# lens advice for kids on stage and some wildlife



## skitron (Dec 27, 2011)

My thought is 70-200 IS II f/4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. Seem like this would be good as a "entry level" birding setup on a crop body. 448mm equivalent at f/5 I believe.

Just the lens sans the teleconverter seems a decent choice on a FF for shooting kiddos on stage when they do their performances. Plus the size/weight seems manageable. 

Thoughts?


----------



## bigblue1ca (Dec 27, 2011)

Indoor or outdoor stage performances and what's the lighting like generally and how much motion/movement is there? Only you of course can make an assessment on that. 

I recently shot my kids during a indoor stage performance at their school, which had variable lighting depending on what was happening on stage. I used my 60D and my 70-200 IS II 2.8 and I was able to get some good exposures wide open at 2.8, shutter speed ranging 1/125-1/200, and 3200 ISO (not great on the 60D, but mostly salvageable with Nik's Dfine for my family purposes). This manged to stop 95% of the motion, there was nothing too fast and furious going on. When the lights really dropped down the shots at 1/25-1/60, almost all ended up in the trash due to motion blur from the performers. I think the FF is a way to go for the performances, as I found the 70-200 was a little tight on a couple of occasions due to my crop.


----------



## skitron (Dec 27, 2011)

bigblue1ca said:


> I think the FF is a way to go for the performances, as I found the 70-200 was a little tight on a couple of occasions due to my crop.



That was my thought as well concerning focal length. Plus the ISO performance of the 5D2 is better so 3200 is actually not too bad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2011)

skitron said:


> My thought is 70-200 IS II f/4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. Seem like this would be good as a "entry level" birding setup on a crop body. 448mm equivalent at f/5 I believe.



Just to clarify - there is no 70-200 IS II f/4. There's a 70-200 f/4 IS (no MkII) and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I think the f/4 version would not be that good for indoor stage shooting, you'll want the extra stop of f/2.8 (I actually like the 135mm f/2L on FF for that. An f/2.8 lens goes to f/4 with a 1.4x and f/5.6 with a 2x, an f/4 lens is f/5.6 with a 1.4x and f/8 (no AF) with a 2x. A 280mm f/5.6 lens on APS-C would be ok as a bird lens, you'll have to crop for small birds (I shoot at 400mm on a 7D and need to crop).


----------



## distant.star (Dec 27, 2011)

I second big brain's suggestion on the 135mm f/2L for stage stuff. I've found it does a great job. Not being a zoom, you'll have to find some ideal distance to place yourself from the stage. Also, make sure to shoot RAW and adjust WB in post to get correct skin tones, etc. Stage lighting is hell.




neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > My thought is 70-200 IS II f/4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. Seem like this would be good as a "entry level" birding setup on a crop body. 448mm equivalent at f/5 I believe.
> ...


----------



## skitron (Dec 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> skitron said:
> 
> 
> > My thought is 70-200 IS II f/4 plus a 1.4x teleconverter. Seem like this would be good as a "entry level" birding setup on a crop body. 448mm equivalent at f/5 I believe.
> ...



My thinking on the stage part was I was able to shoot my 100 L at ISO 800 on a crop body with good results and 3200 looks not too bad on the 5D2, so I'd actually pick up a stop over what I have now. Then I'd have the 100 L as a fall back if I really needed 2.8 though obviously limited to the shorter end of things. (plus I failed to mention they have broadcast quality lighting, so the levels are higher than a typical school stage) The birding part is more an ancillary use to see if it's something I'd like to get in to (and spend more, lol).

It's probably time to rent first...


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 27, 2011)

I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 (non is). I don't think f/4 will do well for stage shots, unless the stage is incredibily well lit, which sadly is a bit of a pipe dream for photographers. Just make sure you shoot in RAW, and whatever lens you get you'll be able fix those pesky skin tones you get from the dodgy lighting.

Thomas.


----------



## skitron (Dec 27, 2011)

bobthebrick said:


> I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 (non is). I don't think f/4 will do well for stage shots, unless the stage is incredibily well lit, which sadly is a bit of a pipe dream for photographers. Just make sure you shoot in RAW, and whatever lens you get you'll be able fix those pesky skin tones you get from the dodgy lighting.
> 
> Thomas.



I forgot to add they have broadcast quality lighting and that is a big reason I'd consider the f/4. I do shoot raw and the last time I shot in that room I didn't have to mess with skin tones, they were pretty much right on with just the in camera white balance detection.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 27, 2011)

bobthebrick said:


> I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 (non is). I don't think f/4 will do well for stage shots, unless the stage is incredibily well lit, which sadly is a bit of a pipe dream for photographers. Just make sure you shoot in RAW, and whatever lens you get you'll be able fix those pesky skin tones you get from the dodgy lighting.
> 
> Thomas.



I agree the f2.8 non IS is going to be better than the f4 IS since neither of your intended subjects are going to be stationary the IS will provide little benefit, and form previous threads shooting birds at fast shutter speeds would be better to have IS off anyway.


----------



## skitron (Dec 27, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> bobthebrick said:
> 
> 
> > I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 (non is). I don't think f/4 will do well for stage shots, unless the stage is incredibily well lit, which sadly is a bit of a pipe dream for photographers. Just make sure you shoot in RAW, and whatever lens you get you'll be able fix those pesky skin tones you get from the dodgy lighting.
> ...



Yeah, I'd have to agree with that reasoning. Are any of the third party 70-200's worth looking at? I don't really care if it's white and has the red ring or not as long as it works. Plus I'm a fair weather or indoors only shooter so sealing isn't as important.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 27, 2011)

second hand 70-200 f2.8 non IS sell at reasonable prices.
I know SIGMA and TAMRON both do 70-200 f2.8 lenses after my experience with 
the sigma 85 f1.4 I would definately have a good look at the sigma if you want to save some money
if it's anything like the 85 it will be awesome.
I have had bad experiences with Tamron in the past so i wouldnt waste my time considering that


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 27, 2011)

I would go for a f/2.8 lens to help the AF in low light (OP has 50D and 5DII)

I would go for an IS lens as on stage 1/125 is fast enough but not really fast enough for the 200 end.

On that basis I would go for a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, either mk1 or II, depending on budget


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 27, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I would go for a f/2.8 lens to help the AF in low light (OP has 50D and 5DII)
> 
> I would go for an IS lens as on stage 1/125 is fast enough but not really fast enough for the 200 end.
> 
> On that basis I would go for a Canon 70-200 f/2.8, either mk1 or II, depending on budget



Ah yes excellent point that difference between f2.8 and f4 lenses on AF performance is massive!


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 28, 2011)

The Sigma 70-200 is ok, and you can get the OS version (Sigma's version of IS) relatively cheaply. It's not as good as the Canon though in IQ and it focuses slightly slower, but it has Optical Stabilisation and it's relatively cheap.
However, some people have reported that their copies of the Sigma are dodgy and produce terrible images and don't focus properly. Seems to be the typical quality control issue, but some of their lenses are fantastic, and their 70-200 is fairly good.

Thomas.


----------



## UncleFester (Dec 28, 2011)

2.8 is the slowest I would want to go, broadcast quality lighting or not I'd still be packing a 580.

No flash. F/2, 1.8, or 1.2 as budget permits.


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 28, 2011)

As others already suggested, for your needs, stay away from f/4 lenses. Get the fastest you can. This means expensive and heavy but it will pay off.

If you want a single lens for birding and stage work and if budget permits I would get 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. Sharpest zoom ever and very versatile. It also works very well with extenders.

Another idea: Again as others suggested, 135L f/2 truly shines on FF and would be a great lens for stage work if you don't really need the flexibility of a zoom. You could add a 100-400L (or 70-300L) for birding (without converter) to it, for around the price of a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II + extender.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 28, 2011)

The 135mm L plus my 5D MK II at IS) 3200 or faster is my stage outfit, with my 85mm f/1.8 for wider views and 35mm L for a very wide view. Flash is not allowed or wanted for many stage images where colored lights are part of the effect.

I tried my 70-200mm f/2.8, it just did not work out for the fast motion onstage, not fast enough in many cases. I usually stick to 1/320 sec when I can, but drop the shutter speed for scenes without fast motion.

135mm L @f/2.5 ISO 3200 1/250sec 







135mmL under bright stage light at f/7.1 1/200 sec


----------



## handsomerob (Dec 28, 2011)

great shots, congrats! 135L truly shines on FF!


----------



## skitron (Dec 29, 2011)

I suppose I'll just stick with the 100 L for now and try to sit closer using the FF. It's a 3300 seat room but when the kids are doing stuff in there it's easy enough to sit up front. If it turns out I need something a little faster and/or longer, I'll try the 135 L. Many thanks for all the input everyone!


----------

