What (D70S) lens for low light production indoors

[bwilder10h]

My neice is going to be in a children's play this Spring and I'm looking for recommendations on a good low light lens for this. They do not allow flash and I'm unsure how close I will be able to get to the stage.

A friend recommended the 50mm 1.8 but not having the length to reach the stage concerns me.

I had also considered the Sigma 28-70 2.8 but wanted to ask the experienced before making a decision. I'm a newbie to DSLR...:D

Other recommendations....:dunno

[XO-Studios]

My neice is going to be in a children's play this Spring and I'm looking for recommendations on a good low light lens for this. They do not allow flash and I'm unsure how close I will be able to get to the stage.

A friend recommended the 50mm 1.8 but not having the length to reach the stage concerns me.

I had also considered the Sigma 28-70 2.8 but wanted to ask the experienced before making a decision. I'm a newbie to DSLR...:D

Other recommendations....:dunno

I use a 80-200/2.8D AF-S.
Set your D70S to M, use at least 1/200 (or 1/125 if you are very steady), F to wide open (2.8) and do the D70 trick by setting ISO to auto, this will give you the lowest ISO possible for each individual shot. I have also used a tripod, but that is somewhat of a pain.

I have also use the 50/1.8, but that was at shows where I had unlimited access to the stage and venue.

I have also swapped lenses midshow, if I knew the show well enough to know when that was prudent.

FWIW, YMMV

XO,

[chuckice]

My neice is going to be in a children's play this Spring and I'm looking for recommendations on a good low light lens for this. They do not allow flash and I'm unsure how close I will be able to get to the stage.

A friend recommended the 50mm 1.8 but not having the length to reach the stage concerns me.

I had also considered the Sigma 28-70 2.8 but wanted to ask the experienced before making a decision. I'm a newbie to DSLR...:D

Other recommendations....:dunno

It really depends on your distance...for me nothing beats the 85/1.4 in low light.

[bwilder10h]

Thanks for all the replies. Certainly food for thought...

The 70-200 VR is certainly a lens I would like to have, but it's way out of my price range. I also like the 80-200 but it's also fairly expensive.

Since I'm just starting out, I was hoping to stay in the $400 and under range if possible.

Would the difference in the 85mm over the 50mm in the 1.8's really justify the $275+ price in the two.

Do I really need a 1.8?

[chuckice]

Thanks for all the replies. Certainly food for thought...

The 70-200 VR is certainly a lens I would like to have, but it's way out of my price range. I also like the 80-200 but it's also fairly expensive.

Since I'm just starting out, I was hoping to stay in the $400 and under range if possible.

Would the difference in the 85mm over the 50mm in the 1.8's really justify the $275+ price in the two.

Do I really need a 1.8?

I'd go with the 85/1.8. It's right in that price range...there's a big difference between a 1.8 and 2.8. And a 50 will give you not nearly enough pull for an indoor play type setting.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=84151&is=USA&addedTroughType=search

[JimM]

I think you might be very surprised at how low the light is. Is this on a real stage? The spotlights and dark backgrounds can through everything off.

I took this one here:
http://jimmitte.smugmug.com/photos/49101810-L.jpg (http://jimmitte.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=49101935)
Click HERE for EXIF (http://jimmitte.smugmug.com/photos/newexif.mg?ImageID=49101935)

[bwilder10h]

Jim

Great capture there... I fully expect this production to have very similar lighting conditions as your photo that you posted. Yes, it's on an actual stage.

I see you were at 200 f/2.8. Do you think I would be better off with a longer lens like you were using and 2.8 or something like the 85mm 1.8?

[luckyrwe]

I got my wife the 85/1.8 for her D70. It has a lot of light and with the 1.5x adds more than the 50mm does. I highly recommend it.

[JimM]

If you look closer, you will see I was using my 200 f/2.8 lens, but my actual exposure was 1/400 of a second at f/4 (though I was shooting at 3200 ISO).

My point is you can make up the stops in a lot of places. 1/250 of second at f/4 at ISO 1600 for example.

I wasn't expecting this much light there. You will also notice your meter will be way off because of how dark the backgrounds are. I was in Program mode and told the meter to compensate -2 stops). Got to love how EXIF tells you everything (as I might have forgotten that)!!!

Jim

Great capture there... I fully expect this production to have very similar lighting conditions as your photo that you posted. Yes, it's on an actual stage.

I see you were at 200 f/2.8. Do you think I would be better off with a longer lens like you were using and 2.8 or something like the 85mm 1.8?

[JimM]

oh, one more thing.... I would recommend a zoom. In some cases I wanted to be wide to get the full scene and others I needed to be closer. I would recommend something like a 70-200mm f/2.8, though I think could make f/4 work and save some coin. The lens DoctorIT has for sale here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28054
would work very well, and is not that much over budget (he just lowered the price too).

[bwilder10h]

If you look closer, you will see I was using my 200 f/2.8 lens, but my actual exposure was 1/400 of a second at f/4 (though I was shooting at 3200 ISO).

My point is you can make up the stops in a lot of places. 1/250 of second at f/4 at ISO 1600 for example.


Duh, yeah I mis-read that big time. Dunno what I was thinking. :rolleyes

[JimM]

Okay, sorry, I feel like I hijacked this thread...

The lens DoctorIt is selling is perfect. You can mount a monopod to it and even if the lighting is terrible, you'll have some great shots. I am drooling over that lens right now. My 200mm does not have a mount ring on it, so I am forced to only take horizontal pictures with my monopod.

[bwilder10h]

oh, one more thing.... I would recommend a zoom. In some cases I wanted to be wide to get the full scene and others I needed to be closer. I would recommend something like a 70-200mm f/2.8, though I think could make f/4 work and save some coin. The lens DoctorIT has for sale here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=28054
would work very well, and is not that much over budget (he just lowered the price too).


Yeah I saw that earlier today and would love to have a zoom over a fixed lens. Concerned that a fixed 85 would be sharper for me than the Sigma though.....

[DoctorIt]

Yeah I saw that earlier today and would love to have a zoom over a fixed lens. Concerned that a fixed 85 would be sharper for me than the Sigma though.....Of course, primes will always be sharper.

Just came over here to say thanks to Jim. :wave

My impartial $.02: the 85/1.8 is a way better low-light lens, no doubt. That being said, does your neice play field hockey? soccer? On a budget, I've always gone with zooms for the versatility. If the theater and shows are your only shooting concern, use your feet to move up a few rows and get the faster glass, always get faster glass! If this play is all you'll ever shoot indoors, the 85 will be gathering a lot of dust when spring and summer bring you outside.

[JimM]

With as good as low-light sensors are these days, I wouldn't worry about the 85 at all (based on budgets). I have found well made zooms are super sharp. I bet DoctorIt could posted some images at roughly 85 and 200 and you'll love the sharpness. I can't believe how sharp my 28-75mm Tamron is.

[bwilder10h]

Doctor,

Thanks for your comments. As you mentioned, the 85 would not be used very often and a zoom would certainly serve me better for sporting events and outdoor shots later. I wish your glass was closer to my stated price range... :D

[JimM]

Doctor,

Thanks for your comments. As you mentioned, the 85 would not be used very often and a zoom would certainly serve me better for sporting events and outdoor shots later. I wish your glass was closer to my stated price range... :D

I think I'd still go for a 70-200, just go for an f/4 instead and upgrade when $$$ permits (though the nice glass you get, the more you never want to go back... and 2.8 is the way to go).

[JimM]

By the way, what are all of the lenses you have today?

[bwilder10h]

I just have the 18-70 kit lens at this point...

[DoctorIt]

I think I'd still go for a 70-200, just go for an f/4 instead and upgrade when $$$ permits (though the nice glass you get, the more you never want to go back... and 2.8 is the way to go).Nikon mount doesn't really give you a good 70-200/4 option. Canon's is unique in that spec.

One other thing, I heard the Sigma 28-70 mentioned here... don't do it. The non-HSM Sigma's are no fun.

[bwilder10h]

So what I'm hearing is there is no real good solution to my situation without spending far beyond my budget (doc's lens being the exception because it's used)?

[JimM]

Every lens I own I have purchased used and been very happy with. Compared to your kit lens Doc's lens will be the sharpest lens you've ever dreamed of... I promise.

f/2.8 in a zoom like that will be great! Doc, show him some pics!

[JimM]

So what I'm hearing is there is no real good solution to my situation without spending far beyond my budget (doc's lens being the exception because it's used)?

Okay, I am sure I hijacked this thread now.... Others please join in. I did want to point out that Doc just lowered his price and his price includes shipping and paypal. Still some over budget, but I am sure you'll be happy with the glass.

[bwilder10h]

Okay, I am sure I hijacked this thread now.... Others please join in. I did want to point out that Doc just lowered his price and his price includes shipping and paypal. Still some over budget, but I am sure you'll be happy with the glass.

How much commission is he paying you... just kidding.:rofl

[JimM]

How much commission is he paying you... just kidding.:rofl

I should ask him the same question. On my list of wants is an ultra-wide and 70-200 2.8, so I guess I am trying to live through you.

Another thought on a lens for this project for you, might be an older Nikkor manual focus zoom. I haven't looked, but I imagine you can get a 70-200 2.8 MF for well under your budget and focusing on stage should not be much of an issue?

[DoctorIt]

Another thought on a lens for this project for you, might be an older Nikkor manual focus zoom. I haven't looked, but I imagine you can get a 70-200 2.8 MF for well under your budget and focusing on stage should not be much of an issue?Pretty sure the oldest you could go is an old 80-200 for the D70. The MF, if you could find one - they don't really exist, would need an AI conversion. The 80-200 AF is still more than this Sigma and NOT as good, I've verified that for myself.

A sidenote: it's a mute point since the optical quality is the important part, but in my opinion, the Sigma looks better than the VR. VR is all skinny and long with a massive hood. Whole thing tapers to the end of the hood, making it look like a big black ice cream cone. Sigma's a bit fatter and has the matte black mean pipe look to it.

Guess I'll have to make do with the ugly cone.
:lol3

[bwilder10h]

Pretty sure the oldest you could go is an old 80-200 for the D70. The MF, if you could find one - they don't really exist, would need an AI conversion. The 80-200 AF is still more than this Sigma and NOT as good, I've verified that for myself.



It's a mute point anyway because I just sent you the funds for the Sigma:thumb

[JimM]

:clap:clap:clap

I am looking forward to seeing the images you get with it!

[bwilder10h]

I am looking forward to seeing the images you get with it!

That makes two of us. :beer

[DoctorIt]

It's a mute point anyway because I just sent you the funds for the Sigma:thumbYup. I'm big on keeping good information in these threads though. Next time someone has the same question, we can point them here. It's the mod in me.
:rolleyes :lol3

6lbs of glass and packing peanuts heading your way...

[bwilder10h]

Yup. I'm big on keeping good information in these threads though. Next time someone has the same question, we can point them here. It's the mod in me.
:rolleyes :lol3

6lbs of glass and packing peanuts heading your way...

That's a good idea. I'm sure someone else could find this info helpful down the road...

I'm really looking forward to getting the new glass. Hopefully it will arrives soon... :1drink

[mynakedsoda]

I'd skip the Sigma 28-70 2.8. The copy I tried was hardly sharp wide open. The contrast was also low. You mentioned the Nikon 85mm 1.8. If the lighting is low then I honestly believe this is the best choice. I'm assuming you'll arrive early enough to get in any position you might need so a 50mm "could" do what you need. The fact is that for most of the stages I've ever seen a 50mm would have put me at an odd angle sort of looking more up at the people than I would have cared for. Even at a concert I would prefer a longer lens for a more natural perspective. I'd also advise skipping any 2.8 zoom that didn't have VR or OS. 2.8 is a relatively fast optic but just won't cut it when the lights get really low. This is even assuming you have a clean 1600ISO available.

The 85mm 1.8 is some kind of hidden gem in Nikon's lens lineup IMO. Sharp even wide open and focuses so fast on slower bodies (D70, D50, ect.) that you'll wonder why some folks want an AFS version of it. All of the school events I shoot have other people's kids in the photos so I don't show those online. Just to give you an idea though, here's some photos I did at a concert with better lighting than I've ever seen at a school event...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/656545
Now a 2.8 can cut it with that good a lighting setup most of the time but few are that sharp wide open. When you really want to isolate the subject do you really want to be limited by a 2.8 maximum apeture? When the light really goes low do you really want to not have any option left other than a slower than you can hold shutterspeed, higher ISO (if you aren't already maxed out), or underexposure and shoot RAW hoping you can salvage something later on?

[bwilder10h]

Thanks for your comments. Since I've already purchased the Sigma from Erik, I'm hoping it will serve me well at this point. The 50mm 1.8 is also on my short list and if I could find a used 85 I would probably pick that up as well. I intend to try the 80-200 2.8 in similar conditions before the big day just to see how it fares. If it doesn't give the results I'm looking for, it might be back up for sale to fund the 85 1.8

P.S. Your H&BF photos are nice:thumb I did notice most were shot at f/2.8 1600iso:dunno


The 85mm 1.8 is some kind of hidden gem in Nikon's lens lineup IMO. Sharp even wide open and focuses so fast on slower bodies (D70, D50, ect.) that you'll wonder why some folks want an AFS version of it. All of the school events I shoot have other people's kids in the photos so I don't show those online. Just to give you an idea though, here's some photos I did at a concert with better lighting than I've ever seen at a school event...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/gallery/656545
Now a 2.8 can cut it with that good a lighting setup most of the time but few are that sharp wide open. When you really want to isolate the subject do you really want to be limited by a 2.8 maximum apeture? When the light really goes low do you really want to not have any option left other than a slower than you can hold shutterspeed, higher ISO (if you aren't already maxed out), or underexposure and shoot RAW hoping you can salvage something later on?

[mynakedsoda]

Thanks for your comments. Since I've already purchased the Sigma from Erik, I'm hoping it will serve me well at this point. The 50mm 1.8 is also on my short list and if I could find a used 85 I would probably pick that up as well. I intend to try the 80-200 2.8 in similar conditions before the big day just to see how it fares. If it doesn't give the results I'm looking for, it might be back up for sale to fund the 85 1.8

P.S. Your H&BF photos are nice:thumb I did notice most were shot at f/2.8 1600iso:dunno
Hopefully it will work well for you. :):

Thanks for the comment on the Hootie photos. The majority of them were at a very good shutter speed (1/100), 2.8, and many even lower than 1600ISO. The lighting is so much better than the average school event though...

The closest I can show for how the lighting is at my son's school for example (my son so I can show this one all I please)...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/photos/41432801-M.jpg
That one is at 1600ISO, f/1.8, 1/45. The lighting will vary but I pretty much had to bracket everything because of low shutter speeds. Basically I'd take a 3 shot burst of every photo (such as this one) and hope for one without any motion blur. Usually I'm really shooting for (but can't get) 1/60s. I've found that for the speed of general motion, 1/60s is the minimum to freeze things. I can't tell you how many times I've brought my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 DX and ended up leaving it in my bag thru an entire event because of poor lighting. Here's hoping your lighting situation is even slightly better.

[bwilder10h]

That one is at 1600ISO, f/1.8, 1/45. The lighting will vary but I pretty much had to bracket everything because of low shutter speeds. Basically I'd take a 3 shot burst of every photo (such as this one) and hope for one without any motion blur. Usually I'm really shooting for (but can't get) 1/60s. I've found that for the speed of general motion, 1/60s is the minimum to freeze things. I can't tell you how many times I've brought my Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 DX and ended up leaving it in my bag thru an entire event because of poor lighting. Here's hoping your lighting situation is even slightly better.


That's a great capture. His intent and focus on the book is excellent. I also like the 'tools' sitting on the rail in front of him. I too hope my lighting situation is as good or better than what you had there. This performance is going to be at an actual theatre (it's huge ordeal to the family that she even got selected) so I'm hoping the stage is lit up real nice. I may try to find a place that rents lenses (no idea where to look :scratch ) and borrow a 85 1.8 for the evening.

[mynakedsoda]

That's a great capture. His intent and focus on the book is excellent. I also like the 'tools' sitting on the rail in front of him. I too hope my lighting situation is as good or better than what you had there. This performance is going to be at an actual theatre (it's huge ordeal to the family that she even got selected) so I'm hoping the stage is light up real nice. I may try to find a place that rents lenses (no idea where to look :scratch ) and borrow a 85 1.8 for the evening.
Thanks. He was working as my photographers assistant that night so I kept my extra batteries, memory, and lenses in front of him so he could hand off to me on cue. Bonus for him is that only pro photographers are allowed in the balconies so he got a killer view (not that he was paying the play much mind.) :rofl

Conratulations to your family and your daughter. If it's a professional theatre then hopefully they've got some really good lighting.:thumb

[JimM]

The closest I can show for how the lighting is at my son's school for example (my son so I can show this one all I please)...
http://mynakedsoda.smugmug.com/photos/41432801-M.jpg
That one is at 1600ISO, f/1.8, 1/45.

Very nice ambient light shot!!! I didn't know Nikon could perform that well at ISO 1600 ;)

[mynakedsoda]

Very nice ambient light shot!!! I didn't know Nikon could perform that well at ISO 1600 ;)
Lol!:rofl
It doesn't do too bad although you gotta blast it with some NR in post. :D