Fast lenses for night action shots

sifro wrote:

boogisha wrote:

For the framing you`re aiming for (as per two examples you`ve posted, wider than full body shots), even with an f/0.95 lens you should still have plenty of depth of field to keep the whole person in focus (some 50cm) - both, if they`re parallel to you, or at least one if the other is closer (and presumably facing away from you, thus focus is not critical there anyway).

Ok, maybe I should have clarified that those shots are not what I'm aiming for.
I posted them only as an example of the difficult lightning conditions, but they have a way way bigger DOF and wider frame than I need.
Also the perspective in those pics is not ideal: I took them like they are because I had to adapt the shot to the light conditions and available lenses.

Ok, so that`s more clear now, thanks for elaborating. Though there was an important part missing my quote above - don`t forget that you can always close a fast lens down when situation really requires it, but you can never open a slower lens more when a faster/wider aperture could work, too.

An example more similar to what I'd like to really take would be this one (I would totally be fine with a smaller DOF):

Also I wouldn't mind taking shots like this:

The 2nd pic looks to my beginner's eyes like a perfect use case for the Viltrox 56mm 1.4 that many of you suggested (and which I'm quite inclined to buy).

That should indeed be the case - BUT, do note the position of the dancers, heads/eyes of both being more or less aligned with the camera/sensor plane, thus helping to keep both within the required depth of field.

For example, for a shot like this with an 54mm f/1.4 lens on APS-C, you would need to stand some 2 meters away, yielding depth of field of mere 7 cm. If any of the two dancers would be closer/farther than the other one, it would end out of focus - so your technique will be crucial in determining how wide open you can actually shoot.

Stopping down to f/2.8 in this case would provide some 14 cm of depth of field, being much easier to work with, but costing you two stops of light (higher ISO, or slower shutter speed)... ending up in the same spot where you are now with 27mm f/2.8.

For comparison, you could take a similar shot with an 35mm f/0.95 lens, standing some 1.25 meters away, and with a depth of field of around 5 cm. Stopping down to f/1.4 would make depth of field some 7 cm again (same as with 54mm lens, but from a closer distance this time, and with more background - less isolation/compression).

Not sure if this lens could also achieve a pic like the 1st one (what do you people think?)

I think not, as there`s quite some background (couples) captured in the frame, which should point to a wider (normal or wide) lens (35mm or wider).

In order to get the full body shot of a standing couple with 54mm, you`d need to be some 6 meters away (if that is an option at all, not getting another couple in between), and it would certainly provide more of a "zoomed in" perspective, cutting out a good portion of the background (and surrounding couples). With f/1.4, the depth of field would end around 60 cm, so that should be fine (possibly even for a position as shown in the first picture, two dancers not being at the same distance from the camera).

With 35mm lens, you might be able to achieve a similar look (wider background, with more couples in than with 54mm) from some 3.5 to 4 meters away. At f/1.4, depth of field would again be around 60 cm, while opening up to f/0.95 would make it 45 cm. Again, technique to position yourself and capture adequately positioned subjects is crucial here.

Truman Prevatt wrote:

Something doesn’t jive here. You state the shots are from close up, but the lenses you list above are long lenses and would require a considerable working distance. I would thing normal to wide angle.

In addition to what I said in the first part of this reply, I'd like to add that by "close distance" I mean anything from 50cm to a few meters.

With 54mm, 50 cm distance should give you a very tight headshot (face only, and most probably of a single dancer), where in order to get the whole body in the frame you would need to be some 5 to 6 meters away, at least.

In comparison to your 27mm lens, 50 cm would capture a nice headshot (possibly with a bit of shoulders), where the whole body shot would require some 2.5 to 3 meters distance only.

There`s a reason some wedding/event photographers carry two lenses only (usually with two bodies, each with a lens attached), 23mm and 56mm (being 35mm and 85mm full-frame equivalents). One provides a good "documentary" style of photos (more surrounding background/context), while the other being great for tighter and "more intimate" shots (more subject isolation, less background/context) - exactly like in the two photos you`ve shown above

Having an XF 16-55 f/2.8 zoom could be a single lens compromise for the framing purposes, but that would not provide you with more light, unfortunately.

p.s. If you would like to do some more comparison, and on your own, you can find a nice depth of field simulator tool here[1], allowing you to see/set the desired framing, too (face, portrait... full body), alongside showing required camera to subject distance and resulting depth of field.