Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-10-2010, 08:18 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
rparmar:Your advice is good but I would say a KA mount would be better for someone starting out, and easier to handle when stage lighting changes. Not necessary but easier.
But you only posted part of my advice--here is the rest the post:

QuoteQuote:
Jewelltrail: I own and love this lens, but the OP is looking to do this for under $200.

As Marc has already pointed out, there is a plethora of old MF glass (28, 50, 100 & 135mm lengths) which would easily do the job. Couple any of these with the excellent high ISO capabilities of the Kx which the OP has purchased and he'll be rivaling Marc for low-light concert shots--soon!
I shoot %98 in manual mode--the only way to fly--IMO, much like learning to drive a standard first, all should start out this way and really learn the interconnectedness of ISO-aperture--shutter speed.

04-10-2010, 08:42 PM   #32
Senior Member
Itai's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 211
I agree with the 50-135 F2.8. It is gave me my most succesful concert photography.

The main point is that light is low and things move fast, so it is hard to wait for the
perfect composition if you have a prime lens because you have to zoom with your
feet, which in a full concert is not easy. So a zoom is best and the brightest Pentax
zoom are F2.8.

If that is too narrow for your distance, then go with the 16-50mm F2.8 which is my
favorite lens of all times, among any brand.

- Itai
Neoluminance | Fine Art Photography by Itai Danan
04-11-2010, 04:15 AM   #33
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by Jewelltrail Quote
But you only posted part of my advice--here is the rest the post:
I did not mean to misquote you and can't actually see how I did. You are recommending a full manual approach and I am not, based on the situation (concerts) and experience of the photographer.
04-11-2010, 04:39 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Grimsby UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 224
Sorry for offending with my post, my point was to show what could be achieved with various lenses at various costs & how image quality improves.

The original post explained a budget of $200 for this I showed the SMC A 50mm f1.7, an excellent low light concert lens however it has limitations, in that a split focussing screen is needed.

To work in photo pits at most concert halls you will be limited to the first 3 songs this can sometimes be reduced to just one song depending on the performer.

Good luck with photographing artists & changing prime lenses to suit within a three minute window.

Next time someone asks for concert advise I will not bother, obviously shooting gigs & festivals regularly for various online & printed music magazine doesn't count for much around here.....

04-11-2010, 05:03 PM   #35
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Gary: Did you offend someone? Or take offense somehow? I don't see anyone quoting you so I am sorry if this thread somehow gave you that impression. It looks to me like a bunch of people debating an issue in a good-natured way.

Personally I think your recommendations were good. The zooms you mention seem perfect for concert situations. But I'd be totally happy doing a paid shoot with just a prime or two as well. Some of us get pretty good at that and don't need to change lenses, since we have two bodies. (Besides, aren't you recommending two zooms? Wouldn't that require changing as well?)
04-11-2010, 06:25 PM   #36
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
rparmar: I did not mean to misquote you and can't actually see how I did. You are recommending a full manual approach and I am not, based on the situation (concerts) and experience of the photographer.
I did not say, nor did I feel, you misquoted me--where do you get this from?? I simply point out there are other sentences in that post, which you you left out, which were in alignment with your suggestion to go with KA. Since you said, "Your advice is good, but I would say........," I responded to let you know the other part of my post was inclusive for Ka choice, not exclusive.

My mention of the M 50 1.7 was just an example, to show just how inexpensively quality glass could be bought for the job at hand. My mention was not, in any way, meant to imply it was the only inexpensive solution.

QuoteQuote:
rparmar Gary: Did you offend someone? Or take offense somehow? I don't see anyone quoting you so I am sorry if this thread somehow gave you that impression. It looks to me like a bunch of people debating an issue in a good-natured way.
I agree %100 with your observation here.

QuoteQuote:
cabstar: Sorry for offending with my post, my point was to show what could be achieved with various lenses at various costs & how image quality improves.
I certainly was not offended here. I just felt, and still do feel, that sticking to the OPs thread is, in itself, more than enough to keep all of us busy with decent advice.

I do not think shots needed to be posted to demonstrate one can increase the likelhood of higher quality keepers with glass which is not only AF, but which is also a lot over the OPs budget--I think that is self explanatory. But this is just my opinion--yours is equally valid.

Don't you think the OP knows he can upgrade at some point in the future? I am a firm believer in catering responses to the OPs request. I think it makes the thread more concise. more valuable, and less prone to digressions. For example, in this thread with a $200 budget, we have a suggestion coming in for the OP to purchase a $1200 lens. That just happens to be the most extreme digression presented thus far, but others have followed suit.

Now, if it were a fact that high quality shots could not be done in the $200 budget, then the thread would, understandably, veer off in a new direction. However, and I think Marc made this clear, high quality shots can be obtained with lenses costing far less than $200--see Marc's pic--for example. Is it more work and skill--you bet--is it inferior to glass costing 2x, 4x, or even 10x as much? That is for another thread.


Now, I hope I have not offended you: reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Discussion is good and I thnak you for speaking your mind--it has made me better--I learned from it--that is why I spend time in Pentax Forums--i learn here--so many great people. Best!
04-11-2010, 06:43 PM   #37
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
Jewelltrail: We appear to be at cross-purposes, entirely accidentally. I am often reminded of how easy it is to misinterpret another's intentions and it appears I have done that here. Sorry.
04-11-2010, 06:51 PM   #38
Senior Member
Suzu's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 159
QuoteOriginally posted by cabstar Quote
When i first started shooting shows a few years ago with my old K100d I used a 50mm M f/1.7 which did me for a whilst.



Best buy for me was the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 which I use for the majority of shows



then later if you can afford it get the 50-135mm 2.8



Now to save up for that 300mm 2.8
Great shot of David Gray

04-11-2010, 07:01 PM   #39
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
rparmar: Jewelltrail: We appear to be at cross-purposes, entirely accidentally. I am often reminded of how easy it is to misinterpret another's intentions and it appears I have done that here. Sorry.
I cannot adequately express to you how much this means--THANK YOU. Yes, I too am reminded of how easily things can go astray in these threads. I strive for clarity, because I never want to offend anyone--I just want to learn, grow and share here at this awesome forum which was, BTW, the final +1 in favor of Pentax which got me to jump on board. I too, am sorry, for anything I did to confuse or upset things--it surely was not my intention. BEST!
04-11-2010, 07:36 PM   #40
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
Now here be a hunk of concert glass, and it looks like the bidding is on budget for our OP, though we all know what can happen in Ebay's final seconds I think.

Pentax Super Takumar 135 f2.5 M42 Mount lens - eBay (item 320512476537 end time Apr-11-10 19:43:30 PDT)
04-11-2010, 08:01 PM   #41
Pentaxian
seacapt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: North Carolina , USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,259
QuoteOriginally posted by vize Quote
Isn't focusing a pain with manual lenses. I find focusing difficult under low light with the K-x.
Actually in low light MF works out better sometimes. AF may not be able to aquire and lock in low light.
04-11-2010, 09:10 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Jewelltrail's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,180
QuoteQuote:
Seacapt: Actually in low light MF works out better sometimes. AF may not be able to aquire and lock in low light.
Yes--absolutely my experience, depending upon the AF lens.
04-15-2010, 06:30 PM   #43
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,148
QuoteOriginally posted by cabstar Quote
When i first started shooting shows a few years ago with my old K100d I used a 50mm M f/1.7 which did me for a whilst.
Great shots!

And please contribute next time someone ask for concert shooting advise.
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, light concert, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fast Lens telephoto for low light concert photography? superfuzzy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 49 12-02-2009 12:24 AM
low light lens for K-m? skoobie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 08-15-2009 07:30 AM
Best lens for low light AF Russell-Evans Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 09-10-2008 07:01 PM
Tips on concert photography, low light, fast objects... praterkeith Photographic Technique 4 04-28-2008 02:47 PM
Low Light Lens Options qdoan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 44 01-31-2008 07:25 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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