Jump to content

Photographing Bands in low light: what long lens?


LeFey

Recommended Posts

Advice please: recently commissioned to take some Band pics at evening gigs, low light, flashing green, red stage lights and so on. I used XF 35mm 1.4 and XF 60mm being the only lenses I have currently, but don't have sufficient reach with these.  The XF 90mm does not have image stabilisation, but is a little faster, but musicians do not stand still. Shooting at 250th is not ideal in low light I think? What about the zoom 50-200? [can't really afford the 55-140] Would there be an advantage with the IS? given the lens is slower? But then I am going to get subject motion blur if i shoot at low shutter speed. And I don't really want to lug around an extending tele. for other shooting projects. Is there any news about the XF120/85mm which could be  an option, I guess? So I am in a dilemma, all help and advice appreciated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

50-140, put it a 2.8, keep shutter speed at 1/60 to avoid blur, let iso handle the rest. I wouldn't bother with cheaper lenses.

 

The new 80mm will not have OIS.

 

Also, if you don't have the equipment to shoot, consider renting it if it's a paid job. Get a D810 or something like that and a stabilised zoom. I'd never accept a job I know I can't shoot with my gear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Tom. The updated Fuji road map show the 80mm has water proofing and IS, has this changed? Just to clarify, I have had great images/results with the XF 35mm, both onstage and in the pit, just want a little more reach.

Last time I checked rumour was no ois for the macro. But ois would be nice to have. Won't come soon enough for your gig though I guess. And a zoom is far more useful. The 50-140 is miles ahead of the cheaper telephoto zooms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advice please: recently commissioned to take some Band pics at evening gigs, low light, flashing green, red stage lights and so on. I used XF 35mm 1.4 and XF 60mm being the only lenses I have currently, but don't have sufficient reach with these.  The XF 90mm does not have image stabilisation, but is a little faster, but musicians do not stand still. Shooting at 250th is not ideal in low light I think? What about the zoom 50-200? [can't really afford the 55-140] Would there be an advantage with the IS? given the lens is slower? But then I am going to get subject motion blur if i shoot at low shutter speed. And I don't really want to lug around an extending tele. for other shooting projects. Is there any news about the XF120/85mm which could be  an option, I guess? So I am in a dilemma, all help and advice appreciated.  

 

can you not get closer???

 

I shoot gigs all the time, and use the xf35 F/1.4 and the XF60 F/2.4

Normally shooting wide open, at 1/120 or faster and iso 800/1600/3200

 

If I had the cash and could justify it, the only lens i'd buy for gigs would be the 56 F/1.2

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't get any closer and want the flexibility of a zoom, the 50-140 seems like the best bet. If you can get closer to the action, a combination of the 35mm f/1.4 and the 56mm would seem logical to me. You need wide aperture and sharp images at higher ISO. Image stabilization will be essentially meaningless at the shutter speeds you need to hit to reliably freeze the action. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to update this post.. here are a couple of images with XF60mm.  The band is Soul Intention, big sound soul band based in South West U.K.

 

 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am Official Photographer for several Blues Festivals and I shoot there with Nikon full-frame equipment.  However, I also shoot local gigs with my Fuji system which though not as good is still quite viable for the purpose.

 

My preferred long lens including for live music is the 100-400mm which is probably not a useful suggestion.  However, the first thing is to make the best of whatever you have and take what is possible with your equi8pment in the given lighting conditions. Getting a shot with a very high ISO is better than a blurred one with too low a shutter speed and wide open is often necessary.  The more you push the ISO, the more important correct exposure is because noise abounds in deep shadows at high ISO as the dynamic range contracts. Taking the image is one thing.  Post-processing is also critical and for me, just as important as taking the original image.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're shooting at faster shutter speeds than 1/250th, IS won't make a difference. I'd recommend the 90mm, as it has the fastest aperture of the longer lenses.

 

I own the 56mm and fast aperture is nice, but AF speed is a little on the slow side (no worse than the 35mm). If you have the 35mm and it's not close enough, I'd say go 90mm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting a shot with a very high ISO is better than a blurred one with too low a shutter speed and wide open is often necessary.

I totally agree with this. I would often raise my shutter speed to 1/800 at concerts, if the subject takes a lot of space on the frame. Othervise, I might go down to 1/250 or even 1/180.That is unless I want to capture the feel of motion in IE a drumstick. I find that for my style of shooting, motion blur tends to be much more cribling to perceived sharpness and - more important - emotional expressiveness, than high ISO is.

 

I shoot for fun, and my concert kit would be an X-E2 with either the 35@1.4 or the 60@2.4. I miss some shots with the focusing speed of this kit, but I tend to come home with some fine shots still :-)

 

(edit: I mostly go for a black/white end product)

Edited by Immanuel
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not in a place where I can post all samples directly but the links will help. I am using examples featuring our friends in an all women's band Roxxy Hall because they play in a decent venue with typical stage lights that unfortunately rarely are set correctly. Also the bulbs in those lights are never alike nor are they anything the like colors of the daytime world, in fact I suspect they got the red bulbs at a Sauna store they always blow the top of the histogram. My pictures are "fan art" for the band members and regulars consumption, they are not filtered for publication.

 

I set the camera to auto ISO up to 10800 with min speed of 200+ or Auto up to 6400 or 3200 and a little more speed when there is enough light ( shutter speed with dynamic performers like the lead singer here should be well over 1/500s if life was fair.)

 

I then use the Exposure Compensation and Aperture on the fly to avoid gross over-exposure when the lights change. I do use 8fps for some stuff but pay dearly at the sorting table in lost time.

 

Across is awesome for very low light although the apparent resolution drops the results are very satisfying.

 

I don't usually bring zooms (18-55 and 18-135) as they are too slow. I would buy fast primes and a second body before fast zooms.

 

My experience with primes are:

 

The 90mm is a SWEET lens and sharp enough to make up for 1 or 2 stops of speed. Depending on venue you'll only get a couple people in the frame and definitely shallow dept of field, but it is amazingly bulletproof for controlling the focus priority: https://boundarylayers.smugmug.com/Music/Roxxy-Hall-BAnd/Roxxy-Hall-Dec-3-2016/i-xq7prKm/A

 

The 56mm 1.2 is also great but the depth of field at 1.2 is too shallow for a good hit ration with moving performers so you end up working the aperture (which is easy to reach on that lens). This shot https://boundarylayers.smugmug.com/Music/Roxxy-Hall-BAnd/Roxxy-Hall-1152016/i-n4Q27qF/A shows both the issue with depth of field and inadequate shutter speed for dynamic performers.

 

The 60mm is good but slower to focus which works against you if you don't have a stationary object to focus on. https://boundarylayers.smugmug.com/Music/Roxxy-Hall-BAnd/Roxxy-Hall-Band-and-Friends/i-kTnjp3F/A

 

The 35mm f2 is great except for some barrel distortion so watch for microphone stands etc. (I don't have the 35 f1.4)

 

I have not bought a 23 or 16 yet but am leaning towards the 16mm 1.4 despite the bulk since the 27 is so sharp.

 

The 27 is great for wide shots where it takes in plenty of light with good depth of field.

 

This shot is Across/90mm/f:2/200/6400/+0.33V/Straight Out Of Camera

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by asathor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...