# Good Canon lens for theater photography?



## gabe (Nov 3, 2009)

Hello, sorry if this is in the incorrect section but I couldn't think of a better one. I've been considering purchasing a Canon EOS Digital Rebel T1i, as recommended by a friend, I was planning on buying only the body. What would be a good lens to take production stills, I am a lighting designer so I would want to be sure that my design was accurately captured. 

Thanks!


----------



## icewolf08 (Nov 3, 2009)

gabe said:


> Hello, sorry if this is in the incorrect section but I couldn't think of a better one. I've been considering purchasing a Canon EOS Digital Rebel T1i, as recommended by a friend, I was planning on buying only the body. What would be a good lens to take production stills, I am a lighting designer so I would want to be sure that my design was accurately captured.
> 
> Thanks!



Are you going to be trying to shoot during a run through or performance? What is your budget? Do you have a Tripod? (a good tripod is almost more important than a good lens and can be relatively expensive) Do you own any lenses now? And what else will you use the camera for? All of these things would affect what I would recommend. Also, accurately capturing your design is not going to be a function of the lens, but knowing how to use your camera to capture the image. Having a good lens may make it easier, but even with not the best lenses, you can get a good representation of what is on stage, you just need to know some of the fundamentals of your camera, photography in general, and how to shoot for theatre.

In general I would recommend fast glass (low F-stop numbers). This is going to be more expensive, but in the low light situations in theatre, it will be real benefit. I would also stay away from the "kit" lenses, which are the lenses that are sold as part of a kit with the camera. Usually you can buy them separate as well, but they tend to be a lower quality. I would not try to get one of the "all-in-one" zooms that goes from really wide to really long, they may sound like good deals, but that much zoom can degrade images.

I would start with two lenses if you can afford to. One in the wader zoom range, around 28-80mm and one in the longer range like 80-200mm.

Here are a couple that come to mind as useful lenses:
Canon | Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L | 8014A002

Canon | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Autofocus Lens | 0344B002AA

I use the Nikon version of this one and love it:
Sigma | 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens | 571101 | B&H

This is a lens that I looked at for a while and didn't ed up getting, but I have tried it, and it seems to be a great focal range for theatre:
Sigma | 50-150mm f/2.8 II EX DC HSM Lens for Can | 691-101 | B&H


----------



## bdkdesigns (Nov 3, 2009)

While what icewolf mentioned is great, kit lenses will get you by. I currently have the standard kit lens and the zoom kit lens for my camera. That is not to say that I am not planning on the more expensive lens in the future, but the kits do just fine right now. In fact, several people prefer my images to the professional photographer that we have come in.

When I looked at the initial purchase, the Canon EOS XTI high grade body was about $500 I believe. As a student, I didn't have the money, and still don't for the nice lenses. Since I have a good understanding of photography, I decided that I could get away with those lenses until I could afford it. But you NEED to be able to understand the camera to get quality images out of the kits.

As was mentioned, a good tripod is a must. This is where I splurged a bit. A good tripod is rugged, yet light. The light weight makes it easy to move around and frees you up from being confined to one spot. A nice pan and tilt also helps in getting set up quickly. Remember, photocalls should be short and cheap Best Buy tripods can be bulky.


----------



## aemeeich (Nov 3, 2009)

I'm going to dissent with the advice of getting a tripod. The key to blur free pictures in a stage setting is to use a fast shutter speed that freezes actor's motion, as well as camera shake.

With the newer DSLR's having such usable high ISO (that in turn will give you a higher shutter speed), that reduces the need for a tripod.

As a counterpart to using a tripod with long lenses, choose a lens that has image stabilization. A IS lens will offer pretty much all the same benefits as a tripod when shooting in the shutter speed ranges that you need to freeze human motion, and offers the freedom of easy movement. 

The rule of thumb for hand holding is to make sure your shutter speed is at least 1/focal length. So for example if your zoomed to 55mm, and your shutter speed is 1/60 or higher, a tripod won't offer you any assistance (unless you have really shaky hands - the flip side to that is that some people are steadier and can hand hold at even lower shutter speeds. At 55mm, I can go as low at 1/20 before I see any camera shake).

While a tripod will offer shake free pictures at shutter speeds of a few seconds, if there is any human movement on stage, they will all be blurred. To freeze motion you need around 1/60 for standard walking and even higher if there is fast movement or dancing. This will put you over the shutter speed needed to eliminate hand held camera shake. Here's a picture that show this. Taken in '06 during Teahouse Of The August Moon. Hand held with the original Digital Rebel (300D), 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS lens @ 50mm, ISO 800, f/4.5, 1/30 shutter speed. As you can see, there is no camera shake, but since the actor on the left was moving, he is blurred. 



I have lots of pictures from when we did Footloose in '04 where the set is perfectly clear, but all the actors are blurry. This was the first show I ever took pictures of. I had a 35mm film Canon Rebel Ti SLR, with the 75-300 4.0-5.6 lens on a tripod in the back of the house. I don't remember the shutter speeds used since it was a film camera, but any human movement was blurred. 

Here's a picture I took back in '05 during Guys & Dolls. Taken hand held with the Rebel, 70-200 2.8 IS lens @ 105mm, ISO 800, f/2.8, 1/100 shutter speed. As you can see, everything is nice and sharp. I was able to freeze the jumping actor at only 1/100 since I caught him at the peak of his jump when he wasn't really moving at that instant. If the picture would have been taken an instant earlier or later, he would have been slightly blurred.


Here's another picture that shows what the IS can do. Taken in '06 during Teahouse. Hand held, 70-200 2.8 IS lens @ 70mm, ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/25 shutter speed.



They are rather pricey, but my two ultimate lens recommendations for Canon are the 17-55 2.8 IS for shooting from close up, and the 70-200 2.8 IS for shooting from the back of the house. If the IS is too pricey, at least go for a lens that is a constant 2.8. Although, since the newer cameras are doing so well with higher ISO, you can even start to get fast enough shutter speeds with a slower kit lens like the 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS lens, but it won't be as good as the first two lenses I mentioned.

Michael


----------



## mstaylor (Nov 3, 2009)

To be honest with you, I wouldn't go Cannon, I would go with Nikon.


----------



## seanandkate (Nov 3, 2009)

mstaylor said:


> To be honest with you, I wouldn't go Cannon, I would go with Nikon.



And here comes a cage match that rivals the Mac / PC debate . . .


----------



## last125eagle (Nov 3, 2009)

Meh and I am over in the far far far corner with my sony/minolta set up.

A zoom with a fast apature does offer better framing when you are in one spot. I for one like prime lenses. Nothing beats a 50 f1.4 85 f1.4 or the new 135 f1.8 for sharp fast images. In out small theater I can be in the booth with a 135mm at 800 iso and take some decent shots hand held. It is a noisey camera though so..... I try not to shot from up there during a show. I do not want to bother the audience. 

Also I think Nikon style noise reduction is the best. Sony's new camera's are mimicing it.


----------



## icewolf08 (Nov 4, 2009)

As a professional production photographer, I must disagree with the idea that a tripod is unnecessary. Image stabilization (IS for Canon and VR for Nikon) is a great invention, but it not a substitute for a solid tripod. IS was not actually invented to allow you to hand hold your camera at slower shutter speeds, but to allow you to easily keep up with fast action using longer lenses. Will IS help you get sharper images? Yes, but it is only a stopgap. As proven by aemeeich's last photo:

Even IS won't give you a sharp image at a shutter speed that you can't hand hold (1/25). Does IS help this image? Indeed it does, but had this image been shot at 1/25 on a tripod, it could be tack sharp. Often times I will even go so far as to shoot photo calls on a tripod with a cable-release. (at least i don't tote around my telescope tripod vibration dampening pads)

That being said, about half the archival shots that I take are done during performances or rehearsals and are hand held. It does give you more flexibility and ease of motion. However there is a huge difference when shooting with an entry level camera versus a professional camera. This is all the more reason to start with better glass when picking an entry level camera.

Ironically, you stack the cards against you for shooting in low light with you pick some of the higher resolution cameras. Consider that the higher the resolution, the denser the pixels are packed on the sensor thus smaller pixels. Smaller pixels mean that each pixel sees less light. In a low light situation, the goal is to capture as much light as possible. So in theory, if you compared two cameras, one with an APS-C size sensor and one with a full frame sensor of the same resolution, the full frame chip should be able to capture low light images better due to larger pixel size. By et same token, a 12MP camera should do better in low light than a 15MP (provided they are using the same chip technology).

What shooting for theatre really comes down to is the skill of the photographer. For a long time I was shooting with what was considered a consumer lever DSLR. Knowing how to meter your shots, get your white balance set up your camera effectively is much more important that having the newest and best camera out there. I know people who were able to capture amazing show photos with the old Sony Mavica cameras that shot to floppy disk!

The photographer still makes the photograph. Consider that with the same film and lens in an all manual body and the flagship body, if you set the shutter speed and f-stop the same, you will get the same shot! Sure, in the digital world a newer digital camera may help you out with better low light sensitivity, higher resolutions, etc. But in the end it is up to the photographer to make the shot work.

So, going back to the original question of lenses. I find it more important and useful to have the fastest lenses you can afford to get. If you can get constant f2.8 lenses, you will be better off with those than with an f3.5-5.6 IS lens. Prime lenses are great, but when you are shooting for theatre, I would rather have the versatility of a zoom lens, especially if you have to get your shots during a rehearsal or performance, not time to change lenses. Everyone will always argue that prime lenses are better, and while optically that might be true, you don't always need that to be effective, and most of the modern zooms are pretty darn good lenses. Can you make kit lenses work? Sure, I did for a long time. They are just not ideal. It goes back to knowing how to use the equipment that you have. So, what I suggest is getting the best equipment you can within your budget, and make sure that includes a good tripod!


----------



## erosing (Nov 4, 2009)

Gabe what is your total budget that you have and are willing to spend? Rather than us just recommending you lenses that we think are what you should go with, if you tell us your budget we can give you an idea of the best glass to buy in that budget.


----------



## mstaylor (Nov 4, 2009)

seanandkate said:


> And here comes a cage match that rivals the Mac / PC debate . . .



Now that's funny. Actually I should have explained myself better. There is certainly nothing wrong with Cannon quality. The difference to me is compatability of lenses as you upgrade. With Nikon you can actually can take old 35 MM lenses and use them on a digital. This is not true with Cannon.


----------



## aemeeich (Nov 4, 2009)

mstaylor said:


> Now that's funny. Actually I should have explained myself better. There is certainly nothing wrong with Cannon quality. The difference to me is compatability of lenses as you upgrade. With Nikon you can actually can take old 35 MM lenses and use them on a digital. This is not true with Cannon.



Any EF mount Canon lens going back to 1987 can be used on any current DSLR with full functionality. Canon introduced the EF mount in 1987 as an upgrade to their previous FD mount which was fully mechanical and had no provisions for auto focus. The EF lenses have the auto focus motor mounted in the lens and the only connections between the body and the lens are electrical. 

Nikon actually went through similar upgrades in their past. Lenses older than 1977 can't be used on current bodies without modification. Even after the modification, there won't be any auto exposure.


----------



## cw4u (Nov 7, 2009)

Any program I am the LD for, I always shoot the entire production and let my assistant take over on the least booked day.

I use a 50D with a 70-200mm 2.8 lens from canon. They do a pretty good job. I usually set it to 400-1600 iso and shutter speed of about 1/125 to 1/250. 

I'll post some pictures of a performance I did two months ago. The lighting wasn't the best, but I was called in three days before it opened. LD backed out last minute for some reason.


----------



## martyclynch (Feb 28, 2010)

I have had good luck with an EF 50mm f/1.8 II on my Canon Rebel 2000. That is a nice affordable lens with a low(-ish) f-stop. I'd love to get my hands on a lens with a 1.4 or 1.2, but that's crazy expensive. The drawback with a fixed lens is that you have a set frame for your photos. I have zoom lenses that I can use in brighter lighting, but you're talking dance and musicals in those cases.

I should say that I use a film camera, not a digital, and that may affect things. I am also picky about my film. I never go higher than ISO 400 film and I prefer to go with a slower slide film whenever possible. By the way, your camera should have a tungsten-halogen setting, but if it doesn't you may want to invest in an 80A filter for your lens.

What you need to understand about photography for theatre is that the low-light will create huge issues. They are not insurmountable, but they cannot be ignored, either. You can't use a flash or ask for more light without compromising the integrity of the designers' work, so you need a steady hand and a quality camera. My theory is that a nice tripod will help, and an expensive camera will help even more, but no amount of expensive equipment can supplant a good photographer.

Keep taking pictures, knowing that you will not be good at it for a long time. You will get better so long as you keep taking pictures. When you become a good photographer, you could theoretically shoot a show with disposable cameras and still get good shots.


----------

