can i survive without - music

thebaz

for gigs i use only a 50 and an 18 -55 , question for other music photgraphers is, do i really need a 70 -200 - there friggin expensive -

or can i survive without - it was a bit of a laugh at Glastonbury , as the world press were kitted out with their telephoto zooms, and i arrived with my little 50 - the problem occurs when i'm given side access only, I'm fecked

Antomus Prime

Ive only ever photographed a gig once and it was small venue so I may not be the best person to be advising but i'll throw in my 2 cents anyway. I used a 50mm and got some great shots, but I also used an 18-200 too and it was great for getting shots at the back of the crowd, if I can find the photo later I'll post it but to describe it, i got everyone hands in the air and the band were elevated on a fairly high stage, so if you can get your hands on a x-200 or even x-300 I would recommend taking it. Have a look around adverts.ie and if youre quick then you'll get a good deal every now and then.

Hope this helps!

EyeBlinks

I saw a guy on the field in Croke Park a couple of years ago with a leica and shortish lens. Using a wider angle makes you work harder for what are often more engaging shots.

Depends what you're looking to get. Start using a mid length zoom like that and you'll most likely end up with similar shots to everyone else. If thats what you're after go for it .... or just maybe vive le difference

mehfesto

In Ireland you can.

I got a 70-200 Sigma about 6 months back and I've used it twice. Once at the O2 and once at the Olympia. Its a great lens, but at the same time, it's not entirely necessary. Especially if you tend to shoot smaller gigs, like i do.

For the O2 and festivals its probably needed given the access issues, but for everywhere else you'd be grand. I've seen HotPress, NME and Irish Times photogs using only 85 and 105 primes in the O2 pit on some occasions, so I'd be wary of people telling you the pros *need* them. They give extra options, but there's a difference between need and want!

DotOrg

thebaz wrote: »

for gigs i use only a 50 and an 18 -55 , question for other music photgraphers is, do i really need a 70 -200 - there friggin expensive -

all depends on the pictures you want to take, if you want close ups of faces and you're shooting venues Olympia/Vicar st or bigger, then yes, something reaching 200mm is necessary. if you want better low light performance than your 18-55 would give you then yes.

don't you know when you feel limited by what you have as to what you'd like to have instead?

dazftw

What about an 85 or a 200 prime?

AnimalRights

Gigs I go to are smaller venues as I hate big venues and I've more or less ditched the 50mm for the 24-70L which besides the wide just is easier to get keepers, the 50 can be hit and miss.

For bigger venues depending on size 135L was my 1st choice and then the 70-200.

thebaz

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I saw a guy on the field in Croke Park a couple of years ago with a leica and shortish lens. Using a wider angle makes you work harder for what are often more engaging shots.

Depends what you're looking to get. Start using a mid length zoom like that and you'll most likely end up with similar shots to everyone else. If thats what you're after go for it .... or just maybe vive le difference

i think thats exactly my point , apart from saving much needed bobs, will i have to work less hard and loose something creativly - currently i zoom with my feet - which is grand except for the odd occassion where I'm sidelined to the sides

thebaz

DotOrg wrote: »

. if you want better low light performance than your 18-55 would give you then yes.

don't you know when you feel limited by what you have as to what you'd like to have instead?

why would the 70 - 200 be better in low light than the 18 - 55 ?


they are both f 2.8 - just thought it would give me better reach, on the odd occassion i'm stuck at the back or side

Borderfox

Something like an 85 f1.8 or 135 f2 would have more benefit without braking the bank, I love the 85mm focal length apart from the 24-70 that would be my most used one.

thebaz

Borderfox wrote: »

Something like an 85 f1.8 or 135 f2 would have more benefit without braking the bank, I love the 85mm focal length apart from the 24-70 that would be my most used one.

the 135 would suit but is very pricey !

Borderfox

85mm f1.8 or a 100mm f2

Any gigs I have shot have been with the 24-70 f2.8 or the 85 f1.2, I only use the 70-200 for a couple of jobs this year (mainly weddings and some horse sales)

thebaz

next time i'll give the 85 a blast - and save my bobs for Christmas

I've only ever shot in small local venues, and I've found that 50mm can even be too much reach at times. I use a Sigma 30mm 1.4 now.

As said already, it's hugely dependent on the venue you're shooting in.

I have the Sigma 70-200 and I love it. Never went anywhere near a music venue with it, though. If you do other stuff outside of gigs, then you could have use for a telephoto there, either?

DotOrg

thebaz wrote: »

why would the 70 - 200 be better in low light than the 18 - 55 ?


they are both f 2.8 - just thought it would give me better reach, on the odd occassion i'm stuck at the back or side

sorry, forgot that the 18-55 was a 2.8, thought it was a kit lens, so yes, get a 70-200 if you are being constantly annoyed by lack of telephoto abilities