# Canon 18-135mm VS 17-55mm VS 15-85mm for concerts?



## violet-hill (Aug 17, 2013)

Hi all! I'm far from being a pro, but I'm planning on buying a new lens which would be good for: concerts, and as a walkaround. I love going to concerts, but I used a 50mm f/1.8 (my only lens aside from my kit lens, which is really sad, I know) for the first time to the most recent one I've been to, and most of the pictures were slightly blurry. I think it was due to a combination between the 50mm being a prime lens, and my distance from the stage--I was closer than I thought I would be. 

So, I wanted something that would give me versatility, one which would give me good/sharp results no matter my distance from the stage. In addition, something that I could also use as a walkaround lens would be great.

I researched, but I still can't choose which would be the best choice among these: 

*15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 
17-55mm f/2.8
18-135 f/3.5-5.6* 

Any help/other suggestions would be greatly appreciated! Thank you


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 17, 2013)

The 17-55mm would be your best choice because of the f/2.8 aperture (lets in up to 4 times more light). 

The 50/1.8 might need to have the focus adjusted - if you have an AFMA-capable body (7D, 50D), that will help. Else, sending to Canon is the only option.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 17, 2013)

+1 with Neuro...17-55 is my pick.


----------



## verysimplejason (Aug 17, 2013)

If you can really get closer to the stage then you might want to consider the new Sigma 18-35 F1.8 also. Primary reason would be that in concerts, you might need a faster zoom.


----------



## Stig (Aug 17, 2013)

another +1 for Neuro, 

if you are getting that close to the stage, the 17-55 with f/2.8 and IS should be great for you

there is just one traditional thing to add: should you consider full frame in short time, none of the lenses you are considering would be compatible... I love my 17-55, but I went FF sooner than I thought and now the 17-55 sits on the shelf...


----------



## captainkanji (Aug 17, 2013)

I briefly had a 17-55 before I sold the 7D. It gets great image quality. The build isn't that great but that's the only con. I couldn't get close enough to stages to use it though. I used the 70-200 f4, but with no IS I had to crank the ISO to 4000 and I still couldn't get 1/100. It was the reason I went with a FF, but I digress. You will not be disappointed with the 17-55. It is probably the best EF-S lens Canon makes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 17, 2013)

I'd vote for a 85mm f/1.8. f/2.8 will likely not be fast enough for moving subjects. On a new FF body where you can use higher ISO settings, f/2.8 barely makes it for me.


----------



## thelonelyphotographer (Aug 17, 2013)

violet-hill said:


> Hi all! I'm far from being a pro, but I'm planning on buying a new lens which would be good for: concerts, and as a walkaround. I love going to concerts, but I used a 50mm f/1.8 (my only lens aside from my kit lens, which is really sad, I know) for the first time to the most recent one I've been to, and most of the pictures were slightly blurry. I think it was due to a combination between the 50mm being a prime lens, and my distance from the stage--I was closer than I thought I would be.
> 
> So, I wanted something that would give me versatility, one which would give me good/sharp results no matter my distance from the stage. In addition, something that I could also use as a walkaround lens would be great.
> 
> ...



I am sure a lot of readers here will disparage my comments, for whatever reason they feel compelled their input is more valuable than others, I do understand the limiting factor of cost being a primary consideration. However I found myself in similar situation, shooting a local beauty pageant, 68 feet away from the stage. I needed the 70-200mm 2.8 L !S II, barely enough to get a decent close up. On the other hand for the wide shots, I found the 24-70 2.8 L not wide enough to cover the stage, cutting some contestants out of the image.

For a concert I would imagine most of the performers being localized in one area, I'd invest in a 24-70mm 2.8 L. Yes it's damn expensive, and the MK2 version is even more than the one its replacing. This zoom range is the most useful for a crop camera. If funds are available, then a 5dMk3 or 6D would be even more useful in terms of FOV. Good luck


----------



## Zv (Aug 17, 2013)

violet-hill said:


> Hi all! I'm far from being a pro, but I'm planning on buying a new lens which would be good for: concerts, and as a walkaround. I love going to concerts, but I used a 50mm f/1.8 (my only lens aside from my kit lens, which is really sad, I know) for the first time to the most recent one I've been to, and most of the pictures were slightly blurry. I think it was due to a combination between the 50mm being a prime lens, and my distance from the stage--I was closer than I thought I would be.
> 
> So, I wanted something that would give me versatility, one which would give me good/sharp results no matter my distance from the stage. In addition, something that I could also use as a walkaround lens would be great.
> 
> ...



Hmm ... The 50 1.8 is a very sharp lens unless you're using it @ f/1.8, have you tried stopping it down to about f/2.2 and just cranking that ISO up to 3200? Depending on camera and lighting conditions you should be able to get sharp enough shots that you can crop later. I'm not sure if a 17-55 will solve the problem. You're prob better of with a monopod because it sounds to me the reason your shots are blurry is camera shake.


----------



## violet-hill (Aug 17, 2013)

Zv said:


> violet-hill said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all! I'm far from being a pro, but I'm planning on buying a new lens which would be good for: concerts, and as a walkaround. I love going to concerts, but I used a 50mm f/1.8 (my only lens aside from my kit lens, which is really sad, I know) for the first time to the most recent one I've been to, and most of the pictures were slightly blurry. I think it was due to a combination between the 50mm being a prime lens, and my distance from the stage--I was closer than I thought I would be.
> ...



Your comment about the aperture makes so much sense, and it hurts me to say this, but I remember only changing it a few times, for some incredibly stupid reason. I am currently mentally kicking myself.

Thank you very much, and to everyone else as well!


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 17, 2013)

I think the place to start is to find out why your 50F1.8 is not sharp. Despite the price it's a very sharp lens. What's your shutter speed? What ISO are you shooting at? If you use it outside on a nice sunny day do you get sharp pictures? 

Unless you figure out why you're not getting sharp pictures with your current lens, buying a new lens is probably Not going to solve your problem and just cost you money... It could be the lens or it could be that you are doing something wrong..... Lets find out before letting the credit cards loose.


----------

