[FantasticMrFox]

One thing you need to take into account is that the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 uses screw-drive autofocus which is noisy and will probably annoy others around you at a ballet performance! The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 is even better than the Tamron, has silent HSM focusing and costs only a bit more.

[normhead]

Last time I checked, the best deals were available on the Sigma 17-50, but things change. This is a tough one for any camera. I don't think there is fast cheap glass for any system.

[DSims]

No, I wouldn't get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (or any other standard f/2.8 zoom). The DA50/1.8 is going to be better.

I don't know why you'd want to go wider than 50mm - generally you want to go longer for this type of shot. There are cases when you want wider, but it generally produces less interesting shots.

If you're sure you want wider, go with the DA35/2.4. The great thing about this lens is it's really an f/2.0 lens design, so at f/2.4 Image Quality is already very good. You can shoot at f/2.4 and get very nice results - plus round bokeh as a bonus (since it's wide-open)!


You should try for an affordable 85mm or longer lens. It's probably worth fussing with MF on the Samsung 85/1.4 in order to get this focal length at a reasonable price. I normally leave my zoom (DA*50-135/2.8) at home in these situations - I nearly always use my FA*85/1.4 at around f/1.6 instead.

Also, don't be afraid of a little noise - for example, ISO 10000 is OK on most modern Pentax cameras. It's much better to have a little noise than a blurry (motion blur) shot.

[Mallee Boy]

My 2 bobs worth, your current 50 mm f1.8 is a better choice than any 16/17-50 f2.8. Agree with comments above from DSims.

[Cthulhugan]

When I was shooting my daughter's ballet recitals, I wanted to shoot from a point higher than the stage -- I didn't like the "looking up" perspective from shooting closer to the stage. That required longer focal lengths. I found the DA* 50-135/2.8 worked well enough (shooting at f/3.5 or f/4, ISO 1600 on my K-x or 3200 on my K-3), but I could have used more reach. A 70-200/2.8 would have been better. I found a zoom a better choice for flexibility, allowing me to shoot both individual isolation shots and group shots.

[stillshot2]

Yeah, you could benefit from a faster shutter shutter speed to freeze the action a little better as well as a lower ISO. ISO 6400 is really pushing an aps-c sensor. I once shot a situation with similar lighting to yours and found that my 50mm 1.8 did well. I didn't have to use a flash which would have distracted the performance, could stay around iso 400, and had shutter speeds around 1/125 to 1/160. Plus it gave me a little reach so I could sit further back and get more depth of field when using an f1.8 aperture.

[gifthorse]

Do you need auto focus? If not, Vivitar made some nice 24mm & 28mm lenses that aren't very expensive.
Vivitar Lenses for Pentax: Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[stillshot2]

Honestly, I'd recommend a Pentax A 50mm f1.4 or similar. My Super Takumar 50mm 1.4 takes excellent photos in near darkness, where autofocus isn't too useful anyways. You don't need reach, you need speed!

[macman24054]

I have the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75. Both are very good and when you consider the cost they are great lenses. I do find myself using the 28-75 more often because I find it to be a little more usable range. Happy lens hunting.

[Simen1]

I would have tried to get a good seat in the centre, not to close, not to far. If possible so the camera are in the performers head hight. That minimizes the focusing and give you a nice perspective. Then I would have used the DA50mm f/1,8 because of its large aperture, on a tripod.

Try still standing images and panned images. If the AF struggles, try live view focusing in stead of PDAF. If it still struggles, focus to a specific distance, switch to manual focus and wait for the performer to get to that distance before you push the shutter release. Imagine the correct distance as an invisible spherical shield around you. Check the focus every now and then to make sure you didn’t accidentally touch the focus ring.

Use raw, low ISO (200-400) and under expose (1-4 Ev) in stead of using high ISO with "correct" exposure. This will give you about the same noise and brightness after PP as using high ISO, but without blowing out the highlights.

# keepers = hit rate * quantity. The tips above increases hit rate. Try to increase the quantity too.

[mgvh]

I've been down this road! This older thread has lots of info, but HERE was my summary. I've updated my camera and lenses since then, so I'd more likely take a bunch of primes depending on how far I was from the stage. (DA 21, DA(L) 35, DA 50) Somehow the DAL 55-300 just manages to get decent pics. The F 35-70 also seemed to get the job done. I haven't had a chance lately to try my DA 18-135, but I think even that would work well, and it has the quiet focusing.
If you don't want to bother with the link, just a couple highlights:

• Try to get permission to shoot during a rehearsal
• Sit toward the middle, since blocking is set from that perspective
• Shutter speed is an issue but so is depth of field. You have to find a balance
• Remember to turn off sounds and displays on the camera

[FantasticMrFox]

Somehow the DAL 55-300 just manages to get decent pics.

Photographing stage performances, how have the people sitting around you not mobbed you to death yet for the noise the screw-drive creates?!

[mgvh]

Photographing stage performances, how have the people sitting around you not mobbed you to death yet for the noise the screw-drive creates?!

Ha! It's not that bad, but I did tend to take pics during applause. That's also when the actors/performers 'freeze' for a moment, and that increases likelihood of better pic too.

[stein]

Do you need auto focus? If not, Vivitar made some nice 24mm & 28mm lenses that aren't very expensive.
Vivitar Lenses for Pentax: Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Unfortunately my eyesight isn't as good as thirty or twenty years ago, so using the autofocus feature helps tremendously. Have an old manual SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 lens but I rarely use it... Without enough light, it's more of a guesswork than seeing and being sure I got it right. One of the reasons I ended up buying the DA 50mm f/1.8...

Did make a couple of shots with that lens (during last recital) as well and they are in the "good ones" group, however, most of these are unfortunately covering just a part of the scene. If I was just seated a few rows further back they'd be fine, but I usually get to sit at approximately two-three meters from the front edge of the stage, moving backwards results with getting a whole charade of mobile screens in the shot (parents and gran-pa-moms using mobiles for making videos) so I rather sit in front of those if possible.

I read all the replies and am really thankful for all the suggestions, ideas and have to think about it for a while and see what do I gain or lose with each suggested solution. I wasn't going to buy a new (or used) lens now anyway as I have to save up first. Some of the suggested lens do cost like three times more than my budget (or at least what I think I can save up without ending up between a rock and a hard place) so I will really have to think about it. What frustrates me is that the same Sigma/Tamron lenses for Nikon/Canon can be bought for half or 2/3rd of the price of the same lens for my Pentax...

But I wouldn't change it (my Pentax) for the aforementioned two. I like when people who are otherwise not using any "serious" photo gear and find out I'm using Pentax, make a significant and serious expression on their face, followed by a funny nod with their heads and silently say "Pentax, huh? wow..." ... kind of makes me feel important in ther eyes, at least for that moment

[stein]

DSims mentioned the Samsung 85mm F/1.4, and as I was following the trail, it appears that the same (?) lens pops up under Samyang and Vivitar brand name as well. Unfortunately, have to pass the 200€ Vivitar on ebay as tomorrow I'll be away for a week, but that's maybe how the things should be... OTOH, I would ask a dumb question... Have the 90mm F2.8 Tamron Macro lens and never thought about using it for this purpose... Didn't even try it. The 90mm is pretty close to 85mm (much closer than 50mm) and F2.8 isn't bad as the original thinking point starts from F2.8 as well. F1.4 is much better, but... Oh, how easy do I manage to confuse myself
So, does it make any sense to try with the 90mm macro at all? The next opportunity will be in a month or so. Should I try shooting distant objects first with it? (both daylight and inside with less light) So far, I used it only at really short distances and only for insects and flowers...