Let my handwringing over the 50-200/2.8 begin!

Sam Bennett · Sep 16, 2025

Like many of you, I'm super excited about the introduction of this lens. I would primarily be using it for my concert photography, so I thought I'd do a little experiment last night and thought others might find my thought process interesting.

The challenge for me is figuring out what FL's I tend to use (and enjoy) most often and whether this lens would be a good fit for me. I use 40mm often when I'm "in the pit", but for some gigs I'm forced to photograph from the Front of House (mixing board) area, where 150mm is just good enough for solo photos of people at the front of the stage but very difficult to do drummer photos.

This will be an ongoing post as I try this out over numerous concerts. Each one is a bit different.

Below are my favorites with the 40-150/2.8 from this gig (the artist Sierra Ferrell), which was unusual in a number of ways.

Limited to 3 photos in "the pit" (between the barricade and the stage) and then camera had to be put away entirely.
We were prohibited from being in the middle of the pit - had to keep to the sides of the stage - so there's few examples of the performer directly in front of me
I elected to not do FoH compositions
This is basically as good as lighting gets at this venue

So, take these stats with that in mind - a different show in the same venue could yield different results. I'm grouping these into focal length ranges to show where I might be biased.

Quick Picks (transferred off camera the night-of)

40–50 → 20 (34%)
51–75 → 27 (46%)
76–100 → 8 (14%)
101–150 → 4 (7%)

Favorites (processed night-of to share with marketing)

40–50 → 2 (25%)
51–75 → 5 (63%)
76–100 → 0 (0%)
101–150 → 1 (13%)

[ATTACH alt="I consider this a "miss" - I should have switched to my secondary camera to get all three performers in the shot "]3728984[/ATTACH]
I consider this a "miss" - I should have switched to my secondary camera to get all three performers in the shot

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Vahur Krouverk · Sep 16, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
Like many of you, I'm super excited about the introduction of this lens. I would primarily be using it for my concert photography, so I thought I'd do a little experiment last night and thought others might find my thought process interesting.

The challenge for me is figuring out what FL's I tend to use (and enjoy) most often and whether this lens would be a good fit for me. I use 40mm often when I'm "in the pit", but for some gigs I'm forced to photograph from the Front of House (mixing board) area, where 150mm is just good enough for solo photos of people at the front of the stage but very difficult to do drummer photos.

This will be an ongoing post as I try this out over numerous concerts. Each one is a bit different.

Below are my favorites with the 40-150/2.8 from this gig (the artist Sierra Ferrell), which was unusual in a number of ways.

Limited to 3 photos in "the pit" (between the barricade and the stage) and then camera had to be put away entirely.

3 photos? Or 3 songs?

Sam Bennett said:
We were prohibited from being in the middle of the pit - had to keep to the sides of the stage - so there's few examples of the performer directly in front of me

I wonder why? Because of artist’s dressing? Anyway, middle shots do not work well anyway, as most cases it’s place for singer and all you get from there is mic-in-front-of-face shots.

Regarding 50-200 for concert shots it may work in large venues or stadiums. But it’s probably too long and big for places I shoot: they are generally without shooting pit, I’ve used ocassionally 40-150 but thinking getting 35-100 instead because of its size: easier to carry in moshing or banging crowd. And it presumably zooms same way as my standard concert shooting lens10-25 so I don’t have to relearn zooming after switching lenses.

Sam Bennett · Sep 16, 2025

Vahur Krouverk said:
Sam Bennett said:

Like many of you, I'm super excited about the introduction of this lens. I would primarily be using it for my concert photography, so I thought I'd do a little experiment last night and thought others might find my thought process interesting.

The challenge for me is figuring out what FL's I tend to use (and enjoy) most often and whether this lens would be a good fit for me. I use 40mm often when I'm "in the pit", but for some gigs I'm forced to photograph from the Front of House (mixing board) area, where 150mm is just good enough for solo photos of people at the front of the stage but very difficult to do drummer photos.

This will be an ongoing post as I try this out over numerous concerts. Each one is a bit different.

Below are my favorites with the 40-150/2.8 from this gig (the artist Sierra Ferrell), which was unusual in a number of ways.

Limited to 3 photos in "the pit" (between the barricade and the stage) and then camera had to be put away entirely.

Click to expand...

3 photos? Or 3 songs?

Sorry, should have wrote 3 songs.

Vahur Krouverk said:
Vahur Krouverk said:

We were prohibited from being in the middle of the pit - had to keep to the sides of the stage - so there's few examples of the performer directly in front of me

Click to expand...

I wonder why? Because of artist’s dressing? Anyway, middle shots do not work well anyway, as most cases it’s place for singer and all you get from there is mic-in-front-of-face shots.

No, it's so we're not blocking the people in the audience.

Vahur Krouverk said:
Regarding 50-200 for concert shots it may work in large venues or stadiums. But it’s probably too long and big for places I shoot: they are generally without shooting pit, I’ve used ocassionally 40-150 but thinking getting 35-100 instead because of its size: easier to carry in moshing or banging crowd. And it presumably zooms same way as my standard concert shooting lens10-25 so I don’t have to relearn zooming after switching lenses.

I use two (sometimes three) bodies - OM-1 Mark II with the 40-150/2.8 the vast majority of the time, but also a FF camera with either an UWA Zoom, 35 or 50 f/1.8 prime. I didn't include photos from that camera here, but the majority of my favorite photos (as usual) were with the 40-150.

Sam Bennett · Sep 16, 2025

The venue just put up their post about the evening, and this is the photo they ended up leading with...

They also included a number of the portraits (and a couple S5 photos), but funny to see the "third camera" with the Rokinon FE is the one that got priority!

That's a bit of validation for ordering the 8/1.8 (coming today)!

--

Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Regor250 · Sep 16, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
The venue just put up their post about the evening, and this is the photo they ended up leading with...

They also included a number of the portraits (and a couple S5 photos), but funny to see the "third camera" with the Rokinon FE is the one that got priority! That's a bit of validation for ordering the 8/1.8 (coming today)!

I think you will love the 8mm. For public events it is for more useful than I ever imagined.

--
Roger

Sam Bennett · Sep 16, 2025

Regor250 said:
Sam Bennett said:

The venue just put up their post about the evening, and this is the photo they ended up leading with...

They also included a number of the portraits (and a couple S5 photos), but funny to see the "third camera" with the Rokinon FE is the one that got priority! That's a bit of validation for ordering the 8/1.8 (coming today)!

Click to expand...

I think you will love the 8mm. For public events it is for more useful than I ever imagined.

Thanks, yeah looking forward to it. Seeing this image at 100% I'm like

. Looks fine on Instagram, but... would be great to be able to whip out this more "novel" photos and have higher confidence in the quality.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

Skeeterbytes · Sep 16, 2025

Good foundational data to track, going forward.

Only did a few school-type performance shoots in typical dire lighting and the 50-200/2.8-3.5 was not bright enough for E-series and E-M1. The 150/2 and 35-100/2 were, and with an OM-1 would, I expect, be fantastic. Stunning lenses and good exercise at no extra charge.

The Wee White seems quite suitable and I'd have a second body with 12-40 for wider needs. UWA is also fun, as you show here. 8-25/4 probably too slow.

Cheers,

Rick

mfuhlendorf · Sep 16, 2025

Love this kind of post, real use analysis instead of gear bickering
This is actually useful <3

Tom Caldwell · Sep 16, 2025

In this sort of situation catching the stage lighting "just right" makes all the difference.

Well caught, better when the light was "just right".

Sam Bennett · Sep 17, 2025

Tom Caldwell said:
In this sort of situation catching the stage lighting "just right" makes all the difference.

Well caught, better when the light was "just right".

Absolutely. I’m quite spoiled by a really great venue with a good lighting setup (I have my issues with it) and a great lighting tech. Makes my job much easier!

techie takes pics · Sep 17, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
The venue just put up their post about the evening, and this is the photo they ended up leading with...

They also included a number of the portraits (and a couple S5 photos), but funny to see the "third camera" with the Rokinon FE is the one that got priority! That's a bit of validation for ordering the 8/1.8 (coming today)!

Venue: We need a picture for our socials! Dan, did you see any photographers?
Dan: Hang on lemme get my phone ... done!

Pears for swine, that is your work.
I recognize this too. You can have the greatest shot and they will still post a 320x200 mobile phone snapshot.

Sam Bennett · Sep 17, 2025

techie takes pics said:
Sam Bennett said:

The venue just put up their post about the evening, and this is the photo they ended up leading with...

They also included a number of the portraits (and a couple S5 photos), but funny to see the "third camera" with the Rokinon FE is the one that got priority! That's a bit of validation for ordering the 8/1.8 (coming today)!

Click to expand...

Venue: We need a picture for our socials! Dan, did you see any photographers?
Dan: Hang on lemme get my phone ... done!

Pears for swine, that is your work.
I recognize this too. You can have the greatest shot and they will still post a 320x200 mobile phone snapshot.

I think a good takeaway from this is something important to remind myself of - the venue is promoting the venue, not the artist. I can sometimes get a little too "myopic" in my documentation and really zero-in on the artist. That's part of my job, but just one part.

--
Sam Bennett
Instagram: @swiftbennett

ikolbyi · Sep 17, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
Tom Caldwell said:

In this sort of situation catching the stage lighting "just right" makes all the difference.

Well caught, better when the light was "just right".

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I’m quite spoiled by a really great venue with a good lighting setup (I have my issues with it) and a great lighting tech. Makes my job much easier!

Michael Houston · Sep 17, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
This is basically as good as lighting gets at this venue

I have shot a fair number of concerts (although obviously not with this lens) and I think these are fabulous. Your lighting guy did a great job; usually concert lighting is either nuclear-blast bright or total darkness. But your shots are great too.

The only handwringing I can imagine is whether I can afford the $$ and the extra weight.

tammons · Sep 17, 2025

Looks like you are doing well with what you have.

This new 50-200mm makes sense to me if you are a working professional and need the absolute very best IQ from your lens and you must have the extra 100mm on the long end.

Same goes for the 150-400mm F4.5.

For me, ideally, although I am not a working pro, I would prefer a 4-lens zoom kit of 8-25mm f4, 12-100 F4, 50-200mm F2.8, and 150-400mm F4.5.

But then up goes the weight and system size and the cost of these four lenses together is so high that it is a bit ridiculous.

So, I stick with what I have, 8-25mm f4, 12-60, P 100-400mm. And if I needed a fast lens in that range you are shooting in it would be a 40-150mm F2.8 mostly because of the $800 used vs. $3700 for the 50-200mm.

I dont see the 50-200mm being $2900 better then the 40-150mm F2.8 within that range.

john isaacs · Sep 17, 2025

Unless you have a lot of photos at 150, indicating that you could use longer, then I don't think you need it. SyncIS is of little use when photographing performers, because you need to keep the shutter speed up.

I have not needed such reach for the concerts I shoot; I'm usually good with my 75/1.8. But I have been in the balcony for some beauty pageants, and the 200/2.8 is ideal for those (with a second camera shooting wide along side).

Sam Bennett · Sep 17, 2025

john isaacs said:
Unless you have a lot of photos at 150, indicating that you could use longer, then I don't think you need it.

For this show in particular, it wouldn't have helped - but for others (where I have to photograph from the back of the venue), it definitely would help.

The question was more whether the wide end of the 50-200's range would have hurt. The differences between 80mm equiv and 100mm equiv is more likely to be a problem for me since my access is so good at the venues I work.

Skeeterbytes · Sep 17, 2025

Sports an imperfect analogy but I've more call for the extra 50mm than constraints from the lost 10mm. Just applies to one-camera shoots, of course.

Had this instead been the odd-duck rumored 70-200 then it's a whole different circumstance, 70mm being much too tight.

Rick

Sam Bennett · Sep 17, 2025

Skeeterbytes said:
Sports an imperfect analogy but I've more call for the extra 50mm than constraints from the lost 10mm. Just applies to one-camera shoots, of course.

Had this instead been the odd-duck rumored 70-200 then it's a whole different circumstance, 70mm being much too tight.

Yeah, I wouldn't have been even considering it if it was 70mm at the wide end! Way too long for my use at that point. I suspect 50mm is too.

john isaacs · Sep 17, 2025

Sam Bennett said:
john isaacs said:

Unless you have a lot of photos at 150, indicating that you could use longer, then I don't think you need it.

Click to expand...

For this show in particular, it wouldn't have helped - but for others (where I have to photograph from the back of the venue), it definitely would help.
The question was more whether the wide end of the 50-200's range would have hurt. The differences between 80mm equiv and 100mm equiv is more likely to be a problem for me since my access is so good at the venues I work.

I used to use the PL 35-100/2.8 for these; wider and I could always crop. And the lens is much smaller so less likely to hit someone in the head. But not as useful if you have to go to the back of the room.

Let my handwringing over the 50-200/2.8 begin!

Veteran Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts