that will have full AF with the D40x.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Todd
34. DestinDave | December 15th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Todd… I’ve been looking through your site and am amazed! Kenny W turned me onto your work and this site and I can’t thank you enough for the wealth of info and inspiration here. I am interested in changing careers toward music photography and website design - just trying to get my feet wet. Currently I have an XTi (because I couldn’t afford the 5D I really want! Yet!
I’ve been getting out and shooting local club bands and festivals like the Muddy Blues last summer. I’ve recently made some inroads to gaining access at The Pageant and I hope to meet up with you at some point.
Your work is incredible, inspiring, and your willingness to help newbies like me is truly a rarity.
…Dave
35. Todd | December 17th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hey Dave,
Thanks for the comment, I’m glad to share the info that I can. The 5D is a great camera, but I might wait just a bit, as its successor is going to be announced very soon. I’m sure the new Canon cameras will be nothing short of amazing, now that Nikon has upped the ante with the D3.
Hope to see you at a show soon.
Best,
Todd
36. Adam | January 9th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Heyy Todd
I really want a dslr right but havent a clue on what one to get. with only £500 what would you recommend for gigs and such ?
Thanks
Ad.
37. Todd | January 10th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hey Adam,
That’s a tricky price point, since one could go either way with it. On the one hand, you could sink it all into a body like the Nikon D80, which is a very nice camera, but you’d have little left over for lenses.
If you went the other way and invested in glass first, you could look at the Canon 400D or the Nikon D40x and then pair it with a lens that would give you a few more options.
What kind of gigs will you be photographing? I think the Canon 400D with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 would most likely serve you well, as would the Nikon D40x with the newer HSM version of the Sigma 18-50mm. But again, the lens will depend on the venue.
Best,
Todd
With that amount of money, I’d take a look at the D80
38. Zach Stern | January 16th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Hey Todd,
Thanks for all your great advice so far.
A quick question for you. I was at B&H today, and had two salespeople tell me that buying a sigma lens because they were cheaper might cause me problems. He said they kinda blasted the contrast way up and the shots seem to lose detail, when using sigma lenses.
Any credence to that? I trust you more then I trust them, since you’re not trying to sell me anything
-Zach
39. Todd | January 16th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Hey Zach,
It’s true, Sigma lenses, and third-party lenses in general, can have more issues than OEM products. This can be in part due to the fact that Sigma has to reverse-engineer some things like the AF protocols.
In addition to QA/QC issues that might possibly exist, lenses made by other manufacturers will have different optical coatings on their lenses, and thus may exhibit different color reproduction. Some have said Sigma lenses have a yellowish cast compared to cooler Nikon lenses, for example.
From what I’ve seen, the best Sigma lenses are quiet good and on par with those from Canon and Nikon in many respects. That’s the first I’ve heard about “blasting” the contrast way up (which would generally be a good thing) and a lack of detail.
Personally, I’d recommend the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 if price were no object. That said, the Sigma 18-50mm with HSM should be perfectly capable. If anything, I would think the Nikon sharper at f/2.8, but from what I’ve seen, the two are very comparable otherwise.
Hope this helps.
Todd
40. Matt | January 16th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Hi Todd,
I’ve been looking through your site and you have some truly great work here. You definitely have a love of the art.
Quick question for you though. If I was shooting on a D70s (for concerts/gigs/low-light situations), and was looking at either the Nikkor 17-55mm or the Nikkor 24-70mm, which would you recommend? I’m leaning more towards the 17-55mm, since it’s DX and it’s wider than the 24-70mm. The only plus I can see of the 24-70mm is the extra 15mm on the long end and the ability to use in on an FX camera down the line.
I’d really appreciate your input, and once again great work!
~Matt
41. Todd | January 16th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Hey Matt,
Thanks for checking out the work and the site, I appreciate it.
I think the main concern is the type of venues in which you shoot. I used the 17-55mm f/2.8 until I upgraded to the D3, and I absolutely loved the range and performance of the lens.
For stage-front photography, there is hardly a better lens in my mind (excluding huge arena/festival shoots).
On FX, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is naturally the first choice in a mid-range zoom. On DX, though, I think that the wide end is a little limiting, especially considering that the difference between 55mm and 70mm is much less than that of 24m and 17mm.
If you do foresee upgrading to FX, the 24-70mm will of course offer a better upgrade strategy, but you may miss out on the wide end.
Hope this helps, please let me know if there’s anything else I can help with.
Best,
Todd
42. Zach Stern | January 16th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Todd,
What do you think of these lenses?
NIKON 85mm f/1.8 D-AF
NIKON 50mm f/1.4 D-AF
I’m aware that they aren’t AF-I or AF-S and won’t do autofocus with my camera. I’m willing to live with that.
-Zach
43. Zach Stern | January 16th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Hmm. . . looks like you already use those lenses.
Ignore me
44. Jacklyn-Marie | January 17th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hi Todd,
I dig your website. Anyway I just started getting into concert photography-transitioning from performing music to shooting other artists with my camera. Anyway I was wondering how you felt about the Nikkor 18-200mm VR lens for concert photography?
Thanks
Jack
45. Todd | January 18th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Hi Jacklyn-Marie,
Thanks for checking out the site. On the Nikon 18-200mm, I think that unless you have a lot of light in the venue, the slower nature of the lens is going to be a hinderance in low light shooting.
I always thing position plays a key part in deciding what equipment is best — Where will you be shooting from in these performances?
Best,
Todd
46. Dennis | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Todd,
I’m curious to hear your insights on your Nexto (or any other PSD’s you might care to comment on). I’m in the market for a PSD like the Nexto Ultra CF, and have been looking for good objective reviews. (I realize you have the Nexto CF OTG, so I guess I’m looking for your thought on Nexto products in general) If you were in the market for a PSD today, would you go w/ a Nexto device again? What i like about the Nexto Ultra CF is its seemingly pared down design in both form and function. Where did you purchase yours? In the USA it seems to be only available from http://www.mydigitaldiscount.com , i’ve never heard/dealt with them. They offer the unit with or without the HD, but I’m leaning towards getting an HD separately. Thanks for any input you care to provide (and by the way, your other words wisdom in photography I’ve come across on the internet have been helpful too!).
Dennis
47. Zach Stern | January 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Hey, I noticed that only one of your lenses is VR.
Have you noticed a real difference with the VR lenses, and would you reccomend getting the VR version of every lense I buy or does it not matter that much. In general what do you reccomend when it comes to VR lenses.
Thanks again for all your help!
-Zach
48. Todd | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hey Dennis,
Personally, I love the Nexto line. I actually have several of the Nexto CF OTG and they all work flawlessly. The Nexto Ultra looks to have even better performance, and a backlit LCD, so it sounds even better.
I purchased my units from MyDigitalDiscount.com. I’d never heard of them either, but read several positive reviews from customers on other forums, so I went ahead. And as you mentioned, they are the only US dealers. I personally went with the hardware only and bought the harddrives separately. It’s very easy to install your own HD, and all the tools are included, so it will easily save you money doing it yourself.
Hope this helps!
Todd
49. Todd | January 29th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Zach,
I do think VR is useful for individual performers who don’t move around a lot, like singer-songwriters and such. For rock musicians, I think it can come into play to a marginal degree, but at the shutter speeds were it really matters, you’re going to see too much motion blur.
So, for concert photography, I don’t see VR as that necessary since the action is going to make that feature pretty much irrelevant anyway.
Hope this helps.
Todd
50. Julie Ferguson | February 21st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Hey Todd!!
I’m looking to buy a new lens and willing to spend the $$ to get a good quality one. I’ve decided to spend the money on the lens rather than upgrading my body at this time. I shoot with a D70 and I’m debating between the nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 and the 17-35 f/2.8. I’ve seen that you use both these lenses so I was just curious to see what you thought. Are there differences besides focal lengths and do you use one more than the other? I also have a 28mm f/2.8 and a 50mm f/1.8 if that matters. I appreciate any advice/suggestions. I was also looking at the nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye…any thoughts on that? Thanks so much!
Julie
51. Todd | February 21st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Hey Julie,
If 17mm would be OK as a wide angle, I would recommend the Nikon 17-55mm, which I love for gigs. It’s great at f/2.8 and the range is a little more useful than the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8.
As for the 14-24mm, I think it’s a great lens, but on a 1.5x APS body like the D70, it’s possible it might be a little limiting, since it’s range is somewhat narrow.
I think the 17-55 and 10.5 fish would be a really nice combo for the type of bands you shoot (Nice Underoath and ETID shots, by the way!).
One thing to consider about the 14-24 is that it’s huge front element could really be a liability with the shows you shoot.
On the D70, which I still have, the 17-55 is super sharp at f/2.8, so it would be perfect for gigs. It would balance a little better than the 14-24mm, too, since that lens is really front heavy.
Hope this helps, let me know if there’s anything else.
Todd
52. Jon | February 21st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
so I’m thinking of getting a d300 and the 17-55 f/2.8. Would I get any kind of similar image result as the d2 or the d3. I’d like to get either of those but my budget restricts doing so and I was wondering if a d300 and a battery grip would be worth it in terms of getting similar prints
53. Todd | February 22nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Hey Jon,
The D300 is going to be better at high ISO than the D2x, but about 1.5 stops worse than the D3.
The 17-55 was my favorite concert lens on the D2x, and on the D300 with its nice image quality up to 3200, you should be set. For concert photography, I’d definitely recommend the D300 over the older D2x or D2h.
With the grip, the D300 should balance well, too.
Hope this helps, let me know if there’s anything else I can answer.
54. Bert | February 22nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Hi Todd,
I work as a part-time photographer at the local zoo. My boss still has some old 50mm f1.8 lenses and a 50mm 1.4(both non-D versions). I can have a 1.8 for free and maybe get the 1.4 for a few bucks. I own a D40. Even though my main use for the 50mm’s will be portrait work, I may want to take it to some live bands at jam sessions which happen almost every day. Do you advice using manual focus(my only option) for this or is it practically impossible in such low light? Thanks in advance and keep shooting!
Bert
55. Todd | February 23rd, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Hey Bert,
It will depend on how low the light is, but I think those lenses will be OK as long as you have patience and enough time to work slowly. It may take quite a bit of trial and error, but I don’t think it will be impossible unless the light is so dim that you can’t accurately see the performers to focus.
Using the D40, you should be able to use the electronic rangefinder focus confirmation in the viewfinder.
If you know the bands and have lots of access, all the better.
Hope this helps.
56. gerald | February 24th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
todd how are you my question is related to the lighting. In most of this venues and concerts the lighting is a nightmare to say the least, different colors every second, changing the lights intesity at all times, and so on.
what setting will you recomend as far as white balance ( do you balance the lighting on post processing or leave whatever colorcast you get as part of the mood and emotion of the moment).
Do you use an specific iso (ex 800) and leave it there or do you use the excellent auto iso that the nikon cameras have. Btw since your shooting with the D3 is clear that anything is game with this beast, but what about something like the d70.
Finally what other type of photography do you excell or really want to get better in the future, love to pick your brains and thx in adv.
Gerald
57. Jon | February 26th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Hey Todd,
so the d300 would fall somewhere in between the d2 and the d3 image quality wise? I wanna be able to use this at shows and also for other various jobs but I want to make absolutely sure that the d300 and that lens can handle the low light settings in the greater St. Louis area. I know its not a miracle worker but the odds of me getting my camera into the pageant are slim to none so if it could handle the not so nice light of pops for example that would be very beneficial.
58. Todd | February 27th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Gerald: I shoot with Auto WB about 99% of the time, and color correct as necessary in post (RAW). Normally this is fine, though correcting for overly cool or warm casts is quick and easy.
I’ll change the ISO depending on the light levels — whatever it takes.
I shoot architecture, travel, weddings, portraiture — just about anything. But concert photography is what I’ve been dedicating myself to lately.
Jon: Roughly, I think the D300 is in between the D200 and D3. What other venues will you be working in besides Pop’s? Clubs really run the whole gamut, and the lenses you shoot with will also greatly affect the ISO needs.
I suspect that the D300 would be fine what what you need, ISO 3200 seems clean enough with that camera, and you can always bump it up to ISO 6400 in a pinch.
59. Ami | March 7th, 2008 at 3:29 am
Hi Todd,
My second post here on your site. I’ve been studying the quality of your photographs and the carefully tailored replies you give and would like to say you are amazing. With that I’d like to as you a question!
I’m a Canon user, new to concert photography, and I own a 30D with a 50mm 1.8. I’m planning on shooting some larger venues and am wondering which other lens you would bring along if you were in my position? Would it be the Canon 17-55mm? Im on a (very) tight budget, but would consider renting equipment for results.
Thank you!
60. Todd | March 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Hey Ami,
Thanks very much for the kind words. I’m trying
For larger venues we you’ll be shooting from the pit at the front of the stage, I think the 17-55 would serve you very well. I had the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and I loved the range on a APS camera. It was my go-to lens for stages around 1.5 meters tall.
The only thing you may miss out on is reach for drummers, but 55mm can do the trick for more environmental shots — it just depends.
Now that I’m using the Nikon D3, I use the 24-70mm f/2.8, but the range is effectively the same.
I think whatever you go with, an f/2.8 aperture will be a great asset.
Let me know if you have any more questions.
61. Jon | March 7th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
hey Todd,
Jon again, I’m ordering my d300 tomorrow. I just need to get my hands on a 17-55 like yours. Any suggestions where to find one on the cheap?
62. Ami | March 11th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Thanks for the reply Todd,
Should I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L USM right off the bat so that I am able to transfer the lens to full-frame?
Would that range be disirable on my 1.6 crop body?
Also, I am trying to build a physical portfolio. What is your favourite method of presenting printed images to potential clients?
Thanks,
Ami
63. Kiri | March 19th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Hey Todd,
I really enjoyed looking at the photographs you take. I take a lot of photographs for my boyfriends band, and have a Canon 400d. I get some nice shots but i feel that a better lens is needed to get some better quality images. Im currently using the standard 18-55mm that came with the camera, and have tried some other lenses but the lighting never turns out right.
What would be the ideal lens and what app would you suggest having it on?
Many thanks
Kiri
64. geraldo m | March 24th, 2008 at 1:31 am
hey todd let me tell you a story my 1st dslr and still only one is the d70 i bough it a month after it came out ( trust me it wasn’t easy ).
After getting this my obsession was glass and only glass, so i always check dpreview.com for the latest info and opinion on what is/was the top dog.
so this guy i remember this a long time ago came with what seems like the mothership of review, the nikon 70-200/2.8 vr, page after page of detail description of every feature, every button, and awesome wide open photos, jaw droping stuff,this review stuck to my mind for a long time, i make my mission to some day get this lens.
Finally this week after many years of waiting i got it, i decided to go back to take a look at that review on dpreview.com and quess who made that review.
The question is when are you going to make a review of the new nikon 24-70/2.8
even so i don’t gonna wait for your review this time ( i got this one on order already ) i’m waiting for your stuff this time, again. Thx in adv.
65. Sraw | March 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Hi Todd,
I just read your very instructive posts … that’s so cool to read, thank you so much for charing your experience.
I have a question, I’ve been looking for months for a backpack able to carry some photo gear with a laptop and that would not look to bad (I’m not a fan of lowepro ones)…
so if you have any advice, you’re really welcome. So far I just used some dakine skate backpak with a laptop sleeve and a homemade camera soft case
Many thanks for your science !
66. Todd | April 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Hey Seb, I have a Crumpler backpack and find that it’s very well padded (as all of their bags are), but I don’t use it very often because of the bulk. I generally use Kinesis bags or the Crumpler 7 Million Dollar Home.
I do have a Kinesis backpack, but it’s more for hiking and travel – not an every day bag.
67. Daniel | April 6th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
hey todd just a quick question about the D3.
Does the D3’s low light capability make the fast lenses like 2.8’s 1.8’s etc. less usefull?
Because it seems you can now shoot dark venues like you are doing without fast lenses and still not get much, if any, visible noise.
I guess my question is basically does the D3 make those fast lenses useless or not as usefull as they were?
68. Todd | April 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the interesting question, I think it’s a great one at touches on some of the major implications of the D3.
If anything, the Nikon D3 makes fast lenses all the more useful (or interesting, if you want to look at it that way), because their valuable features are simply enhanced. Now I can shoot in even lower light with my f/2.8 zooms, or pull out f/1.4 glass under the worst case lighting.
Variable aperture zooms might get a new lease on life for some, but I will always take a faster lenses if it offers me more options.
If you open the question up to f/2.8 zooms vs. f/1.4 primes, then the answer changes a bit.
69. geraldo m | April 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
hey todd how are you, quick one for you have you ever use any of the teleconverter from nikon (1.4, 1.7, 2.0)specially with the 70-200/2.8
Btw are you going to review the 24-70/2.8 love to see that one.
70. Todd | April 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Hey Geraldo,
I have used the Nikono 1.7x teleconverter on the 70-200 and it works well, though it’s best if you stop down. The loss of light from f/2.8 to f/4.8 can be a big jump for concert photography.
I may eventually do more extended reviews of the 24-70mm f/2.8 and other new lenses, but nothing in the works just quite yet.
71. Gear Guide: Updated | ish&hellip | May 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
[…] Gear Guide […]
72. marc | May 1st, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Hi, you should add some ear protection to your guide. I think if you visit that many shows, and especially if its an all-day festival, you cannot go without something to turn down the volume. If you don’t use earplugs you will end up needing a hearing aid in a couple of years.
73. Todd | May 1st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Hey Marc,
GREAT suggestion, thank you! You’re absolutely right. I always use earplugs, since I often go to several shows every week.
Even wearing earplugs, I know my hearing is being damaged – just more slowly.
Thanks again for the excellent recommendation, I will add this.
74. marc | May 2nd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Earplugs are that single item I take to shows with even if I leave the camera at home (what barely happens).
75. Todd | May 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 am
I’m the same way. I always bring earplugs. It’s a necessity. I have just found a new set of earplugs that I really like, since they are rated at 32dB.
I’ll be posting an update soon, thanks again for the suggestion.
76. Jill | May 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Hi Todd-
I’m not sure if you’ll remember me but we met at the Walkman/White Rabbits show at Blueberry Hill.
I was wondering if you have any filter suggestions?
Thanks-
Jill
77. Todd | May 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Hey Jill,
I recall meeting you, how’s it going? For filters, I would recommend going with a filter made by the same manufacturer as the lens, as the lens coating will match and produce consistent color.
Otherwise, I like the B+W filers, but they’re expensive. The Hoya Super HMC filers are good, too, but don’t quite clean up as well.
I simply use Nikon UV filters on most of my lenses. Digital sensors aren’t very sensitive to UV light, though, so you can just buy neutral, multi-coated glass filters, too.
78. Joe | May 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Hey Todd, great update!
I’d love to know what your thoughts are on the 17-55 vs the 24-70 with crop bodies.
-Joe
79. Todd | May 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Thanks, Joe! On a cropped body like a Nikon D300, Canon 40D, etc, I really do prefer the range of a 17-55mm lens, especially for concert photography.
On a 1.5x or 1.6x crop, 24mm is just not very wide. While I may only go to 17mm for a select number of shots, I love the flexibility to go from a head-and-shoulders portrait to a full-length shot with the same lens.
I should add that this is for stage-front photography with a pit of five-feet or less in height, but also applies for travel photography and general PJ stuff. I just love having the WA option in my standard lens.
Another thing to consider is that all millimeters are not created equal: the difference between 17mm and 24mm and much greater than that of 55mm and 70mm
Hope this helps, let me know if you have any more questions.
80. Marcus | May 13th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Hey Todd. Great photography and cool site! Found you via flickr.
I’ve photographed a few gigs before but I just upgraded. Here’s what I have at the moment:
Canon 40D
Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Sigma 55-200mm f/4-5.6
Last time I photographed a fairly big gig I used a 350D and mostly the Sigma 10-20mm. Some of the best photos here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jump_leads/sets/72157603896526480/
I found that it worked pretty well but then the gig was pretty well lit.
Obviously the fast 30mm prime is going to help me out a hell of a lot but I was wondering how well you think my Canon 17-85mm f/4-5.6 would do. It has image stabilisation built in and I can hold it down to about 1/6 or 1/8 of a second without blurring it but obviously the people will be moving too. The 40D’s noise at 3200 or 6400 ISO doesn’t seem bad either. Worth using? Any tips?
Thanks!
81. Todd | May 13th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hi Marcus,
I wouldn’t recommend a lens as slow as f/4-5.6 unless you’re shooting in very well lit venues. While IS can help to some degree with static subjects, image stabilization won’t do anything to counteract the motion of more active performers.
You can get away with this slow aperture range a little more with an ultra-wide lens like the Sigma 10-20mm, but for a midrange zoom, the aperture is going to be a big liability.
While it’s costly, a lens like the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 is excellent for stage-front concert shooting.
82. Hellcandy | May 14th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Hi Todd,
Thanks for the fantastic tips!
I currently own a Nikon d70. I was wondering if you could help me. I am looking to get a decent lens for concert photography, something that allows me to get close ups of each band member and also possibly help with festival stages. I work for a band so I am generally allowed to sit at the side of the stage.
My main concern is my budget really. I want to get a good lens but also at an affordable price…at the moment £800 is too much!
Which lens would you recommend for getting relatively good close up shots of bands?
Any help would be much appreciated!
Many Thanks
83. Todd | May 20th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I would recommend a lens like the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR for tight shots of individual band members. The range is great for this type of work, especially if you’re on the side stage.
The Nikon is expensive, but Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina all make 70-200mm lenses that will be less expensive.
If you need the lens now, you might look for a used Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, which will be much cheaper than the newer 70-200mm.
Hope this helps.
84. Richard | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Hey Todd, do you attach your lens hoods when you’re on assignments?
85. Todd | May 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
Hey Richard, I do use lens hoods while shooting on assignment, but it really depends on the lighting and situation.
I have metal, screw-in lens hoods for my primes, which stay on all the time (which eliminates the need for lens caps for me).
The Nikon 14-24 has a built-in hood, while the 24-70 and 70-200 do have rather large hoods. I probably shoot with the hoods reversed as much as I have them in their active position.
86. Richard | May 23rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Thanks for the insight Todd! I must say the pictures you take are mind blowing! Keep up the good work and congrates!
87. Richard | May 27th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Hey Todd, what are your impressions of the Canon 5D versus the D3?
88. Todd | May 27th, 2008 at 9:17 am
In what regard? Image quality and noise?
89. Richard | May 27th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Hey Todd, yes, Image quality and noise performance. I heard the D3 can shoot clean files up to even 6400! Is it true? Thanks man
90. Marc | May 30th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hi,
What do you think of the new Tokina 11-16/2.8 lens? I read some great reviews by Ken Rockwell (Nikon mount) and on Photozone.de (Canon mount). So far I use a Tamron 17-50/2.8 with a Canon 40D and I have the Tokina 10-17 Fisheye lens. An ultrawide angle lens is yet missing and the fisheye effect is sometimes great, sometimes not. With the Tokina I would have a 2.8 throughout the entire 11-200 range.
You seem to do a lot of wide-angle shots, thats why ask you.
91. christopher franko | May 30th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Todd, hope this isn’t too off topic, but I have a trouble shooting question for the D3, a camera you and many of your readers use. After shooting fine for hours last night at a small club/dj night, my D3 now simply won’t turn on. (It was the second time I’ve shot at this particular bar/night club. No troubles at all the first time around. The only difference is that I used my new SB-800 (instead of an old SB-600) for the assignment.)
After the shoot, I tried to do a quick image edit but it wouldn’t turn on. I wish I could give more details about the evening but there was nothing at all unusual about the evening, the camera’s performance…no accidents or bumps or anything…I wasn’t even near any electronics/speakers, etc…
I tried another battery. Still won’t turn on. Tried a lens remount/cleaning. No go. Was there a solar flare recently or something? I’m perplexed. I haven’t even had the camera 3 months….
92. Todd | June 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Hi Christopher, did you ever resolve this issue?
93. sophie | June 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Hi Todd,
Wow, firstly i would to say your shots are amazing. Im am just starting off with gig photography and recently purchased the canon 40d with 17-85mm lense. Could you please give me some advice on which lense i should get and any tips u may have. I have been told to get a 24-70mm lense by a couple of people but i wanted to ask your thought.
Thanks
Sophie
94. Todd | June 4th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hey Sophie,
Thanks for the kind words. For lens choice, I think the main question would be what types of venues you’ll be shooting in and the light levels.
If you’re looking for an all-around lens for indoor events, I personally like a 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on the cropped bodies from Nikon and Canon.
The 24-70mm lenses are excellent, but 24mm is no longer wide enough for general use on a 1.5x or 1.6x sensor (for my work). I prefer having a wide angle range in my midrange zoom.
Hope this helps, please let me know if you have more questions.
95. sophie | June 4th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Hi Todd,
Thankyou for the reply, its helps alot.
Im looking to mainly all round gigs from small events to larger venues, but as you know mostly the smaller events have very poor lighting. Would the 17-55 be ample for low light situations? and how do you avoid blurred shots..thank you so much for your help.
Sophie
96. seansabado | June 5th, 2008 at 7:56 am
great captures mr. todd! is there a chance you can share camera shooting settings, camera, flash, picture control.
thanks,
SEAN
97. Todd | June 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Hi Sean, thanks you, glad to hear you enjoy the work. Which shows/sets are you interested in? I always share the tech details for every gig in the write-up.
98. Blaize | June 6th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Todd, all i can say is great site. i’m getting into concert photography more and more… shooting with am xti, 50mm 1.8, and a sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4.5 i’m lookin to upgrade MOST of my gear (to a 40d, 17-55 2.8 is) long story short… a fair chunk of cash, with that said i shoot fast at shows and have gone through an 8gig cf just over an hour… so my question is rooted in storage methods. i was thinking about getting a 16gig cf but caught sight of the epson p5000 looks sweet expensive though. do you have any experience with any storage units like this? jobo units? or anything like that?
anyway… you’re doing a hell of a job man… keep rockin it.
blaize
99. Todd | June 6th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Hey Blaize,
I think portable storage units are a great option to buying one huge card, since they can defray some of the pitfalls of using a single card.
I have experience with the Nexto CF OTG model and recommend the Nexto brand simply because it’s super easy to use and very reliable.
Nexto just released a PSD that reads at 40 mb/s, which would be great, too. The downside is that the Nexto models don’t feature an LCD for image display – you just have to trust that the images are on there. You can verify by file name, and of course if the transfer errors during a move, the files on the card are never deleted.
If you have two cards, you can shoot with them in tandem, transferring one to the drive as needed while the other is in use. Swapping out like this, even festivals are no problem.
Hope this helps, glad to hear you like the site!
100. david jenrette | June 16th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Every time I see your work I am more impressed. I am in Ocala Florida which only occasionally has great groups performing. How would i go about getting credentialed to take photos at these events?
101. Todd | June 16th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Hey David,
Thanks for the kind words. You can check out some advice for how to start photographing music in the FAQ section of this set. Also, I may be writing a primer on how to get into concert photography, so stay tuned.
102. George | June 17th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Hey Todd,
First off, I love the site, and as an aspiring concert photographer, it is a great resource, so thank you for that. My question was that I am looking to upgrade from my Nikon kit lens, which is awful as you said, but budget was an issue. I am in between the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I know it is probably a good call either way, but just wanted to see if you had an opinion on the two. Thanks again.
PS I will be using it on my D50 by the way.
103. Todd | June 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Hey George, thanks for the kind note, glad to hear you enjoy the site.
I’ve heard good things about both lenses, but if deciding right now, I’d take a hard look at the Tamron lens. It looks like a great lens, and the price is right.
My friend Gabi just picked up the Tamron and loves it.
104. riccardo | June 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 am
hi todd,i own a new eos450d and want to buy a lens for concert. I know a constant f2.8 is better,but what you think about the canon 24-105 f4L is usm? and sigma 24-70 f2.8 dg macro ex ? thanks thanx thanx
105. Todd | June 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Personally, I would go for f/2.8 over the convenience of range in the f/4 lens, L or not.
I’d actually check out the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as a midrange first, unless you really need the reach. I just like my wide-angle option for a midrange zoom.
106. Ali | June 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
hey todd. I use a canon 400d and I was wondering if you knew what a good concert photography zoom lense would be for canon models?
107. Mike | June 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Hey Todd,
There was someone who posted ealier about lens upgrade for a Canon Rebel XTi, which, as I am also on a short budget, have purchased and get rather disappointed at low-light shows. I am beginning to write a lot of reviews for sites and I need to be able to get some better quality shots. I do like how the ISO can be increased without too much damage to the shot, but still, it would be great to get some crystal clear shots in small venues with little movement. My shots are either too grainy, or have too much movement. Any recommendations for a lens upgrade??
Thanks,
Mike
108. klappa | July 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Hi Todd,
could you please post few uncropped (test) photos with D3+Sigma 30/1.4 ? I love that lens and You’re the first one I found who uses it on FX - idea of it beeing somehow usable on full frame sensor really made my day
Cheers,
k.
109. Brad | July 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hey Todd,
Great site and even better photos!
I was referred here by a post on DPReview.
Just curious, I noticed in a past post that you use primarily auto WB…..any thoughts on using incandescent or say a 2700-3200K temp. setting?
I’ve had trouble with the camera “adjusting” the auto WB at dance recitals (especially with the red channel).
I will be shooting from various locations with a D300, 17-55, 80-200 and 10.5.
Thanks in advance,
Brad
110. Zach Stern | July 3rd, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Hey Todd,
I just upgraded from a D40x to a D300 (today).
What do you think about this lens as an alternative to the Sigma 30mm HSM, on the D300.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800587627-USE/Nikon_1917_Wide_Angle_28mm_f_2_8.html
Its a lot cheaper, but I assume AF-S is not necessary on the D300.
Thanks!
-Zach
111. Todd | July 5th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hi Zach, I would also look at the Nikon 35mm f/2, since it’s twice as fast as the f/2.8 lens, albeit a little less wide. AF-S lenses are going to be faster to focus – personally, I don’t like using my 50mm or 85mm primes as much as AF-S lenses because they’re often slower to focus and also more erratic.
112. Todd | July 5th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hi Brad,
I do use Auto WB about 99% of the time and tweak in post as needed. However, if you are going to be shooting under static lighting, or at least lighting that doesn’t change very often, I think you’ll be OK if you can set the color temp.
What I’ve found with a lot of stage lighting, at least in the venues where I often shoot, is that it’s close to high rendering fluorescent in the range of 2700-6500k.
If the auto setting is still giving you results that are too “hot” with regard to the color temperature, I’d definitely try manually setting the WB.
113. Zach Stern | July 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Hey Todd,
I appreciate the feedback, and I definitely understand what you’re saying. I’ve rented the Nikon 24-70 and 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses and they’re amazing. Unfortunately, I just don’t have $1600 to spend on a single lens right now.
I would consider this sigma as you suggested earlier
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6
But from reading around apparently it has some severe autofocus issues. Has that been your experience?
Thanks.
-Zach
114. Todd | July 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Hey Zach,
I completely understand on the budget issue, it’s always a factor.
I think the Sigma 30mm is a great lens within its limits, which are that it’s designed very narrowly to be a great low light lens. The 30mm isn’t the lens I would reach for if I had to do landscape work or architecture, because the corners/edges never really achieve critical sharpness.
Since you just picked up a D300, I wouldn’t worry about the AF issues. I found that the lens focuses perfectly on the D3 after some quick AF fine tuning, so I don’t hesitate recommending it if you’re using a newer body with this feature.
115. Jen | July 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Hi Todd,
My first concert will be inside a club called Kool haus in Toronto. It is a smaller venue with relatively good lighting (as I am told). I have a D70 camera (max 1600 ISO) and am going to rent a couple of good lenses. I’m thinking of the Nikkor AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D (for backstage as well) with Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8D. I opted away from the 70-200 because it’s a smaller venue and away from the prime 85 f/1.4 because the lighting is apparently quite sufficient. But I am very inexperienced and wanted your advice. Your work is amazing and inspirational! Thanks so much
Jen
116. Joey | July 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I LOVE your site! Truly a source of inspiration. I had a technical question for you. I just got my own D3 and I was wondering what auto focus settings you use. Do you try to take advantage of the scene/face recognition (I haven’t actually tried this out yet, but I keep reading about it)? I got so used to the “center-focus and recompose” method on previous cameras that I still do that almost exclusively on the D3 (ok, ok, I take advantage of all those 51 points a lot, too). I know moments at a concert come and go very fast. Does the Auto auto focus (the big rectangle) help you at all? Or how do you typically focus?
117. Todd | July 11th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Hi Joey, thanks for the kind words, glad to hear your enjoy the site. I use the 9-point AF system on AF-S or AF-C, single area AF.
I’ve never used the Auto Area AF. Hope this helps!
118. alexis | July 14th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
i found this very interesting to read. thanks for putting this up
i have a 40D canon DSLR but i havnet purchased a good lens yet. i learned at my first concert trying to shoot that i need a better lens…
i still need one. i just dont know what to get!
119. Hugo | July 15th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Hi Todd, I’d be interested in seeing what the Sigma 30mm 1.4 can do on the D3… any samples? Thanks
120. Todd | July 15th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Hey Hugo,
I’ll see what I can do. To be honest, I don’t use the lens on the D3 very often. However, if you search for the Walkmen, you’ll see a few shots from them using the 30mm on the D3.
121. Choosing Lenses for Conce&hellip | July 16th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
[…] Gear Guide […]
122. John Price | July 17th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Hi Todd,
Do you use two bodies when you shoot from the pit I always find it difficult to decide which lens setup to take, 70-200 or 24-70 (D3), or do you change lenses on the fly.
I think your work and kind advice are an Inspiration, if I could come close to your style, and quality I would be a happy man.
Best regards,
John
123. Todd | July 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hey John,
I just use one body while shooting concerts, and change lenses on the fly. Someone just posed this question in the Al Green thread, and there’s a small discussion about it in that post.
For most gigs, I have been relying on three main lenses as of late: the 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200.
More than anything, I think the mental shift is probably the biggest hurdle in switching lenses. Though it does take a bit of time, which is a precious thing in concert photography, I think “changing gears” in one’s approach is probably the key part.
124. Gary | July 23rd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Hi there firstly a great site, amazing in fact, i am just starting out in concert photography and actually have a band who have said i can shoot anytime i want. Due to my budget i am problay going for the canon EOS 400D, iv been told that this is an ok one to start with? It does come with 2 lenses, 18-55mm and 55-200mm but from what iv read i shouldnt use the ones you get with the package? so am a little confused to what lenses i should buy for concerts that will have low light etc. any help will be great. Thanx for your time.
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>