[cxdoo]

actually only 1/2 stop at the short end, but i agree 2 stops plus more length at the long end

I was looking at difference at 70mm but you make a good point; 18-135 would give him more flexibility without swapping lenses. I don't disagree with your overall point, for the budget 18-135 is great. I had 18-55 & 50-200 combo with an old camera (K100DS) and it couldn't cut it. When I got K5II it got better, but only after I got the Tamrons I felt really confident. Of course that cost me additional 850 EUR, therefore my comment that only OP can decide whether it's worth it.

[crewl1]

For ballet our forum member @brooke Meyer is the expert.
Do a search for her work.
She uses Tamron 28-75 here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/122-lens-clubs/31955-tammy-club-148.html#post2876308

[UncleVanya]

Pentax K-5 Zoom Lenses that have a f/2.8 or faster aperture

More options. The mid range telephotos like 24-70 28-75 in f 2.8 are another option.

[narual]

There's another Tamron f2.8, the 28-75mm can also provide low light capabilities and give you a little longer reach for the ballet.

+1 for that. I find it an ideal lens for indoor events. Unless I was in a really cramped space taking group photos, (and those would be posed so your 18-135 would be fine), I'd rather have the lighter weight and 50-75mm on the long end than the 16-28 on the wide end (not to mention I'm pretty sure it's cheaper)

On the ballet, area you going for group shots, full body of a single dancer, or detail shots? Like, is your 18-135 OK so far as framing goes and you just don't feel it's fast enough?

I haven't shot much ballet, just a couple of public outdoor events where flash would have been fine, but for the more recent one, I used my 50-135 at about f/4-5.6 (shutter speed 1/400-500). (The first one, I had just gotten my 55mm f/1.2 and was trying to use that. It made for some really interesting artsy shots, but it wasn't really long enough, so I had to crop a lot)
I think if I was doing it regularly I'd probably use a tripod and my 60-250, possibly with a teleconverter attached, depending on distance from the stage to get a good height.

If you're comfortable at 135 and less, the 50-135 is a beautiful lens that you can probably get used within your budget.

If you need more distance, look into a 70-200 2.8 from a third party, or the 55-300 if you don't mind it being a slightly smaller aperture. You can get the DAL version of that used really cheap.

Alternately, usually the first lens you'd get to compliment a consumer zoom is a fast prime - you could probably get both of the non-limited non-macro non-FA 50 and 35mm primes for under your budget.

At any rate -- consider used lenses. They're still excellent lenses, and they're much less expensive.

[crewl1]

Most of my lenses were bought used from forum members here.
I have a very nice stable now and did not pay retail, they last a long time.

[johan kruger]

have a look at the second hand forum here there is sometimes some nice lenses to buy. I would also get the sigma 17-50 F2.8

[nj1975]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply to my questions - I've made a list of the lenses you've all suggested and I'm going off to research them - hopefully I'll end up with a decision at the end of it! Thanks again

[normhead]

My wife gets along just fine with the Tamron 17-50 and 90 macro for most of what she does.Two great lenses for not that much money.

[Lowell Goudge]

For the ballet shows sure you need something a bit long and fast and many suggestions were thrown here, probably all good. But why don't to want to use a flash?
The practical difference of using indirect flash is much much greater than of using a faster lens, and there is no lens, to my knowledge, that is faster than moving kids. Flash however, is FAST, and will get you much crispier shots.
My suggestion for this particular use is to get a nice flash with bounce and swivel head and you're good to go.

I don't like flash because it overpowers stage lighting which is as important as thendancers

[drypenn]

Whatever your lens choice will be, in "stage photography" you will REALLY need a good set of tripod more than anything else, if you want keepers.

No flash for me too.

[bassek]

If the shooting distance is enough I would suggest the DA50/1.8. I have good results with my A50/1.7 (manual focus) in dark with lit stage.

Seb

[narual]

I don't like flash because it overpowers stage lighting which is as important as thendancers

That rather depends on how you're using it, doesn't it?

a 100% burst probably will. A 1/32 burst? Maybe not. (but it does *worlds* to bring detail back on a stage that's using pure LED lighting) And if you use a modifier on it to limit it to lighting up, say, the center 10% of what you're focusing on, you might be able to get details in a dancer's face that might otherwise be in shadow, without making it look like you've shoved a too-bright spotlight on her.

---------- Post added 11-12-14 at 02:54 AM ----------

Whatever your lens choice will be, in "stage photography" you will REALLY need a good set of tripod more than anything else, if you want keepers

+1, assuming you have room to set it up without interfering with audience members or upsetting staff. And you should have one anyway.

But keeping in mind that in this specific instance, we are talking about a *five year old's* ballet, not the Bolshoi... he can probably get away without a tripod for a while. They're probably not going to be spinning like tops and launching themselves into the air for a few more years.

[Lowell Goudge]

I don't like flash because it overpowers stage lighting which is as important as thendancers

That rather depends on how you're using it, doesn't it?

a 100% burst probably will. A 1/32 burst? Maybe not. (but it does *worlds* to bring detail back on a stage that's using pure LED lighting) And if you use a modifier on it to limit it to lighting up, say, the center 10% of what you're focusing on, you might be able to get details in a dancer's face that might otherwise be in shadow, without making it look like you've shoved a too-bright spotlight on her.

See the attached post

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/152083-lens...ml#post1584185


2 good reasons not to use flash. The first is one where the lighting was specifically on the dancer, to make the otherwise black background disappear Flash would lessen the impact. The second is one where the stage lighting is a large part of the scene, even a light flash would wash this out and, oh by the way, theses were shot with a 70-200 zoom, so the distance is quite important here. The ratio of subject distance to background distance is so small that the flash will equally illuminate both.

While these were shot with a 70-200/2.8 wide open, they were also shot with a K10D at 1600 ISO. I go back to my original comment, the K5D blows away the K10D in high ISO performance, but I quite like both these shots, noise and all. When my daughter performed in high school all that was available was the *istD and K10D. I shot thousands of shots of different performances, both dance and stage. Never was disappointed