Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-25-2012, 08:15 AM   #31
Senior Member
junototoro's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 262
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Most indoor small shows might be a problem. Shows the size of a Gaga size will be no issue. They generally have more light even in a low key sequence than 90% of small venue (ie club) shows
Kr is also more than capable of shooting up to 1600 ISO with excellent results
the 55-300 will also give you some useful extra reach to try and isolate a performer from a distance
a DA* 300 would be better of course but then you aren't likely to get it through the door

for that matter a Q with a k mount adapter and an old 50 1.4 would also work well. If you aren't printing posters, and using primarily on the web the Q would work out pretty well, and a 50 1.4 m series is pretty compact (the K adapter is almost as big as the lens). certainly easier to slip in with one of those
I actually own a DA* 55 1.4. You think 55mm is ok for a big venue?

I'm not sure about the price of Q. I've heard very good things about Panasonic Lumix LX5...

I would like to get the DA L version of 55-300 though for daylight shooting. It's so cheap! (It's not worse than the DA version is it?)


Last edited by junototoro; 04-25-2012 at 08:24 AM.
04-25-2012, 08:27 AM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,164
I think the Q is a whole separate league from the LX5. The LX5 is a great camera for a P&S. but the Q is better built. not sure how well the 55 1.4 will work on an adaptor for the Q most adapted lenses i've seen have been old ones. the Q scored much higher on DXO mark than the LX5 (47 versus 41)
in fact if you compare it with the G12 from Canon and the Panasonic it ranks above both, and is better than both in low light

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
04-25-2012, 08:33 AM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,164
I should also mention if you want an inexpensive option with reach that is easy to sneak in alongside the pink kr try an old M series 200 f4.0 it's easily fit in a pocket and does well as a concert lens (it's the 200 i use at shows actually) It takes a bit more to manually focus but It's not hard to get good shots with something like that

this is in a really poorly lit 100 clubin london in a big crowd shot held up high using the highest iso my K10 was capable of 1/25 sec at f 4.0

not the best shot but it shows even in crap light f4.0 is doable even with a sensor that realistically shouldn't be shot over iso 640 or so


04-25-2012, 08:34 AM   #34
Senior Member
junototoro's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 262
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I think the Q is a whole separate league from the LX5. The LX5 is a great camera for a P&S. but the Q is better built. not sure how well the 55 1.4 will work on an adaptor for the Q most adapted lenses i've seen have been old ones. the Q scored much higher on DXO mark than the LX5 (47 versus 41)
in fact if you compare it with the G12 from Canon and the Panasonic it ranks above both, and is better than both in low light

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
Q is very tempting. Especially for its size and pretty looks (the white version; I won't even think about the pink version.... too cute)

I was thinking if I didn't end up getting any telephoto lens I would just take my k-r and the 55mm 1.4, although I might only be able to shoot a big picture of the concert.. (Like I said, I did get into another concert with the security checking my camera bag with k-r and 18-55. 55 1.4 is not too much bigger than 18-55..)

04-25-2012, 08:36 AM   #35
Senior Member
junototoro's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 262
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I should also mention if you want an inexpensive option with reach that is easy to sneak in alongside the pink kr try an old M series 200 f4.0 it's easily fit in a pocket and does well as a concert lens (it's the 200 i use at shows actually) It takes a bit more to manually focus but It's not hard to get good shots with something like that
Where would you get that from?
04-25-2012, 08:39 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,164
the marketplace here, seconsd hand shops, ebay.... lots of place to find old lenses. My m200 f 4.0 cost me $15 in a junk shop a few years back
04-25-2012, 04:18 PM   #37
Senior Member
junototoro's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 262
Original Poster
Do you find yourself using the m 200 often other than for shows?

But you got it so cheap that it doesn't even matter...

I don't know if I get the DA L 55-300 whether I should still get another tele
04-26-2012, 12:12 AM   #38
Senior Member
junototoro's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 262
Original Poster
I decided against the Sigma lens in the end for its heaviness and extreme unlikeness for bringing it to the concerts.

I'm getting a 200mm 2.8 prime and hopefully I can use it for lots of wildlife or other events/indoor shows. Should be getting a 55-300mm DA L as well.

04-26-2012, 12:13 AM   #39
Senior Member
junototoro's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 262
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
I should also mention if you want an inexpensive option with reach that is easy to sneak in alongside the pink kr try an old M series 200 f4.0 it's easily fit in a pocket and does well as a concert lens (it's the 200 i use at shows actually) It takes a bit more to manually focus but It's not hard to get good shots with something like that

this is in a really poorly lit 100 clubin london in a big crowd shot held up high using the highest iso my K10 was capable of 1/25 sec at f 4.0

not the best shot but it shows even in crap light f4.0 is doable even with a sensor that realistically shouldn't be shot over iso 640 or so


If I can get such close shots of Gaga I would be laughing my teeth off - which I won't.
04-26-2012, 05:04 AM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,164
QuoteOriginally posted by junototoro Quote
If I can get such close shots of Gaga I would be laughing my teeth off - which I won't.
the reach of the 300 will get you closer but not that close. If you could get shots that close of Gaga you would have signed away the rights to your work for media access (if this had happened in the past a lot of Rolling Stone togs would be on welfare by now. I know a couple who make a very good living off their old stock images from shows and shoots)
04-27-2012, 10:51 PM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,342
This is from a Megadeth show that I did recently. I used the Sigma 24-60mm F2.8

04-28-2012, 01:59 AM   #42
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by junototoro Quote
I decided against the Sigma lens in the end for its heaviness and extreme unlikeness for bringing it to the concerts.

I'm getting a 200mm 2.8 prime and hopefully I can use it for lots of wildlife or other events/indoor shows. Should be getting a 55-300mm DA L as well.
A 200/2.8 will not be light ! And is nearly useless for most people as far as wildlife is concerned, it's just not long enough when most people need 300-500mm. There's also a reason why 200mm on APS-C is not that popular - it is neither twix nor tween for most subjects.
04-28-2012, 11:48 AM   #43
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Most indoor small shows might be a problem. Shows the size of a Gaga size will be no issue. They generally have more light even in a low key sequence than 90% of small venue (ie club) shows
Very good point. Venues big enough to require focal lengths 200mm are almost always incredibly well lit - and as a performer, I can tell you those lights can be *hot* as well as *blindingly bright*. That's why I'v never even felt slightly tempted by the idea of fast lenses longer than my 135, or long lenses faster than my 70-300. In practice, I normally top out at 120/2.8 for smaller venues and get by just fine with my 50-200 for larger ones. If I'm so far away that 200mm isn't enough, I shoot anyhow and crop, and don't worry about how good the pictures come out - they're hardly going to compare in quality with what i get in more intimate settings anyhow.
04-30-2012, 05:24 AM   #44
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,164
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Very good point. Venues big enough to require focal lengths 200mm are almost always incredibly well lit - and as a performer, I can tell you those lights can be *hot* as well as *blindingly bright*. That's why I'v never even felt slightly tempted by the idea of fast lenses longer than my 135, or long lenses faster than my 70-300. In practice, I normally top out at 120/2.8 for smaller venues and get by just fine with my 50-200 for larger ones. If I'm so far away that 200mm isn't enough, I shoot anyhow and crop, and don't worry about how good the pictures come out - they're hardly going to compare in quality with what i get in more intimate settings anyhow.
exactly, there is no way you can smuggle in a lens large enough to get intimate from the seats at a large show. Without a media pass that puts you in the pit for 3 songs you will be limited to shoot and crop. And yep those lights can be very hot I've worked a show or 3 in my youth under those lights - heck if a club has a decent lighting system it can be even warmer since there is less area for the heat to dissipate - but most clubs don't have good lights
04-30-2012, 05:50 AM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Aylesbury, Bucks
Photos: Albums
Posts: 492
200mm F2.8 is most certainly not discreet. Neither is 50-135 F2.8 or 55-300 for that matter. 135mm F2.8, on the other hand, is quite reasonably sized (~size of kit lens).

Q + K-mount adapter + small prime sounds like a very intriguing proposition for these purposes. 70mm DA limited (equivalent to, what?, 350mm full frame on the Q) sounds like it might be ideal. No idea whether or not that would be easy to focus. Does anyone have experience?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, sigma, sigma lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Film advice for indoor low lit concert. aheadfordinci Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom 20 07-29-2011 05:59 PM
Indoor gymnastics lens lkjr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 02-03-2011 06:30 PM
Indoor Basketball - what lens? Docrwm Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 11-08-2010 08:44 AM
Concert lens: Sigma 24-60mm 2.8 EX DG or Tokina AT-X 270 AF Pro II 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 nitemare_kx Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 09-28-2010 11:33 PM
Concert Lens help jgmankos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 08-13-2010 08:27 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:52 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top