Lens Rental for Night Shooting

[Hill Country Hack]

At the end of the month I'll be joining my son in law for a night walk around in Austin Texas. We will be shooting landscape/cityscape and folks bar hopping on 6th street. There is not a shortage of eclectic folks in that city so may get some very interesting candids.

I want to be able to handhold while shooting candids and my current lens greatly restricts me and therefore I want to rent a better lens to be able to do both land/cityscape and handheld candids. I am shooting with a Canon Rebel XS and will be using a tripod for the stills. I've done some research of local rentals and here is what I am considering. Any input, on lens type and pricing, from you photography scholars is greatly appreciated.

Obviously these are all Canon lenses and prices are one day rentals in USD:

16-35mm f2.8L @ $35.00
28-70mm F2.8L @ $20.00
70-200mm f2.8 @ $35.00
85mm prime f 1.8 @ $20.00

[zona5101]

my choice would be the 85 f1.8 - almost a stop will be a big deal in low light when you can go mega high iso... don't they have a 85 f1.4 to rent? I mean if you're going to rent...

[Hill Country Hack]

Originally Posted by zona5101

my choice would be the 85 f1.8 - almost a stop will be a big deal in low light when you can go mega high iso... don't they have a 85 f1.4 to rent? I mean if you're going to rent...

Nope to the 85 f1.4, but a 50mm 1.2.

The more I am thinking about it, I know the bigger the apeture the less light needed and faster the shutter can be, but the trade off is decreased DOF. I mean if I go all the way to f1.4 I would be hard pressed to capture a full/half body shot all in sharp focus?

My ISO can only go to 1600 not the 3000+ I've seen on other's posts.

[autofocus]

The 16-35 would probably be best for cityscapes, and the 70-200 would probably be best for candid people shots (but it's big and heavy) Being that you don't want to rent both, I think the 24-70 would be a real good compromise, and would get my vote

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by autofocus

The 16-35 would probably be best for cityscapes, and the 70-200 would probably be best for candid people shots (but it's big and heavy) Being that you don't want to rent both, I think the 24-70 would be a real good compromise, and would get my vote

I would agree with this choice as well. The shorter zoom will be easier to handhold - (reciprocal of the focal length guideline). And it probably will be more fluid to use than a fixed lens. The big reason I might still choose a 85 is going after candids and being able to be farther away, less conspicuous, and still capture tight shots. Managing the dof of the 1.2 would be tough so i probably wouldn't shoot it all the way open except purposely.

[Hill Country Hack]

I was planning on using my 18-55 for the stills since I'll be using the tripod and shooting at around f8-11. The exposure times will be dependent on the available light at the f number and set shutter speed. I'll be shooting in manual and bracketing shots

I guess I'm really asking about a lens for the candids. Shooting at say f6 is still f6 no matter the lens? I'm guessing the camera body makes the difference in ability to increase shutter speed by increasing ISO while maintaining the same f-stop? So even if I get "fast" glass it will only be able to perform to the capabilities of the body? I must find the DOF chart again so I can get the most DOF at the lower f-stop.

[RichardTaylor]

Online Depth of Field Calculator

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Hill Country Hack

At the end of the month I'll be joining my son in law for a night walk around in Austin Texas. We will be shooting landscape/cityscape and folks bar hopping on 6th street. There is not a shortage of eclectic folks in that city so may get some very interesting candids.

I want to be able to handhold while shooting candids and my current lens greatly restricts me and therefore I want to rent a better lens to be able to do both land/cityscape and handheld candids. I am shooting with a Canon Rebel XS and will be using a tripod for the stills.

Ok. One short thought; for buildings at night, the 18-55 IS kit lens is probably OK handheld even without a tripod, particularly if you're talking cityscapes with lighting in them. I actually would be trying the 18-55 first, before going to a rental. It may not be the greatest lens ever, but it goes wide and it's stabilized, and with good hand-holding technique, you can probably get down to 1/10s or so. But above all, it's small, light, and inconspicuous.

16-35mm f2.8L @ $35.00
28-70mm F2.8L @ $20.00
70-200mm f2.8 @ $35.00

What you need to know about these three L lenses is that they're all going to be a LOT bigger, heavier, and far more conspicuous than the kit lens you're used to. That can be fine if you're shooting buildings. But for shooting odd characters who may be getting drunk in bars? Er.. maybe not so much. The 70-200 in particular is not only big and long, but also WHITE. It screams paparazzi. You'd be surprised how much more you can get away with if you use a small snub-nosed black lens instead. Like:

85mm prime f 1.8 @ $20.00

Which, frankly, I wouldn't recommend for night street shooting on a crop body. It's too long. I'd go with the EF 35/2, or the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. If I really wanted to spoil myself and I didn't think pointing a honking big L was going to get me punched in the face, I'd probably use the 35/1.4L. But I'm eccentric and like to shoot primes.

The 85/1.2L and 50/1.2L: fugeddaboutit, unless you have the cash to rent them for three weeks, so you can practice up ahead of time shooting wide open at f/1.2. Your DoF at f/1.2 can be measured in millimeters, depending on how close you are. And neither one of the f/1.2Ls is particularly fast to autofocus. The 50/1.2, btw, also exhibits focus shift, which complicates a little bit. Hence the need for practice.

Just me, but I'd say rent the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. The Ls are probably a lot bigger and heavier and more conspicuous than you're used to, and the 85/1.8 USM is longer and unstabilized. You'd need to get your shutter speed up to 1/100s most of the time, and that may be harder than you think. Also, it's harder to get a full-length body shot with an 85 on a crop than you'd think. You might have to run backwards a lot. If you mostly just want headshots, though, it could be good.

Then again, I tend to define street shooting as shooting the street, not so much portraits of people on it, so using a wider lens is more the norm for this for me.

[Hill Country Hack]

Thanks Inksta as usual you are a fountain of knowledge.

I think I'll stick with the kit lens since I can hand hold up to 1/2 sec without camera shake. BTW, most of the candids I'm looking for are the odd ones, not folks pounding suds (unless a fight breaks out then I'll become photojouralist man).

There are many street performers out there at night also, musicians and such so I don't think they will mind.

I had already planned at trying to shoot at 1/100 or better. The issue I have with the primes is the need for adjusting focal length with my feet and missing a shot. Maybe I can creep up on them...yea! That's the ticket.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Hill Country Hack

Thanks Inksta as usual you are a fountain of knowledge.

Grin. Just don't mistake me for an actual expert. I'm a professional technical writer. I'm really good at sounding authoritative. That doesn't mean I am.

There are many street performers out there at night also, musicians and such so I don't think they will mind.

You'd be surprised. Last time I went shooting in Balboa Park, I had one performer shake his head at me in no uncertain terms that he did not want his picture taken. Being a mere hobbyist, I tend to respect folks' wishes on stuff like that, which is probably why I suck at street photography.

...The issue I have with the primes is the need for adjusting focal length with my feet and missing a shot...

Shooting with primes is pretty much the only exercise I get.