Best lens from my set for nightclubs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
V

VelocideX

Mar 21, 2013
19
0
4,776
#1
Hi all,

If I could take a single lens to do nightclub photography from the following, what you recommend? I have the 5D3. The intention is for some close-up shots of people, some of the DJ and some crowd shots. I may or may not take a flash.

  • 24mm f/1.4L II
  • 35mm f/1.4L
  • 24-105 f/4L

My feeling is that the 24-105 is far too slow, but the zoom gives me way more options. I use the 35 a lot, but it might not be wide enough for crowd shots, and it's also not weather sealed (I am paranoid about people spilling drinks on my camera); the 24 is weather sealed and so should hold up OK if someone accidentally spills a drink on me.

All of these considerations suggest the 24.

Thoughts welcome!
 
#8
Not a big fan of a single primes for low light party areas... There is only so much blurred glow sticks one can put under under creativity... Some of the 24mm prime shots all begin to look the same with the distorted sides...

Zooms are ok with high ISO...i would probably suggest 16-35II constantly changing up its focal range and sticking to f2.8 and high ISO. Flash is distracting in these cases and you will stand out as the man with the big "stuff."
 
Upvote 0
#9
VelocideX said:
Hi all,

If I could take a single lens to do nightclub photography from the following, what you recommend? I have the 5D3. The intention is for some close-up shots of people, some of the DJ and some crowd shots. I may or may not take a flash.

  • 24mm f/1.4L II
  • 35mm f/1.4L
  • 24-105 f/4L
My feeling is that the 24-105 is far too slow, but the zoom gives me way more options. I use the 35 a lot, but it might not be wide enough for crowd shots, and it's also not weather sealed (I am paranoid about people spilling drinks on my camera); the 24 is weather sealed and so should hold up OK if someone accidentally spills a drink on me.

All of these considerations suggest the 24.

Thoughts welcome!
Click to expand...
With a 5D3 and wanting close-ups of people, It really depends on how close to the performers you can get. A 135mmL is my choice for close-ups of people, a 35mm or 24mm is way to wide to get individual portraits unless you are 3 ft. away.
For wider shots, I might use 50 or 85mm, again depending on the distance. Without knowing how close you are, there is no way to give you a accurate answer.
 
Upvote 0
#10
privatebydesign said:
On the question of zooms and primes, don't forget it is position that creates perspective NOT focal length, stand in the same place with a 24 as a 135 and crop the 24mm image and you get the same portrait, all be it with greater dof.

Bearing that in mind, and the fact that end use is unlikely to go very large or high quality, then the 24 would give me the most flexibility. Shoot to crop and you won't go wrong, try to fill the frame every shot and it will be very formulaic.
Click to expand...
I agree that shooting to crop is the way to go, but not a extreme amount. You also get exposure issues when you are too wide, the subject tends to get a wrong exposure, so you have to be very careful and use exposure compensation or preferably full manual. When colored lights are constantly changing, it is even more to worry about.
I usually have a lot of working room, from 5 ft to 60 ft, so I can use 35mm or even 24mm by moving around. I can also get different angles. My 85 or 135 is my usual choice, but I use them all. If a person is seated at random in a club, there is no telling how far or close he will be, and if light is low, a fast zoom or prime is the choice. I've never been happy with my 24-105 in low light at f/4.
The 5D3 lets me crop a large amount if I have to, but I prefer to crop just a little. If I was 8-10 ft from a performer, I could use 35mm, but 20 ft, I'd prefer a longer focal length. If I want a 1/2 body closeup shot, 24mm is too wide.

The OP should take all three of his lenses and see what works for him.

135mmL back about 6 rows from the stage
i-XTXp62x-L.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#11
Another lens you don't own but might want to consider would be the Shorty McForty. With it on your (un-gripped) 5DIII, especially with a wrist strap (such as the BlackRapid one), many will mistrake it for a high-end P&S camera instead of some sort of "serious / pro photographer" camera. That goes double if you put it in Green Square mode with Live View on and hand it to somebody to include you in the shot.

Cheers,

b&
 
Upvote 0
#14
Thank you to all the advice, particularly from those who actually read my post ;)

I don't have the 16-35L, and this would be a great lens for it. I don't have the cash for it at the moment.

RLPhoto - no idea why dance receptions are relevant to this...

LOALTD - I understand the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is pretty good, but I have the 35L and so have no compelling reason to buy it. I keep reading about autofocus issues, even with the Sigma, and so went for the 35L instead and have been pretty happy with it. I was hoping for the 35L II but this seems like a fantasy.

TrumpetPower! - I do have the 40mm pancake but hadn't considered it - 2.8 is only one stop faster than f/4, and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5D3 I would choose the 24-105 f/4 over the 40 f/2.8. The reason to go for the primes in this environment would be to get substantially more aperture. I love the colour rendition of the 24L. I do take your point about it being more easily passed off as amateur though. My 40mm stays on my camera a lot of the time when I'm doing street photography as it is less conspicuous.
 
Upvote 0
#17
privatebydesign said:
On the question of zooms and primes, don't forget it is position that creates perspective NOT focal length, stand in the same place with a 24 as a 135 and crop the 24mm image and you get the same portrait, all be it with greater dof.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. A longer lens will also provide a compression effect in portraits that is flattering. That's why 135mm and 85mm are preferred lenses for portrait photographers. 24mm is fine for atmosphere or group shots, but too wide for individual or small group portraits.

Take the 24-105 and bump up the ISO a little.
 
Upvote 0
#18
NorthDallas40 said:
privatebydesign said:
On the question of zooms and primes, don't forget it is position that creates perspective NOT focal length, stand in the same place with a 24 as a 135 and crop the 24mm image and you get the same portrait, all be it with greater dof.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. A longer lens will also provide a compression effect in portraits that is flattering. That's why 135mm and 85mm are preferred lenses for portrait photographers. 24mm is fine for atmosphere or group shots, but too wide for individual or small group portraits.

Take the 24-105 and bump up the ISO a little.
Click to expand...

Eh, the 24 f/1.4 makes for a superlative portrait lens, one of the best there is -- just not for head-and-shoulders portraits. See the review just posted to the front page for some examples.

Cheers,

b&
 
Upvote 0
#19
privatebydesign said:
You, my friend, are 100% wrong. Stand in one place with all the focal lengths you have, take a series of shots from a tripod just changing lenses and then crop the resultant images to give you the same framing as your longest lens, the perspective will be the same in all of them, the dof will be different if you used the same aperture value, but the perspective will be the same. Longer lenses do not give any "compression effect". The reason medium focal lengths are often preferred for portraits is because of where those focal lengths make you stand to get the best framing.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I learned something. Your pictures are very instructive.

I've seen many horrible close-up portraits taken with wide angle lenses (mostly point and shoots come to think of it) where the subjects nose looked huge and distorted. Is this just due to the camera being too close to the subject?

TrumpetPower! said:
Eh, the 24 f/1.4 makes for a superlative portrait lens, one of the best there is -- just not for head-and-shoulders portraits. See the review just posted to the front page for some examples.
Cheers,
b&
Click to expand...

Again, I stand corrected. I meant close-up portraits, should have stated it that way.
 
Upvote 0
#20
privatebydesign said:
Though in low light this could be another benefit, shoot at f1.4 for the shutter speed but get the dof of f4, win win. Unless you wanted very shallow dof!
Click to expand...

Great idea. 1.4 or anything under 2.8 has razor-thin dof's. Sometimes that's good, but often it would be preferable to get a little more dof while still enjoying the shutter speed possible with a wide aperture. I'll experiment with this at a party we plan to attend tonight.

Thanks again.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM
Replies
9
Views
6K
Click
Click
E
[COMMUNITY PROJECT] Deriving comprehensive guidelines for shooting the sun without sensor damage
Replies
14
Views
732
EOSR7MkII
E
GirlsAreBeautiful
From 5D Mark III to R5 Mark II - photographer review - first 1 month and a half - 12k shots
Replies
31
Views
1K
GirlsAreBeautiful
GirlsAreBeautiful
L
RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS
Replies
6
Views
3K
Loswr
L
R1-7D
Italy 2024 Trip
Replies
10
Views
3K
R1-7D
R1-7D
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu