Take the advice, or listen to myself?

Eddzz!!

Eddzz!!

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,120
Name
Eddy
Edit My Images
Yes
For a few months now I've been debating a couple of new lenses after feeling that my technique is limited. I currently have in my bag a 24-105 f/4 and 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and they're both great lenses! I like to shoot a lot in low-light and have found myself photographing more events photography as of late (stage and other dimly lit situations). I have been considering the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 for quite some time now as well as the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 OS. The Sigma 35mm I would like as my general go-to fast lens that I can use for candid and portrait photography whilst out and about. It would also come in handy when photographing indoors at events. The Sigma 50-150mm I would use as my stage-lens and for photographing performers.

Now I have been warned by a friend (who happens to be a pro tog) of falling into the 'trap' of convincing ones self of *needing* new gear. Now I never thought of it that way before. In theory, I can attain results with my current gear. My 24-105 is a great lens and it works well in stage situations. But it's slow and with my Canon 7D means I have to bump the ISO quite high and lower the shutter to an almost uncomfortable speed. Some photos I have had to discard because the shutter has been so slow that I have not caught the action/photos have been blurry.

So I'm stuck. I see what my friend means and I certainly don't want to buy gear for the sake of it. I don't have it in my head that "new gear will make me better", 'cause I know it won't. What I do believe though, is that having good quality glass will *help* me in getting the results that I *want*... :thinking:

Bahh. :gag:
 
Last edited:
Better gear does not make you a better photographer -- You already know that

Better gear does produce better and more consistant results -- You already know that

There..instead of all the waffle its plain and clear... If your shooting plants on a loverly sumemrs day then stick wiht what you ahve... But for what your saying.. theatre work ect.. better gear will help ....So treat yourself and go get some new gear :)
 
Sounds like you're happy with what you have but are wanting to progress and get better results which you will only get with the better glass... So I say go for it!

But be careful with your DOF. With the 1.4 the DOF will reduce and potentially less of the photo will be in focus
 
KIPAX said:
Better gear does not make you a better photographer -- You already know that

Better gear does produce better and more consistant results -- You already know that

There..instead of all the waffle its plain and clear... If your shooting plants on a loverly sumemrs day then stick wiht what you ahve... But for what your saying.. theatre work ect.. better gear will help ....So treat yourself and go get some new gear :)
Click to expand...

Thanks all for the responses! It seems the general consensus is to go with my gut feeling on this one... *gulp!* :D

Ulfric M Douglas said:
For eighty-ish quid you might try a 50mmF1.8 and get some way towards your more expensive F1.4 and see what's what.
Click to expand...

I have owned the 50 f/1.8 previously and just felt it too 'long' with a crop sensor!
 
You're only gaining one, or two stops extra speed on these 'fast' lenses, and they will make focus a lot more critical.
Two stops.....
Means ISO 800 instead of 3200
Means 1/250 instead of 1/60th
Is it going to make such a huge difference? Are you still going to be pushing the ISO & Noise reduction to be sure of fast enough shutter speeds, or will you carry on risking dropping shots to run a lower ISO?
Always found when you start bouncing against boundries... new kit that shifts the boundries, doesn't put you back in the middle of the field... you just step up to the new boundry to carry on bouncing off it.
You said that you felt your technique was limited.... this may be a hint.
Always found that trying to do stuff different, with what you got, learning a NEW technique, breaks you through a boundry..... THEN new kit lets you exploit it.
Is this suggestion worth chasing a bit, before spending hard cash?
 
Eddzz!! said:
I have owned the 50 f/1.8 previously and just felt it too 'long' with a crop sensor!
Click to expand...

I think the 50 is a really good lens for making you think about your shots, I firmly believe that people can rely on zoom lenses far too much and often ruin a potentially great shot simply by trying to get too much in frame.

At any rate, a fast prime is an essential bit of kit.
 
So many conflicting answers here on TP at times, It is the normal rulew of thumb on here that if your gear is holding you back or you have reached the limits of it then you need to change.
Others say as above.

To me if you are doing alot of low light work you need the gear to do that job.
Having the right gear will help you get more results and not loose "that" shot.

I would say go with your gut otherwise you will never be happy and everytime you think you nailed the shot and it turns out its blurry or OOF then you will always be unhappy.
 
Eddzz!! said:
I have owned the 50 f/1.8 previously and just felt it too 'long' with a crop sensor!
Click to expand...


Too long? for theatre work? too short I find.. generally you need to be higher than the cast so you can get the back of the stage and everyone on the set rather than just the front actors... especialy with a big production.. so back of room or upper seats is the key and the requires a longer lens :)
 
What are the limits you have hit? If you haven't found something limiting you, why upgrade?

The word handy tells me you don't need the lens.

You already have an f4 lens which will do pretty well in low light, you need to find out what that lens is lacking before you upgrade, is it the reach or do you need the faster lens? Is it the 50-150 you want or the 70-200 you want?
 
Dale_tem said:
You already have an f4 lens which will do pretty well in low light,
Click to expand...

An f2.8 will do a lot better.. I dont think the OP wants pretty well.. I think he wants good.. or better :)
 
KIPAX said:
Too long? for theatre work? too short I find.. generally you need to be higher than the cast so you can get the back of the stage and everyone on the set rather than just the front actors... especialy with a big production.. so back of room or upper seats is the key and the requires a longer lens :)
Click to expand...

I found the 50mm was good when hanging around in front of the stage - I could get some tight cropped shots. However, I never found myself using it for anything else! It just used to sit and collect dust. Every time I took it outside I'd find myself running backwards trying to get my shot only to lose my composition. It was quite a difficult prime to use on a crop. I imagine the 35mm would be a more usable focal length for general stuff and may come in hand for stage work also, for something a little wider but not 'too wide'.

SpikeK6 said:
So many conflicting answers here on TP at times, It is the normal rule of thumb on here that if your gear is holding you back or you have reached the limits of it then you need to change.
Others say as above.

To me if you are doing alot of low light work you need the gear to do that job.
Having the right gear will help you get more results and not loose "that" shot.

I would say go with your gut otherwise you will never be happy and everytime you think you nailed the shot and it turns out its blurry or OOF then you will always be unhappy.
Click to expand...

That's my BIGGEST problem. I bump my ISO, I lower my shutter speed and I go for 'that' shot. I look at it on the camera, I think I've nailed it! I get home, excited, load it up onto my PC only to find that I've been slightly out of focus or motion blur has ruined it...

Dale_tem said:
What are the limits you have hit? If you haven't found something limiting you, why upgrade?

The word handy tells me you don't need the lens.

You already have an f4 lens which will do pretty well in low light, you need to find out what that lens is lacking before you upgrade, is it the reach or do you need the faster lens? Is it the 50-150 you want or the 70-200 you want?
Click to expand...

KIPAX said:
An f2.8 will do a lot better.. I dont think the OP wants pretty well.. I think he wants good.. or better :)
Click to expand...

That's true. I am looking for something that will help me achieve the results that I want. I have the technique, but as I said, I feel restricted by the gear I'm using!
 
KIPAX said:
An f2.8 will do a lot better.. I dont think the OP wants pretty well.. I think he wants good.. or better :)
Click to expand...

It would be better, but he hasn't said he NEEDS it, he should only upgrade if he needs to, ie he is struggling to get the shot he wants in the situation, he doesn't want to increase the ISO past point X as the noise is too much and he can't lower shutter speed, so he needs a faster lens.
 
Now you have said that Eddy, get the faster lens, but get the right focal length.

I've got the 70-200mm and love and today my 24mm - 70mm f/2.8 arrived, so I have 24-200mm covered at f/2.8

Where are most of your shots taken? around 30mm or around 100mm? If 100mm, are you always at the limit of the 105mm lens, will 150mm be enough?
 
Dale_tem said:
Now you have said that Eddy, get the faster lens, but get the right focal length.

I've got the 70-200mm and love and today my 24mm - 70mm f/2.8 arrived, so I have 24-200mm covered at f/2.8

Where are most of your shots taken? around 30mm or around 100mm? If 100mm, are you always at the limit of the 105mm lens, will 150mm be enough?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Dale! I have never used the 50-150mm, I have only read good things. I have worked at festivals with a 70-200mm. The pits are usually quite a way out in front of the stage, so a long lens comes in handy. I never found myself at 200mm however (unless I was trying to get head-shots of the performers). I'm basing the potential usefulness of a 50-150mm zoom range off of that. The 50mm end of the lens is also quite appealing, as although I have said I felt 50mm a "little too zoomed in", it would be more beneficial to have something wider than 70mm at the wide end.
 
If you found 50mm too zoomed in, perhaps 2 lenses would be better, one covering the 24-70mm and then the 70-200 lens.
 
Thinking very basic here but if you do not already use one could a camera support help like a monopod? I know it wont help with shutter speeds as you don't want motion blur but might help with focusing? I dunno :P
 
Dale_tem said:
You already have an f4 lens which will do pretty well in low light
Click to expand...

I used to have a 7D. Often in concerts / low light work I was shooting 1/60th ISO 6400 F2.8. F4 would mean 12800 or 1/30th which are both outside of acceptable boundaries for different reasons - it doesn't really do that well in low light..
 
I was also thinking that the 7D may be the weak link for low light / high ISO situations.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I used to have a 7D. Often in concerts / low light work I was shooting 1/60th ISO 6400 F2.8. F4 would mean 12800 or 1/30th which are both outside of acceptable boundaries for different reasons - it doesn't really do that well in low light..
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I've found low-light performance from the 7D to be rather exceptional considering the APS-C sized sensor. With the 70-200 f/2.8 I have gotten very well lit shots at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200...
 
Eddzz!! said:
On the contrary, I've found low-light performance from the 7D to be rather exceptional considering the APS-C sized sensor. With the 70-200 f/2.8 I have gotten very well lit shots at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200...
Click to expand...

I was referring to F4 lenses not being so good in low light, which is why I quotes that part of the post specifically.

So your point isn't really on the contrary to mine... :)
 
RichardtheSane said:
I was referring to F4 lenses not being so good in low light, which is why I quotes that part of the post specifically.

So your point isn't really on the contrary to mine... :)
Click to expand...

Whoops. I thought, like Phil, you were laying fault with the 7D as opposed to my current lens setup.
 
I used to teach a group of Hnd and c&g students all at different levels photography speaking. One of the set assignments was to strap a standard 50 or equiv lens for their chosen camera/format and shoot the assignment using that setup.

Resulted in some great shots and a better understanding of composition and an appreciation of how good the bog standard 50 can be. Remember I am talking film here not digi. Lol
 
phototut said:
I used to teach a group of Hnd and c&g students all at different levels photography speaking. One of the set assignments was to strap a standard 50 or equiv lens for their chosen camera/format and shoot the assignment using that setup.

Resulted in some great shots and a better understanding of composition and an appreciation of how good the bog standard 50 can be. Remember I am talking film here not digi. Lol
Click to expand...

Aye, but a 50mm lens on a 35mm system is much more usable than on an APS-C sized sensor!
 
Eddzz!! said:
Whoops. I thought, like Phil, you were laying fault with the 7D as opposed to my current lens setup.
Click to expand...

Not at all, while ultimately I change from the 7D for image quality improvements, up to ISO3200 it is a very capable camera indeed.
 
Eddzz!! said:
Aye, but a 50mm lens on a 35mm system is much more usable than on an APS-C sized sensor!
Click to expand...

True that is why I said chosen camera /format I am aware of the crop issue was just extolling the virtues of the humble standard lens. :)
 
It sounds to me like you could do with some faster prime lenses. Assuming you've already established that a 35mm lens is the one then the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 would probably be a good choice. I find there's a world of difference from shooting even fast zooms to even faster primes and I shoot in low light quite a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top