[nitemare_kx]

Hello,

first post and I already need some advice...

As the title suggests, I'm looking for help in buying a new lens mostly for concerts. Currently I'm considering one of the above lenses, the Sigma being a bit cheaper at ca. 200 Euros vs the Tokina at 250 Euros. The Sigma has some good reviews, but lacks 10 mm tele, whilst having an advantage at the wide angle of only 4 mm. The Tokina on the other hand seems to be one of the little reviewed lenses (none here, for example).

Does anyone have experience with both (guess not) or at least one of the lenses, especially in low light conditions?

As it's close to impossible to get into a concert venue with a cam larger than a cell phone (at least in Austria), there are just 2, maybe 3 locations where I know I could use this lens, and getting a front row place isn't really a problem there. The venue I need the lens most for is pictured in my gallery at fotonomy.
All photos were shot with my Pentacon 50mm 1.8 and my k-x, almost all being ISO 400, handheld and somewhere between wide open and maybe f4 or a notch more. I can't tell exactly, because the aperture ring doesn't really stop anywhere, and I didn't bother too much about it (if it got too dark or the exposure time went towards 'shaky', I just turned the ring towards open). The distance to the stage is approx. 2 m/6.5ft, but I was standing far left of it.
Shooting was quite challenging and fun at the same time, and for a manual lens it turned out better than I expected (I was really using the lens for about the second time and was totally new to (d)slr then). I just really wanted some more variation in my pics (which is limited with a prime and not being able to move around), so a zoom lens would help (I'd love to keep it a one-lens shooting in a concert crowd).

So, any advice on which lens would suit me best there (and comments if my pics are a total mess anyway) is appreciated.

And please forgive my long post...

[Ratmagiclady]

No worries. Detail helps. Sigma's been doing right by me lately, but I have to admit I've always had a fondness for Tokina on some points, and that extra 10mm might come in very handy, if it's a good 10mm.

[Marc Sabatella]

For my purposes, even 70mm wouldn't be long enough - I'd be looking at the 50-135 if I were specifically looking for a zoom. But different people have different styles. Still, if I wanted a zoom that went down below 50, I'd take the Tamron 28-75 because it's generally fairly cheap, relatively small/light, and the longest of the bunch.

[nitemare_kx]

Thanks for your input so far. I'm more into details too, so normally I'd shoot above the tele end of both lenses, but in this case I'd really want more wide angle than what I had back then with my 50mm, because it was impossible to get the whole band in one shot, which would be nice once in a while, and this together with more tele than 70/75 along with reasonable low light abilities seemed out of what I'm willing to spend.

Now I've found an older Tamron 28-105 SP f2.8 (which is an Adaptall-2 lens, and therefore only manual, if I'm correct), which would give me the additional tele I'd want for just a few cents more than the Tokina lens. I'm not optimistic I could get this kind of range and aperture with autofocus for a similar price, do you agree?

So, from what it seems, I moved away from the Sigma, leaving the Tokina (I just like the f2.6 although I know it won't make any difference, but thanks for the Tamron suggestion, I really didn't come across it when I searched) and the 28-105 Tamron, though I'm not sure that I want MF with my k-x again, as I still have the stock focusing screen (which I might replace sometime) and zooming into live view for focusing isn't as much fun either.

If there are any suggestions in about that price range, don't hesitate to mention them.

[Pentaxor]

unless you are seated not farther than the 3rd row from the stage, a 28-70 would be the ideal choice. beyond that, you should should be looking for a 70-200mm/2.8. Marc is right about it as he is mostly shooting those type of photographs. except that I prefer a 70-200 lens. Sorry Marc, the 50-135 still gives me the chills.

[nitemare_kx]

I don't know if anyone took a look at my photos. All of the venues I know where I can take my cam with me, are standing only, and it only makes sense when I'm in front of the stage, that's why I'm looking for zoom lenses in this range. Especially the concert location where the photos are from guarantees me a front of stage spot (it has an leftist-hippie-alternative ambiente, where no one seems to hurry to get to the stage once the doors open, which was the case when I shot I Am Kloot, and when I didn't have my cam when John Hiatt was there... and other times I've been there, too).

[Ratmagiclady]

Well, Nitemare, (Not being sure what the Euro/lens prices are doing over there,) you could try one of these old Sigmas like I have, it's an old 28-105 2.8-4. A bit quirky, (mostly in bright light on digital,) but kind of serves as a poor gal's 28-75 Tammie like Marc mentioned, which is what I'd be shooting with if I'd caught my chance to get one before the prices of everything jumped up: if only a zoom had been a little higher on the priority list, I'd be set up better now, I think.

Anyway, this makes a cheap option, and a bit of a reachier one. if you can find one, and accept some limitations, It's not a wonder wide open, but has its moments and sweet spots. The extra length actually is pretty handy, though, and they pop up reasonably cheaply once in a while, (Only paid a hundred dollars for mine, in pristine shape from KEH.com, which is a major used dealer via the Web over here.)

It's no AT-X, (You can really do a whole lot better for wide-open performance, I assure you, ) but I think it can deliver at least as much sharpness as you're getting, now, and the AF is surprisingly quick on my K20d.

I didn't really get this lens for concert duty, where I'd prefer to use my primes where possible, but, come to think of it: I came across some musicians recently...



This one's at F8 (Sorry, might take some digging to find any wide open ones: I do try to stay stopped down where I can with this lens; you could expect things to be distinctly-softer wide-open,) this one's in shadow with with a lot of low sun from the back, and it's all the way out at 105. (I usually find em a good bit sharper if I stay just off that last five or so mm, ) Ain't exactly Zeiss, but not bad for what I paid. I'm certain that Tammie 28-75 will be sharper wide open, mind you: I'd really suggest one of those if you can swing it.

I checked out your photos, btw, it looks like you might benefit from bumping that ISO up a stop or two, in circumstances like that.

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 09-26-2010 at 09:56 PM.

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't know if anyone took a look at my photos. All of the venues I know where I can take my cam with me, are standing only, and it only makes sense when I'm in front of the stage, that's why I'm looking for zoom lenses in this range.

I did. Nice shots! But I can't tell if you took those kind of shots because you *like* that typre of view, or if you took them because your only appropriate lens was a 50 so you had no choice. Looking at those shots, I'd have mostly been using my 70 or 100 in that same situation - situations where I'm practically right on top of the stage.

[nitemare_kx]

Well, as you thought Marc, I did take those shots because I only had my 50 mm lens with me, as I thought it would be my only lens that would be capable of proper handheld shots. The only other lens I had back then (apart from the kit, which I knew would be of no use) was my 29 mm/2.8 lens.

But as it turned out, I liked the photos I did, but as I said, I often missed the ability to zoom in (as you might have noticed, I never got the singer any closer, and I would have liked more detailed shots of instruments, etc...) and also to zoom out (full band at least once).

So, for now, I'm waiting for the Tamron SP LD 28-105 f2.8 from the UK (I couldn't resist, as it had more reach and quite nice aperture, though opinions are mixed about sharpness at f2.8, which might turn out to be the same like most lenses with low f-numbers anway; as a bonus it comes with the Adaptall-2 P/KA-adapter, so more of those Tammies might fall into my cam bag).

Thanks for your input so far (though as I'm still AF-less then, further suggestions won't hurt), I hope I can do better next time (I see an opportunity in about two weeks time...). I might consider higher ISO ratings, too, as the k-x is said to be quite good there, though I didn't particularly like the ISO 800 shots, which could be for other reasons than high ISO, I'm not sure.

[excanonfd]

So, for now, I'm waiting for the Tamron SP LD 28-105 f2.8 from the UK (I couldn't resist, as it had more reach and quite nice aperture, though opinions are mixed about sharpness at f2.8, which might turn out to be the same like most lenses with low f-numbers anway; as a bonus it comes with the Adaptall-2 P/KA-adapter, so more of those Tammies might fall into my cam bag).

I didn't know there was such a lens as SP 28-105 f2.8. I know there is an SP35-105 f2.8 (65A) and SP 28-135 f4.0-4.5 (28A). When you get your lens, please post a picture of the lens in the Adaptall-2 Lens review area.

Thanks,

[nitemare_kx]

The 28-105 seems to be the predecessor of the 35-105, its model number seems to be A76-100. As I haven't found any reviews of the lens here, I'll add the pictures and data of mine when it arrives.
Finally, taking a good look at the pictures of my lens, I've found '176A' written above the 'Made In Japan' tag at the zoom ring.

[knyghtfall]

Specific to your original query, I owned the sigma DG EX 24 - 70 / 2.8 and the Tokina 28 - 70 / 2.6 - 28. The Tokina was sharp no doubt, but the Sigma performed much better in terms of CA control. My main grouse with the Tokina was the purple fringing at high contrast situations, especially on white subjects. This doesn't go away totally even after stopping the lens down.