lens advice for kids on stage and some wildlife

[skitron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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).

[skitron]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.