[stein]

Realized long time ago, that me, trying to get at least a couple of good, or at least decent shots from low light - no flash - fast moving actors/ballet dancers inside a theater is mission impossible. The best that I could get is fiddling with the DA 50mm f/1.8 lens and hope to be at the right distance (seating position) at the right moment. Going twice in a row to the same show did ease a bit on knowing when and what will happen to be prepared rather than just caught by surprise, but in most cases the 50mm (prime) focal length isn't the best choice. So, I started thinking about a way to avoid shooting at ISO 6400 and getting grainy cr*ppy shots and ended with looking at something to replace my kit lens with... Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 lens is kind of the closest I could get that would at least theoretically give me better chances to get what I'm aiming for. I know there are better lenses out there, but I'm not really the kind of guy who makes money on photos, neither do I make enough to be able to afford to be picky. Actually, I'm well paid, but in Serbia. Somewhere else, I might make more by working in McDonald's. But I'm not complaining, I just can't afford to spend a lot on a top lens. After all, that's why I bought K-S1 and not K-3II or K-S2... So...

Am I reasoning well and would this Tamron give me better chances to get what I want? (compared to the kit 18-55mm DAL lens) Found a seller in Holland (Netherlands) on ebay selling this new lens for around 230€ which I could afford...

[clackers]

Pros shooting performances with zooms use f2.8 ones.

But the rest is up to you for technique and gaining good shooting access.

[mattb123]

I've used a $40 Sears 135/2.8 for dark theater action and it did pretty well but you need to know where the performer is about to be so you can focus ahead of time. I've also had reasonable results with the DA 50/1.8. Being close helps a lot too.

[Na Horuk]

Yes, that Tamron will give you much better low light capabilities than the DA 18-55mm (or the newer DA 18-50mm). But not as good as DA 50mm f1.8. But the Tamron 17-50mm will give you a lot of zoom range, which is great.
If you want wide angle, look at Samyang 16mm f2 - very good for low light, but you have to be very close to the action! Practically on stage! I think for theater you can look for something like 85mm (Samyang 85mm f1.4?? difficult to focus, but good low light lens) or 135mm (many older 135mm lenses with decent aperture)
It is difficult to recommend lenses, because it partly depends on the place you are photographing.
And this is part of the secret of photography. Getting access is very important! Lights are next, and then lenses, camera.

The K-S1 is a good camera. Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If you shot raw, you can use powerful noise reduction software like the Topaz Denoise (they have a deal with Pentaxforums, for discount) or NoiseNinja (used to be good, don't know how it is recently), or even Nik effects (recently went free, includes NR) - this NR software is usually a little better than what you get in-camera by default. So you can get decent shots even at ISO 6400, possibly higher in a pinch.

[normhead]

Do you need longer or shorter than 50mm. You seem to be favouring shorter. If you need shorter, what about the DA 35 2.4. If you need longer, the DA 70 2.4. If longer still then the Tamron 70-200.

Unfortunately most low light glass is fairly expensive. I'd watch the marketplace for a DA 70 2.4 if you want longer. Apart from expensive DA* glass, or the three amigos (also quite expensive) I can't think of a single lens you don't have that would help you out much.

[LensBeginner]

Why do you feel the need to go wider? are you often sitting too close to the action?
I'd think a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be better, or better yet a fast 100-ish as mattb suggested.

Also, at which aperture do you usually use your 50/1.8 and which shutter speeds do you usually get?

[stillshot2]

It would be helpful for us if you could post some photos showing the problems you are experiencing. Please include exif data.

[stein]

So far my personal experiences got me to pick on this lens as I went once trying to do something/anything with my Sigma 28-300 (really decent zoom range, otherwise pretty much useless in low light conditions and quite prone to CA but it was cheap) and as I spent the hour and a half shooting whatever I thought might be a good moment to capture, ended up with 95% of all shots being within the 28-55mm range. Only a few went further, say max 70mm. Next time I did the same with the standard DAL kit lens and again, most of the shots were between 20-22mm up to the maximum 55, mostly ending at 48 or 50mm. So, my conclusion is that the 17-50mm range should be just fine for the purpose. Outside (daylight or static objects, portraits, landscape, architecture etc) is a completely different story, got it covered with multiple zoom lenses and one Tamron 90mm Macro lens.
My main problem is that I want to catch a fast movement at low light without getting a smudged silhouette and at this time, I can only do a capture of a moment between two movements without getting it all blurred out
Ok, some of those images do turn out well, but most of it is just a waste of time and ... well... rubbish...

I would prefer to have the zoom option as the girls (ballet) do run around, come and go and I just never know if there's a moment when the distance from me will be at four or ten meters, sometimes I want to catch a detail and sometimes the whole scene, so the zoom does make sense... At least I think so...

I know my K-S1 is a good camera and I definitely don't blame it for my incompetence It's fast enough so I do use RAW (no lagging to write data to the memory card) and that's all ok, often do some post processing to iron out minor imperfections, but there's the saying "sh*t-in, sh*t-out", so, I can't make miracles from bad grainy and/or messy shots... Thus the topic...

[stein]

It would be helpful for us if you could post some photos showing the problems you are experiencing. Please include exif data.

Converted from DNG to jpg and resized in Photoshop. Not the worst, neither the best, but I think it does show the lack of ... well... here's a sample...

edit: the lens data in exif is not correct. Not sure how to avoid false lens data in exif...?

[pres589]

"...I spent the hour and a half shooting whatever I thought might be a good moment to capture, ended up with 95% of all shots being within the 28-55mm range. Only a few went further, say max 70mm."

To me this says looking for something like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 AF zoom would be worth looking for. Reviews here;

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

No idea if it can be found in good condition used, or new, within your budget in your part of the world.

[mattb123]

I have that 28-75 and should have mentioned it. It's a good lens although also a loud one to focus so don't use it with AF for very quiet performances.

[swanlefitte]

An f2.8 lens is only 1/2stop faster than the 18-55 at the wide end but 2 stops at the long end. Those stops can drop the iso. Yet the 50 is faster still, if you are still not feeling that's fast enough you need good post software. Or a fast wider lens, 20mp gives you cropping room. Wider lens has more dof so more forgiving on focus.

[VoiceOfReason]

Too bad you aren't able to afford the Sigma Art 18-35 f/1.8 at this point, because that might meet your needs.

[Venom3300]

What about a sigma 24-70 2.8?

[C_Jones]

If flash use was an option at the performances you attend, a flash and a zoom would be a nice solution, but I have not seen flash use mentioned as an option at the performances discussed in this thread. I suppose the burst of light during the performance type you are discussing could possibly be considered as an interruption. A 28-75 or something similar with good light or with a flash would be a nice range (if either permitted).