Fast lenses for night action shots

boogisha wrote:

Hi, first of all thank you so much for your in-depth reply. That was very helpful!

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.

I agree, in fact I'm totally inclined towards a lens with at least f/1.4. For my tastes, better to get a very narrow shot once in a while, than a black shot.

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).

Okay, sounds doable. Getting two people in the right pose \ alignment isn't going to be too difficult considering the type of dance.

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).

Okay also here I forgot to specify one thing... that is, i'm totally ok with having blurred couples in the background (or less couples in the background, for a more zoomed in perspective as you say)...  what I would like to have is the ability to get a full body shot. 6 meteres could be problematic indeed, but I'll have to try it on the field and see what happens.

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.

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.

Thanks for all the examples! And while both providing a full body shot, a 27mm lens with 3m distance will give me a wider perspective (more couples in the background) than a 54mm lens with 6m distance. Correct?

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.

Thanks, it's an amazing tool!

__

Sooo, in the end I rented the viltrox 56 f/1.4.
I solved many doubts thanks to this thread, but I realized that for solving the remaining ones the only way is to actually try some lenses on the field, and personally see how I feel shooting with different apertures and focal distances and light conditions. I'm very new to this so I don't have a lot of experience, not even with my 27mm.
In the next few days I will come back with some more shots, considerations and questions