Theater lens recommendations?

tinamarie52 · January 10, 2011

Lens for theater and other low light, wide situations?

I find my self shooting a lot of theater arts these days. I usually shoot dress rehearsals so that I can move around more. I have a 50 1.8 (not versatile enough), 18-135 (not fast enough) and a 70-200 2.8 (not wide enough).

I'm looking a t the 24-70 (but can't afford it) or the 28-70 (can swing it).

Would anyone give me pros and cons for these two lenses for this situation?

Does anyone have a better recommendation?

Thanks, Chris

jonh68 · January 10, 2011

tinamarie52 wrote: »

Lens for theater and other low light, wide situations?

I find my self shooting a lot of theater arts these days. I usually shoot dress rehearsals so that I can move around more. I have a 50 1.8 (not versatile enough), 18-135 (not fast enough) and a 70-200 2.8 (not wide enough).

I'm looking a t the 24-70 (but can't afford it) or the 28-70 (can swing it).

Would anyone give me pros and cons for these two lenses for this situation?

Does anyone have a better recommendation?

Thanks, Chris

I have been shooting rehearsals for my newspaper. Since you can move around, I wound get a wide angle 2.8 lens. The two lenses I have used are a 17-35 and 70-200 for closeups. I choose wide angle over a mid zoom because wide angle looks more interesting and you already have a 50 prime anyway. Don't think of a lens that will work for all situations. Think of adding something that you don't already have.

Qarik · January 10, 2011

tinamarie52 wrote: »

Lens for theater and other low light, wide situations?

I find my self shooting a lot of theater arts these days. I usually shoot dress rehearsals so that I can move around more. I have a 50 1.8 (not versatile enough), 18-135 (not fast enough) and a 70-200 2.8 (not wide enough).

I'm looking a t the 24-70 (but can't afford it) or the 28-70 (can swing it).

Would anyone give me pros and cons for these two lenses for this situation?

Does anyone have a better recommendation?

Thanks, Chris

crop body nikon? it appears you have winnowed it down to the 28-70mm since the other choices have issues. The nikkor version is a great lens. Try the sigma 24-70mm HSM if you like the range.

Try also a 24-120mm f/4 for zoom versaility.

DsrtVW · January 11, 2011

Nikon 17-55mm f2,8 used price is not bad and it is sharp and fast af.
I am a Tokina fan They make a 16-50mm f2.8 I do not have because I have the Nikon
I do have and can recommend they are solid built and sharp. Only drawback is the are camera motor driven so they make a bit more noise
Tokina 50-135-mm f2,8 there was one for sale in the Flea market forum
11-16mm f2.8 which might be a bit wide. But can make some interesting shots if they dont mind you on the stage
I used the 50-135mm when I first got the D7000 and shot a choir concert with it and it was wonderful could get wide shots and zoom in for individuals. Just all depends on where you are at the front or back.
they all worked well on the D300
No VR but you cannot beat the price for the quality. Sigmas are not bad either

Art Scott · January 11, 2011

17-70-f2.8-4 ( has great reviews but I have not owned one yet.....soon I will have one or Sigma 24-70f2.8 +Sigma 70-200...... I have shot the non VR lenses so long that it does not matter to me if these lenses have VR or not.......the 24-70 & 70-200 are really superb lenses I have shot with the NON VR versions of these 2 since they first came out many years ago long before I went digital.......

My main stage shooting lens is my 70-200 and if I need wider than 70mm...i grab my 18-70 nikkor a bit slow (3.5-6.3) but I made it work for a dance fest and also an opera

tinamarie52 · January 12, 2011

Thanks for all of the responses. I've don a lot of research on shooting theater in the last week. I'm finding that most shoot with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8.

Can anyone compare and contrast the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with the Nikon 24-70 2.8? The both get high marks, with a huge price differential.

Chris

angevin1 · January 13, 2011

tinamarie52 wrote: »

Thanks for all of the responses. I've don a lot of research on shooting theater in the last week. I'm finding that most shoot with a 24-70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8.

Can anyone compare and contrast the Sigma 24-70 2.8 with the Nikon 24-70 2.8? The both get high marks, with a huge price differential.

Chris

Chris, how about a Direct quote from SLR gear:

"Nikon 24-70mm ƒ/2.8G IF-ED AF-S Nikkor ~$1,800
Perhaps the sharpest of the 24-70mm in this comparison, the Sigma doesn't match the sharpness of the Nikkor at any focal length or aperture setting. Chromatic aberration is also better with the Nikon (even more so when used on a D3/D300 with automatic chromatic aberration reduction); corner shading is also less of a factor. The Nikon distorts slightly more at 24mm. Like the Canon, you pay more for this performance, and in this case, much more, owing to the relative novelty of the design."

Ever notice how the Nikkor's just seem to have what I call the 'magic' goo in them?

Photometric · January 13, 2011

I did a comparison on my D90 of all things in the zoom range (at the time Feb2010) of 24-70's at B&H Photo. The gallery is:
http://www.djdimages.com/Other/LensShootout/11243760_o3aaR#788561354_DmrsG

While I really really liked the image quality on the Sigma (looked great) I spent the extra $ for the 24-70 Nikkor as I FELT that the Nikkor didn't miss focus as much. I tested AF by selecting a point, focus, moving the camera rapidly and selecting a new point, focus and shooting again. I don't know if that matters as much, but I believe for Theatre shooting, you will want the best AF performance you can get.

For images shot of a recent HS Theatre performance with the lens I shot:

zoomer · January 13, 2011

You will be shooting wide open so stick with the Nikon 24-70. Wide open don't think you can beat it.
Also the 70-200 2.8 with VR.
For really dark theatres 2.8 may not be enough, may the 85 1.4 would be ideal for those.

Remember the higher the mm the tougher it is to hold steady without blurred shots.

Photometric · January 13, 2011

The need to shoot wide open isn't as much of an absolute cut and dry rule, especially for wide shots where you want to get much of the frame (and various depths of the stage) in focus. The wider you go, the less you will have in focus. Depending on lighting of the play, performance of higher ISO's of the camera, and design of the set (bright or dark background) will all come into decision making while shooting. Theatre spotlights are really strong and help in this regard.

A fixed lens is very hard and frustrating when you're looking to be able to go from capturing a small portion of the stage/cast and then go wide to grab everyone in the frame quickly, even with the ability to move around without regard of an audience during a run-through. However, if you decide, "I'm going to grab a bunch of shots with a 85mm and change to a 50mm" to get different focal lengths, that works. It's just (obviously) better to be able to make that decision ahead of time, or have the flexibility of a zoom. The other thing to think about at those distances of shooting, anything below 2.8 and the razor thin depth of field becomes an issue.

run_kmc · January 13, 2011

I read photographer Kirk Tuck's blog, and he has shot quite a bit of theater with a 35-100mm f2 lens, which would put it mostly in line with the suggestions in this thread.

KA0TVO · January 13, 2011

Chris,
Before you buy a lens why don't you rent several. That will give you a trial run before shelling out the money. Think of it as renting a sports car for the weekend.

zoomer · January 13, 2011

At those distances the razor thin depth of field is not that razor thin.
Sharp is better than blurry from motion regardless.
For moving subjects in a dark environment...large f stop equals faster shutter speed equals less motion blur.

Photometric · January 13, 2011

It's all based upon the need of the moment. In my experience, I've got a few shots at the larger apertures where the right side of the stage is in focus, and sharp, but the left side (where a part of the story I'm trying to tell in the image) is out of focus. This is above the 2.8 line mostly. (in the 2.0 or 1.8 range).

An example I'm talking about is here where the frontal subject is sharp, but the people behind are in various degree of focus depending on the depth to the frontal subject. (shot on a small stage with Nikkor 50mm fixed f1.8 ISO 1600 and 1/100 shutter) I think that with a smaller aperture the whole stage would have been in focus. For music it's not as important, but for Theater, it might be to capture the whole story.

As I said, it's dependent on the conditions of the moment.

Matthew Saville · January 13, 2011

I've been shooting (children's) theater for about 7 years now, and HANDS DOWN my favorite setup is the D300 and my Sigma 50-150 2.8 EX DC.

As long as the light is good enough, you're good to go. (and stage lighting is usually quite bright actually, it's the METERING that is tough...)

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the size, weight, and versatility of this setup. If you've got tons of cash to spend and need stabilization plus that extra stop or two of ISO, then yeah I guess a D700 and a 70-200 is better. But honestly? I've sold thousands of dollars worth of prints and never got a single complaint about noise etc. from my D300. It's all about nailing your exposure, understanding white balance, and getting your background inky black.

Here's a shot from "The Mikado" in 2009...

The 24-70 might work well on a crop sensor for theater, but definitely not a full-frame camera, not unless you're standing up at the very front of the theater. Personally, I shoot during the rehearsals (Because I have permission to do so, and am the official photographer for particular theaters) ...and what I do is just wander back and forth on the front row and up and down the aisles, depending on the distance and perspective I need. I used to also shoot a few shots with a 17-55 mounted on my other body, but actually that lens got stolen a while ago and ever since then I've been doing just fine with nothing wider than 50 but a 24 prime! It's really all you need for one or two wide shots during grand finales etc.

Hope this helps! Whatever you do, PLEASE do not shoot *DURING* the performance. Even if you shoot without flash, the clicking noise is super un-cool for all the others in the audience.

=Matt=

tinamarie52 · January 13, 2011

Thanks for the feedback everyone. It seems like everyone has their favorite lenses. The most popular responses have been the Nikon 24-70 2.8, the 17-55 and the sigma 50-150.

i shoot with a D300 and have the Nikon 70-200 2.8, 50 1.8 and a tamron 90 2.8 (which doesn't come into play here, for me.) The sigma 50-150 pretty much duplicates my 70-200, so I'll take that one off the table.

I've heard from several of you and from articles that the sigma 24-70 compared to the Nikon 24-70 is a you-get-what-you-pay-for situation. some love the sigma 24-70; some wouldn't touch it.

It has been very helpful to read your discussions. I'll go meditate in a warm tropical glade somewhere and figure it out.

Thanks again, Chris

tinamarie52 · January 13, 2011

Matt- I always try to go to a rehersal and then shoot dress rehearsal.

I also shoot ballet. So, I need a lens that can shoot a moving target and I don't need a hug DOF. My 18-135 3.5-5.6 would work, but the lighting is never bright enough for it...too slow. That's the range I'm trying to replace.

I'd like to hear more about your clientelle and your experiences shooting theater. I'm on the East Coast and only have a year and a half under my belt with theater and dance.

Thanks, Chris

Matthew Saville · January 13, 2011

tinamarie52 wrote: »

...The sigma 50-150 pretty much duplicates my 70-200, so I'll take that one off the table....

WORLD.
OF.
DIFFERENCE.

I used to rent the 70-200 regularly, and let me tell you, the 50-150 is just WORLDS better for the crop sensor. The focal range at 50mm instead of 70mm is just *perfect*, honestly I shoot almost EVERYTHING with this lens, I even shoot the theater cast photos (20-30 kids at once) just by simply backing way up. Perfect depth, great framing. I used to shoot group photos the opposite way, by standing right up on stage with flash super close with my 17-55, and it's just no good. The wider angle makes the background more cluttered, and those range of lenses are notorious for field curvature which is just BAD when shooting multiple rows of kids...

That, and the size / weight difference between the two lenses, well, once you switch you'll never want to go back. The 50-150 is so small and light, I'm totally spoiled now. A D300 (without a grip) and a Sigma 50-150 is all I'd ever need to shoot theater from now till kingdom come, honest. Maybe they'll make a D400 with better ISO, maybe they'll make a stabilized version of the 50-150 some day, but the bottom line is that I'm gonna be DX+50-150, forever, for plays.

Of course the 24-70 would work fine on a D300, if you have access to the VERY front row and it's not a very big theater. If you're shooting in smaller theaters, maybe the 24-70 on crop is better. I'm used to pretty big size theaters I guess. In more constricted places it's nice to hit 24mm, but really I only need that wide of an angle for a half-dozen shots during a play. 95% of the time, I just move around with the 50-150 2.8.

HOWEVER, in my experience there's also a business tactic element to this- Parents by the close-up shots! If all you've got is 70mm and the theater is medium or large, you're not gonna get those super-close, in-your-face shots that really sell well. I just love love LOVE the 50-150 for this reason; the 150mm end is more than enough to get right up close and personal. I don't miss 200mm at all.

So again, my recommendation is D300 + 50-150 hands down. Sure, I'd buy a 35-135 2.8 if they made it, but if I really need wider angles I'd just buy a used D90 or something and slap a cheap 24 2.8 AFD on, or get a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM, if you've got a little more money to spend. Sell that dang 70-200 and get both the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS *AND* the 50-150 2.8! Okay I know that might seem like blasphemy for anyone who thinks they might go FX some day, but honestly I use the D700 all the time and I definitely prefer primes when shooting full-frame. I'd really only consider the 70-200 VR "necessary" if I were shooting the big stuff, like Broadway or something. Then I'd also have a D3s, heheh...

BTW I shoot studio-style headshots with the 50-150 too. As long as I've got a long aisle to back up, I can get a full body portrait and a headshot with just a flick of zoom.

To view a FEW more theater images, you can check out my small portfolio here:
http://matthewsaville.com/theater-portfolio

MOST of my theater images are kept very private, at the request of the directors etc. for the protection of the kids. But I do shoot theater 10-15 times a year and you're welcome to email me or something if you have specific questions about how I "run things" for that aspect of my business.

:-)

Take care,
=Matt=

Theater lens recommendations?

Comments