Go-to lens for photojournalism

J

jurat

Messages
237
Edit My Images
Yes
What's a good go-to lens for photojournalism? I looked at the Tamron 17-50 2,8 which seems excellent. If it helps I'm using a Nikon D90 and just getting started.
 
That's my general lens of choice for magazine work, although I'd say I get pretty good mileage from my 80-200mm as well.

The Tamron is a sweet lens; optically near as damn it to a Nikon 17-55 (for the money) although AF noise is louder and build isn't quite as good. Still, for £250 or whatever they cost, they really do provide the gods if you want a fast aperture, cheap zoom for wide to medium focal lengths.

If you want to be capturing action from afar then maybe something longer will be better suited to the job....
 
Last edited:
Nikon 70-200
 
I would go for my 24-70mm. Though slightly tempting with a 16-35mm. Mmm.
 
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8

Without those two you'll be stuffed.
Everything else is a 'nice to have' - those two are 'must have's'.

Never leave home without them.
 
Arkady2 said:
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8

Without those two you'll be stuffed.
Everything else is a 'nice to have' - those two are 'must have's'.

Never leave home without them.
Click to expand...

Rob, were you using that set-up before the D3 (on the D2x) or did you take the crop factor into account and start wider - 17mm?
 
Rob - I think the 17-55 arguement was for a DX camera (is the D90 a FF?)

I agree, the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 cover 90% of the work.

The next most used lens in my bag is the 17-35 f2.8. If I really want to get something different, and the light has to be brilliant and the subject has to suite it, the 16mm f2.8 fisheye gives some stunning pictures with the quirky angle.

It depends on the genre of photojournalism you are getting into. If you are doing people at work type stuff, then the 24-70 will cover almost all your work and you could do well to back that with something like the 105 macro, which would give you a fabulous portrait lens and the ability to shoot macro details in all their subtle detail. Each area of operation dictates its own bias towards lenses. When I was shooting motorsport and greyhounds on a daily basis the 500f4 and 300f2.8 were the mainstays of my toolbox - I haven't used the 500f4 for 2 years. I rarely use the 300f2.8 now either - I have ot force myself to use an devery time I wonder why I don't use it more....then I go to carry again and realise I have gone for the lighter, easier option of 70-200 plus TC (the lazy route!) - the effort in carrying the 300 is rewarded, especially if that is extended (I'l talk myself into going around with the 500 again if I carry on at this rate!)

The old adage of the masters was a lens close to the 50mm standard, often a 35mm, set at f8 and then BE THERE. I think 35 is better than 50 for reportage, and the 24-70 covers a very useful range, including enough length for head and shoulders shots, grip n grins and wider vistas.
 
The D90 is a DX so there's a crop factor. What do you guys think of the Sigma 17-70mm 2,8-4,5. The 24-70 is a little out of my price range at the moment.
 
specialman said:
Rob, were you using that set-up before the D3 (on the D2x) or did you take the crop factor into account and start wider - 17mm?
Click to expand...

Sorry yes: 17-35mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 (or 80-200mm earlier on) on a crop sensor - I found my 28-70 too 'long' until we went back to FX sensors.


I found the 'gap' between the two lenses of no consequence with DX, by the way...
 
Same here - got a 35mm gap between 50mm and 85mm, doesn't bother me in the slightest - I just move forward :D Think people get a bit hung up on gaps in lens line-ups, although I can totally see the point in the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 on FX to give seamless coverage
 
jurat said:
The D90 is a DX so there's a crop factor. What do you guys think of the Sigma 17-70mm 2,8-4,5. The 24-70 is a little out of my price range at the moment.
Click to expand...

For photojournalism as opposed to News or Press work, then you could cheerfully tailor your shooting style to using just a 28mm or 35mm f/2 and a short tele like a 105 or 135mm to be perfectly honest.

But for 'real' press, PR and news photography you're going to want those fast zooms - a variable aperture zoom isn't going to cut it unfortunately: you'll find you very quickly run out of light...
 
specialman said:
Same here - got a 35mm gap between 50mm and 85mm, doesn't bother me in the slightest - I just move forward :D Think people get a bit hung up on gaps in lens line-ups, although I can totally see the point in the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 on FX to give seamless coverage
Click to expand...

I could too until I bought a 14-24 and found it to be utterly impractical for my line of work. I promptly sold it and resurrected my old 17-35, which still had some of Iraq embedded in it...lol
Thankfully, I have decent lens-servicing bloke an hour's drive away.
 
Arkady2 said:
I could too until I bought a 14-24 and found it to be utterly impractical for my line of work. I promptly sold it and resurrected my old 17-35, which still had some of Iraq embedded in it...lol
Thankfully, I have decent lens-servicing bloke an hour's drive away.
Click to expand...

Got to agree. 14-24 is a spectacularly good lens in its place. For this type of work, I'd use my 17-35mm/28-70/70-210, possibly leaving the 28-70 at home in favour of a lightweight prime 50/1.4
 
alrighty. thanks for your help guys. I think i'll start with a 35mm or 50mm prime and slowly work my way up. unless i can find a good deal on a tamron 17-50.
 
Arkady2 said:
Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 and Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8

Without those two you'll be stuffed.
Everything else is a 'nice to have' - those two are 'must have's'.

Never leave home without them.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct - on a DX body I used the Nikon 17-55mm and 80-200mm.
 
To expand on my earlier comment, I'm on DX like you and have a few different lens (more than my sig suggests) but the 70-200 is by far the most used - even if I just look at people and general shots.

The 24-70 I'm still not convinced about, its too short quite often for me (I'm talking about the natural dynamic of the distances you find yourself from people and comfort zones and personal space etc) and at the same time its always not wide enough. Its big and heavy too.

The Sigma 18-50 I haven't used for some time now. The length is good but the focus speed I personally feel is too slow for candid portrait work. I am sure the Nikon 17-55 is the answer, but I am loathe to buy it at the moment as am on the cusp of a new camera sometime in 2011 which might be FX... it just depends on what Nikon churn out. If it is FX then the 24-70 will be reborn :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top