Bright wideangle for 60D - music festivals etc

G

geebus

Suspended / Banned
Messages
51
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
New here, but have lurked in the past for a bit. Have done a bit of searching/googling on the subject, but nothing quite specific enough.

Recently got myself a 60D and currently have the Canon 18-135IS that came with it, a Tamron 10-24 and a 'nifty fifty'.
I'm considering something a bit wider than the 50mm, but still good for darker scenes.

Primarily I'm heading to Glastonbury in a month's time which has loads of night time photo opportunities (ie like this,and this and a lot more I didn't even try).
However, it'd also be useful for some photography and video for a mate's a band which is playing at a festival the week after.

I definitely need a reasonably wide angle as there's often no chance of standing further back to encompass everything desired in a shot.

I've been a bit disappointed by the bokeh available on the Tamron for general shots (pets and people etc), so that's part of my drive too.

I'm considering the Sigma 20mm F1.8 which receives very mixed reviews. However, it may be the case that a softer image at F1.8 is better than no image at F2.8.
Also been looking at the various F2.8 17-50 stabilised options.
For most shots the stabilisation may not make much difference - but see it could be useful. However, if we're down to F2.8, we're not that far off the F3.5 of my 18-135IS at the wide end.

As you might work out from my current selection of lenses, I'm not entirely bothered by absolute quality, but obviously want to end up with the opportunity for nicer pics than those I was taking with my LX3 in the last couple of years.
 
I get along fine at festivals in the dark with my 10 - 22, and thats slow as can be at F3.5? Given the amount of light your not often stuck. But, I'd stay away from the 20 F1.8, its softer than my mash.

Could always loan a 24 1.4?
 
I have the Siggy 20mm f1.8 and it isn't razor sharp at f1.8 but it's fine after sharpening and once you start stopping down it soon gets very sharp.

Just done a quick test shot at f1.8...

Whole image and 100% crop...

IMG_4027.jpg


IMG_4027c.jpg


Not sure if this will look as good here as it's a reduced size from photobucket but on my screen I can see the individual ink dots on the lable. Slightly sharper than mash :o)
 
Last edited:
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8? Is as wide/fast as they go I guess.

Not sure what you mean about Bokeh, you'll not get much from any wide lens surely?

Can you not use a flash, maybe that would help out the lighting issue (obv not for huge group shots).
 
Cheers for the thoughts. See that there's differing opinions on the Sigma 20mm here too :lol: - some suggest there's just more dodgy batches around than others.
(Cheers for the test shot - I'm sure that's sharp enough for my needs!)

This will be my first time taking pics at Glastonbury with a dSLR; I have been impressed with the high-ISO clarity so far. However recent shots at a previous gig of my friend's ended up with me using the flash a lot of the time in circumstances that can't have been brighter than a lot of the scenes I want to picture.

I should point out for those that haven't been that there's a hell of a lot of random and strange 'stuff' on at Glastonbury which you don't see at other festivals. Loads of that in the Arcadia, Shangrila and related areas which are often quite dimly lit, but need to be seen at night to appreciate the full ambience.

I'm not too worried for pictures of groups of people - where it's generally my mates and I'll happily use my LX3 stowed away in a pocket with flash rather than wandering around with a big camera bag. Most of the stuff I'm thinking I'd use this lens for flash wouldn't work for, though I do have a Sigma EF610 if needed, which has a reasonable throw.

The Tokina is an interesting option I hadn't seen - I do prefer the wider range and generally use the 24mm end of my LX3 and more on the 10-24, but worry it's partly me being a bit lazy - thus thinking the 20mm's 32mm equivalent might make me choose my composition a bit more rather than just making the scene look impressive by stuffing so much in!

Looking at some hire prices, I could be tempted to give it a go maybe with a couple to compare, though going to need it for two weeks really.
 
Last edited:
One of the surprising things about wide angles is that they work in low-light at a higher f-stop than you normally expect. Maybe an effect of the large optics...? My 12-24mm doesn't go below F4, but takes great pictures of shows (in combination with high iso). I also have a sigma 30mm f1.4, but hate it for show pictures - ultra-shallow DoF is not particularly helpful.
 
Have you looked at the Sigma 10-20 3.5? It received a 95% review recently, in What Digital Camera magazine.
I have had mine for a little over a week and although I am yet to use it in anger, early trials look very promising indeed.

Andy
 
flossie said:
I also have a sigma 30mm f1.4, but hate it for show pictures - ultra-shallow DoF is not particularly helpful.
Click to expand...

The Siggy 30mm f1.4 is a very good lens IMVHO but I'm a bit baffled by your comment as although it's a f1.4 lens it also does f16 too :)
 
woof woof said:
The Siggy 30mm f1.4 is a very good lens IMVHO but I'm a bit baffled by your comment as although it's a f1.4 lens it also does f16 too :)
Click to expand...

i was just pointing out that a low f-stop doesn't magically make low-light photographs easy (which is the impression sometimes people give...).

Personally I hate the lens, the only use I have for it is video - I just don't get on with it - the focal length is boring, construction is cheap and plasticy, etc etc... its a personal thing though - every time I give it a try, I take 2 shots then change it for another lens and never touch it again....:thumbsdown:
 
The focal length is what many people regard as "standard" and grew up with. Years ago the chances are that if you had a camera you had one lens and it was something around 40-50mm and the Siggy 30mm f1.4 is that on APS-C.

I find nothing wrong with the build :thinking: I think it puts many Canon lenses to shame plus you get a hood and a case with it.

What's not to love :thumbs:
 
woof woof said:
The focal length is what many people regard as "standard" and grew up with. Years ago the chances are that if you had a camera you had one lens and it was something around 40-50mm and the Siggy 30mm f1.4 is that on APS-C.
Click to expand...

Yes? and your point is? I said...its boring... :lol:

- elaborating : its not wide-angle (which I love) and its not telephoto (which makes the subject stand out) ...the whole "that's what was standard in the past" argument is just ...so what...we aren't taking snapshots any more. Its a boring focal length.

woof woof said:
I find nothing wrong with the build :thinking: I think it puts many Canon lenses to shame plus you get a hood and a case with it.
Click to expand...

Well... if you must shoot with Canon consumer lenses what did you expect :naughty:
 
Last edited:
I took my 18-135 out last night when walking the dog and tried taking pictures in varying levels of light. Overall it definitely did seem that a couple more stops would have been quite beneficial.
Will have to take the 50mm f1.8 out next time and see

The sigma 10-20 f3.5 doesn't really seem to offer that much over my current Tamron 10-24 F3.5 - 4.5. The 11-16 f2.8 seems to offer a little bit more - I suppose I could consider selling the Tamron on too then as the rest of the range is covered by the 18-135, but it is nice to have one lens go from old-school wide to silly wide.
 
flossie said:
i was just pointing out that a low f-stop doesn't magically make low-light photographs easy (which is the impression sometimes people give...).
Click to expand...

No lens does.

You might not get along with it, but the Siggy 30mm is perfect for low-light, whether working in tight spaces or grabbing events as you come across them, I include the second as the lighting conditions are probably the closest to the examples given by the original poster..



.. and it's build quality is pretty solid, you make it sound like the plastic fantastic that is the Canon 50 f/1.8..
 
Alastair said:
No lens does.

You might not get along with it, but the Siggy 30mm is perfect for low-light, whether working in tight spaces or grabbing events as you come across them (...)
.. and it's build quality is pretty solid, you make it sound like the plastic fantastic that is the Canon 50 f/1.8..
Click to expand...

Well just dug mine out to have a look again... and this is what I find - after I had to redo the white balance because its blue, all my other lenses came out with focus spot on and white balance correct in exactly the same test! - perfect build quality...not... the words at the bottom says it all...

imgp7897.jpg


Think I'm going to throw it in the bin... Sigma won't want to know cos it came from HK...
 
Last edited:
With regards low light shooting, the obvious key is to get a decent shutter speed which will freeze the action without camera shake. Either a fast normal lens or a reasonably fast wide lens should be able to manage this.

E.g. a 50/1.4 should achieve a similar shutter speed to a 17/2.8. Depends what you're shooting and what your style is.
 
manualfocus-g said:
That would definately be a problem if your night shots are soley of test charts then ;)
Click to expand...

ok then...if you don't like charts, how about this low-light shot... (sorry Simon, the ivy was obviously far more interesting...)

igp5421.jpg
 
It was a tongue in cheek comment ;) The flower looks in pretty good focus too :D

Can't you send it back to HK for them to resolve? What's it like to manual focus with? I could do with something like that on my Nex.

Edit: Is that not back focused?
 
Last edited:
Yup, you've got a problem there Richard. Focus deffo isn't on the subject and seems to be anywhere but... front, back, all over the place, but you can't write off a lens just because you personally have a problem.

I bought my lenses from UK suppliers and I've never had an optical issue but I'm sure that if I had the shops would have honoured the UK warranty.
 
manualfocus-g said:
It was a tongue in cheek comment ;) The flower looks in pretty good focus too :D

Can't you send it back to HK for them to resolve? What's it like to manual focus with? I could do with something like that on my Nex.

Edit: Is that not back focused?
Click to expand...

Had it a year now, they won't want to know and not cost effective - it was nearly half the price of buying it in the UK at the time so I took a chance...its got noticeably worse over time - when I first had it, it was ok-ish but far from perfect, but didn't have time to do anything about it due to work...

As I'm going to sell the whole system up and shift to Nikon at some point between now and the D4 coming out its simply not worth bothering with, I'll just sell it "as it" and let someone else worry about it. But I'll never buy another Sigma lens again... (I've also heard lots of other people have similar issues with Sigmas and the 30mm in particular)
 
Last edited:
flossie said:
Well just dug mine out to have a look again... and this is what I find - after I had to redo the white balance because its blue, all my other lenses came out with focus spot on and white balance correct in exactly the same test! - perfect build quality...not... the words at the bottom says it all...

<snip>

Think I'm going to throw it in the bin... Sigma won't want to know cos it came from HK...
Click to expand...

Send it to Sigma UK, pay the bill, get it sorted. Enjoy a great lens.
 
HoppyUK said:
Send it to Sigma UK, pay the bill, get it sorted. Enjoy a great lens.
Click to expand...

£86 quid + shipping for a lens that costs £300 new? Na...I won't get that back in increased value if I sell it, I'll just take the chance on ebay!


manualfocus-g - its a pentax mount, not canon. I've never tried manually focusing it as I have a 30-year old A 50/1.7 that feels fantastic for manual-focus work instead (and built superbly).
 
Had a play with the 50 f1.8 and the tamron wide angle last night.
Think for the light levels I'm expecting I definitely want as much light as possible, so veering towards the 20mm f1.8.
However, think next time I go out I'll take the Tamron and keep it on 20mm to make sure I'm happy with the focal length.

From reading other stuff around, have previously convinced myself that if I do buy a Sigma lens, it'll either be new from a UK dealer or secondhand where I can give it a go first as it does seem to be down to 'luck' a lot.

In some cases I don't mind some blur with slower shutter speeds - can capture more lighting effects etc. However presuming I'm hand holding, stabilisation would definitely be useful (thus also wondering about the 17-55 IS etc), but then I could always stick the 18-135 on for that which CLAIMS 4 stops IS rather than 3 of the 17-55.
 
Went out taking pics at 20mm last night.

While I would prefer wider, I don't think it's going to be worth the cash over my current 10-24 for the extra stop or two.

As for the IS - I was thinking of cases where I may not mind some blur of the crowd say, but would like to capture the main scene well. Also good for getting in lighting effects (ie stage lasers) and people using fire toys.
In fact, writing this I think I'm convincing myself :|. But then we're back to it only being a stop lower than my 18-135 IS, so not offering much for quite a lot of cash.
 
Ended up with the 20mm F1.8 sigma.

Pretty happy with it so far, though just got some 'ambient' snaps while at a motorbike trackday for the last couple of days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top