Concert photography

Ponosby Britt · 05-29-2013, 08:16 PM

The Tamron 28-75 is a great lens. You have a photo pass for the pit so if you're close you're good. As for the 50- 135 being "slow', I don't get that with my 5 year old copy but I don't shoot like most.

The real question is, you have a photo pass but can't afford a used 50-135 at KEH. I stopped shooting concert events for a local publication due to the silly restrictions: 3 songs, can't show anything, can only send to publication and band gets approval and rights to all. I don't think so. As you can't earn a living from concert photos, why would you do it? Free ego massage to the people on stage? Their biz folks do not care about you and know they can have you on.

As long as people go along with this foolishness, you'll never be able to afford the lens. You are working for less than free and they'll let you do that forever.

**Ash** · 05-29-2013, 08:23 PM

Unfortunately SDM is a slow AF mechanism, but the 50-135 is optically excellent.
The Tamron 70-200 (which I use) is very good optically, has longer reach and don't hunt as much in AF function.
Focusing speed is maximised when there is a high contrast target being used to focus on, and as such I do believe AF technique is a most important aspect to ensure fast and accurate focusing, no matter the lens.

I shoot concerts often, and get sharp results, no matter the camera, as long as I use those techniques when shooting. Of course, there are times when the subject is moving too fast and the shutter release lags behind the AF lock for the moving subject, but generally, if I have settings right to freeze action adequately, I can get decent results with the Tamron 70-200, FA 77/1.8 and FA 100/2.8 macro in concert situations.

hooverfocus · 05-30-2013, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by hobkyl

Wow, you have excellent photos there! What size venue are you in whilst using the 28-75?

With the 28-75 I've covered venues all from 500 to 5000 people, beyond that it becomes a bit of a stretch (from 2000 upwards it already is a bit limiting, though). Mostly from the pit or first rows (again, depends on the venues).
The smaller ones would really benefit from a wide-angle lens, which I don't have. I did try snapping a few clicks with the kit 18-55, it sorta worked because there was enough light, but the quality just isn't there.
Conversely, bigger venues, or even medium-sized ones, make it easy to use the 70-200, you get good close ups if you're up fronnt and provides enough reach if you're stuck near the sound board or wherever they feel like putting you.

hobkyl · 05-30-2013, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Ponosby Britt

The Tamron 28-75 is a great lens. You have a photo pass for the pit so if you're close you're good. As for the 50- 135 being "slow', I don't get that with my 5 year old copy but I don't shoot like most.

The real question is, you have a photo pass but can't afford a used 50-135 at KEH. I stopped shooting concert events for a local publication due to the silly restrictions: 3 songs, can't show anything, can only send to publication and band gets approval and rights to all. I don't think so. As you can't earn a living from concert photos, why would you do it? Free ego massage to the people on stage? Their biz folks do not care about you and know they can have you on.

As long as people go along with this foolishness, you'll never be able to afford the lens. You are working for less than free and they'll let you do that forever.

I do it for fun, as well as a free ticket to see my favorite bands. No affiliation with any publication, just for my own interests. If I could get paid, I would and then would use my earnings to upgrade my lenses. I haven't come across any restrictions in my usage of the images, although again they are only for my own portfolio.

At $700 a used 50-135 is a tad over my budget.

If one could direct me in how to get paid, I'm all ears.

hobkyl · 05-30-2013, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Ash

The Tamron 70-200 (which I use) is very good optically, has longer reach and don't hunt as much in AF function.

Great pics!

Ponosby Britt · 05-30-2013, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by hobkyl

I do it for fun, as well as a free ticket to see my favorite bands. No affiliation with any publication, just for my own interests. If I could get paid, I would and then would use my earnings to upgrade my lenses. I haven't come across any restrictions in my usage of the images, although again they are only for my own portfolio.

At $700 a used 50-135 is a tad over my budget.

If one could direct me in how to get paid, I'm all ears.

The last rock concert I will ever shoot was for a local publication with a press pass. I signed the bands contract at the event because I had promised my editor to cover the event. Besides the usual restriction to the sound board and 3 songs, I could only give photos to my editor for publication. Not allowed to sell, not allowed to even show in my website or portfolio.

Some bands require demand all images free and approval of any to be published. Since so many are willing to shoot for "fun", there is no market. Why would anyone pay when they can get it for free and dictate the terms?

hobkyl · 05-30-2013, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Ponosby Britt

The last rock concert I will ever shoot was for a local publication with a press pass. I signed the bands contract at the event because I had promised my editor to cover the event. Besides the usual restriction to the sound board and 3 songs, I could only give photos to my editor for publication. Not allowed to sell, not allowed to even show in my website or portfolio.

Some bands require demand all images free and approval of any to be published. Since so many are willing to shoot for "fun", there is no market. Why would anyone pay when they can get it for free and dictate the terms?

I've never run across such stringent restrictions. What bands were placing these rules? I've shot some major recording artists and haven't ever heard squat from any of the bands management. If you could share that information it would save me the hassle of requesting the pass-as obviously -who wants to deal with that?

While, bc so many may do it for fun...that doesn't mean that its causing a market shrinkage. My photos are mine. No publication or band is allowed to utilize them without my consent. No one is dictating to me anything. If they want my wares, they will pay for them.

**dms** · 05-30-2013, 12:03 PM

It's likely obvious--but anyway: if the longer zoom gives you better shots, and you like it, why would you consider 1/2 the FL. That is an enormous difference!

Ponosby Britt · 05-30-2013, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by hobkyl

I've never run across such stringent restrictions. What bands were placing these rules? I've shot some major recording artists and haven't ever heard squat from any of the bands management. If you could share that information it would save me the hassle of requesting the pass-as obviously -who wants to deal with that?

While, bc so many may do it for fun...that doesn't mean that its causing a market shrinkage. My photos are mine. No publication or band is allowed to utilize them without my consent. No one is dictating to me anything. If they want my wares, they will pay for them.

In my case it was "Furthur" aka Grateful Dead 2.0. I am not making this up:

Photographers protest Stone Roses concert rules - British Journal of Photography

A photographer’s view – The Beyonce Effect | Neil Lupin – Concert Photographer

Pierre Bourgault - Photographer: I'm not a papparazzi, I'm a concert photographer!

From Jagger To Bieber: The Evolution of Concert Photography | Aesthetic Magazine Toronto | Album Reviews, Concert Photography, Interviews, Contests

hobkyl · 05-31-2013, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by dms

It's likely obvious--but anyway: if the longer zoom gives you better shots, and you like it, why would you consider 1/2 the FL. That is an enormous difference!

I've seen great shots taken with such lens, however it seems that perhaps those were in smaller venues.

hobkyl · 05-31-2013, 06:18 AM

Originally posted by Ponosby Britt

In my case it was "Furthur" aka Grateful Dead 2.0. I am not making this up:

Photographers protest Stone Roses concert rules - British Journal of Photography

A photographer’s view – The Beyonce Effect | Neil Lupin – Concert Photographer

Pierre Bourgault - Photographer: I'm not a papparazzi, I'm a concert photographer!

From Jagger To Bieber: The Evolution of Concert Photography | Aesthetic Magazine Toronto | Album Reviews, Concert Photography, Interviews, Contests

Thanks for that info! I have a request in for Further in July, but I am guessing they will probably only accept those with media affiliation as did Luke Bryan for last night's show.

It wasn't didn't believe you, I just don't understand the thought process of fan photographers ruining the market when we aren't giving our work away.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens for Concert Photography	geoles2	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	01-19-2014 10:29 AM
Ultrazoom for concert photography \| 600-800€	DimC	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	11-15-2013 09:31 AM
People Concert Photography - On a Budget!	Julie	Post Your Photos!	2	04-21-2012 08:08 PM
People Concert Photography	morpho	Photo Critique	11	04-04-2012 06:13 AM
concert photography	rwheeler	Photographic Technique	6	10-05-2009 09:38 PM

05-29-2013, 08:16 PM	#16
Ponosby Britt Closed Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 227	The Tamron 28-75 is a great lens. You have a photo pass for the pit so if you're close you're good. As for the 50- 135 being "slow', I don't get that with my 5 year old copy but I don't shoot like most. The real question is, you have a photo pass but can't afford a used 50-135 at KEH. I stopped shooting concert events for a local publication due to the silly restrictions: 3 songs, can't show anything, can only send to publication and band gets approval and rights to all. I don't think so. As you can't earn a living from concert photos, why would you do it? Free ego massage to the people on stage? Their biz folks do not care about you and know they can have you on. As long as people go along with this foolishness, you'll never be able to afford the lens. You are working for less than free and they'll let you do that forever.

05-29-2013, 08:23 PM	#17
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Unfortunately SDM is a slow AF mechanism, but the 50-135 is optically excellent. The Tamron 70-200 (which I use) is very good optically, has longer reach and don't hunt as much in AF function. Focusing speed is maximised when there is a high contrast target being used to focus on, and as such I do believe AF technique is a most important aspect to ensure fast and accurate focusing, no matter the lens. I shoot concerts often, and get sharp results, no matter the camera, as long as I use those techniques when shooting. Of course, there are times when the subject is moving too fast and the shutter release lags behind the AF lock for the moving subject, but generally, if I have settings right to freeze action adequately, I can get decent results with the Tamron 70-200, FA 77/1.8 and FA 100/2.8 macro in concert situations.

05-30-2013, 01:47 AM	#18
hooverfocus Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 210	Originally posted by hobkyl Wow, you have excellent photos there! What size venue are you in whilst using the 28-75? With the 28-75 I've covered venues all from 500 to 5000 people, beyond that it becomes a bit of a stretch (from 2000 upwards it already is a bit limiting, though). Mostly from the pit or first rows (again, depends on the venues). The smaller ones would really benefit from a wide-angle lens, which I don't have. I did try snapping a few clicks with the kit 18-55, it sorta worked because there was enough light, but the quality just isn't there. Conversely, bigger venues, or even medium-sized ones, make it easy to use the 70-200, you get good close ups if you're up fronnt and provides enough reach if you're stuck near the sound board or wherever they feel like putting you.

05-30-2013, 08:21 AM	#19
hobkyl Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Victor NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ponosby Britt The Tamron 28-75 is a great lens. You have a photo pass for the pit so if you're close you're good. As for the 50- 135 being "slow', I don't get that with my 5 year old copy but I don't shoot like most. The real question is, you have a photo pass but can't afford a used 50-135 at KEH. I stopped shooting concert events for a local publication due to the silly restrictions: 3 songs, can't show anything, can only send to publication and band gets approval and rights to all. I don't think so. As you can't earn a living from concert photos, why would you do it? Free ego massage to the people on stage? Their biz folks do not care about you and know they can have you on. As long as people go along with this foolishness, you'll never be able to afford the lens. You are working for less than free and they'll let you do that forever. I do it for fun, as well as a free ticket to see my favorite bands. No affiliation with any publication, just for my own interests. If I could get paid, I would and then would use my earnings to upgrade my lenses. I haven't come across any restrictions in my usage of the images, although again they are only for my own portfolio. At $700 a used 50-135 is a tad over my budget. If one could direct me in how to get paid, I'm all ears.

05-30-2013, 08:25 AM	#20
hobkyl Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Victor NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash The Tamron 70-200 (which I use) is very good optically, has longer reach and don't hunt as much in AF function. Great pics!

05-30-2013, 11:08 AM	#21
Ponosby Britt Closed Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 227	Originally posted by hobkyl I do it for fun, as well as a free ticket to see my favorite bands. No affiliation with any publication, just for my own interests. If I could get paid, I would and then would use my earnings to upgrade my lenses. I haven't come across any restrictions in my usage of the images, although again they are only for my own portfolio. At $700 a used 50-135 is a tad over my budget. If one could direct me in how to get paid, I'm all ears. The last rock concert I will ever shoot was for a local publication with a press pass. I signed the bands contract at the event because I had promised my editor to cover the event. Besides the usual restriction to the sound board and 3 songs, I could only give photos to my editor for publication. Not allowed to sell, not allowed to even show in my website or portfolio. Some bands require demand all images free and approval of any to be published. Since so many are willing to shoot for "fun", there is no market. Why would anyone pay when they can get it for free and dictate the terms?

05-30-2013, 11:35 AM	#22
hobkyl Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Victor NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ponosby Britt The last rock concert I will ever shoot was for a local publication with a press pass. I signed the bands contract at the event because I had promised my editor to cover the event. Besides the usual restriction to the sound board and 3 songs, I could only give photos to my editor for publication. Not allowed to sell, not allowed to even show in my website or portfolio. Some bands require demand all images free and approval of any to be published. Since so many are willing to shoot for "fun", there is no market. Why would anyone pay when they can get it for free and dictate the terms? I've never run across such stringent restrictions. What bands were placing these rules? I've shot some major recording artists and haven't ever heard squat from any of the bands management. If you could share that information it would save me the hassle of requesting the pass-as obviously -who wants to deal with that? While, bc so many may do it for fun...that doesn't mean that its causing a market shrinkage. My photos are mine. No publication or band is allowed to utilize them without my consent. No one is dictating to me anything. If they want my wares, they will pay for them.

05-30-2013, 12:03 PM	#23
dms Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: New York, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,192	It's likely obvious--but anyway: if the longer zoom gives you better shots, and you like it, why would you consider 1/2 the FL. That is an enormous difference!

05-30-2013, 07:10 PM	#24
Ponosby Britt Closed Account Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 227	Originally posted by hobkyl I've never run across such stringent restrictions. What bands were placing these rules? I've shot some major recording artists and haven't ever heard squat from any of the bands management. If you could share that information it would save me the hassle of requesting the pass-as obviously -who wants to deal with that? While, bc so many may do it for fun...that doesn't mean that its causing a market shrinkage. My photos are mine. No publication or band is allowed to utilize them without my consent. No one is dictating to me anything. If they want my wares, they will pay for them. In my case it was "Furthur" aka Grateful Dead 2.0. I am not making this up: Photographers protest Stone Roses concert rules - British Journal of Photography A photographer’s view – The Beyonce Effect \| Neil Lupin – Concert Photographer Pierre Bourgault - Photographer: I'm not a papparazzi, I'm a concert photographer! From Jagger To Bieber: The Evolution of Concert Photography \| Aesthetic Magazine Toronto \| Album Reviews, Concert Photography, Interviews, Contests

05-31-2013, 06:15 AM	#25
hobkyl Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Victor NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Originally posted by dms It's likely obvious--but anyway: if the longer zoom gives you better shots, and you like it, why would you consider 1/2 the FL. That is an enormous difference! I've seen great shots taken with such lens, however it seems that perhaps those were in smaller venues.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2013, 06:18 AM	#26
hobkyl Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Victor NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 46 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ponosby Britt In my case it was "Furthur" aka Grateful Dead 2.0. I am not making this up: Photographers protest Stone Roses concert rules - British Journal of Photography A photographer’s view – The Beyonce Effect \| Neil Lupin – Concert Photographer Pierre Bourgault - Photographer: I'm not a papparazzi, I'm a concert photographer! From Jagger To Bieber: The Evolution of Concert Photography \| Aesthetic Magazine Toronto \| Album Reviews, Concert Photography, Interviews, Contests Thanks for that info! I have a request in for Further in July, but I am guessing they will probably only accept those with media affiliation as did Luke Bryan for last night's show. It wasn't didn't believe you, I just don't understand the thought process of fan photographers ruining the market when we aren't giving our work away.