# Photojournalism Lenses



## OPTRICE (Sep 18, 2007)

If you had to chose between the 17-55mm 2.8 and 28-70mm 2.8 to go with a 70-200mm 2.8, which would you chose?


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 18, 2007)

I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 as it would give you a chance to get shots when your a bit further away from the action, and that lens is as sharp as my wit


----------



## OPTRICE (Sep 18, 2007)

Oh no, i mean i have the 70-200, I wanted to chose between 28-70 or the 17-55 as a midrange lens.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Sep 18, 2007)

Get the 17-55 zoom.  If you plan on doing PJ work, you will need the wide angle.


----------



## itoncool (Sep 18, 2007)

go with 17-55.
the gap between 17 to 28 is huge, meanwhile between 55 to 70 is less noticeable.


----------



## Snyder (Sep 18, 2007)

I agree in photojouranlism you need to get close to the action and a nice wide lense will help a great deal. Dont forget a notebook and pen. I enjoy using a 16mm fisheye sometimes, my standard lenses are 17-55 Nikkor 2.8 lense and 70-200 Nikkor 2.8 Vr and two D2X bodies.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 18, 2007)

There is no 1 accepted style of photojournalism.  Get the lens that allows you to take the photos that you want to take.  Develop your own style.


----------



## jstuedle (Sep 18, 2007)

For the little PJ work I do I carry a body w/35-70 2.8, a body w/80-200 2.8 and a 14 2.8 in a belt case. I usually have a 50 1.4 and maybe a 35 f2.0 in my pocket. But Matt is correct, to each his own. We each strive to develop a style, those who just copy others are destined to be left in the dust. BTW, if you do sports a 300 2.8 is handy.


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2007)

For PJ, I rarely see a need for a long telephoto 70-200mm.. in fact.. it gets too distracting and you have a tendancy to step away from the action.   This is all related to your signature 
"If your pictures arnt good enough, you arnt close enough. -Robert Capa"

My personal choice in the Canon line would be the 16-35 f2.8L and/or the 24-105 f4L.  Of the ones you listed, I'd go with the 17-55mm.  I personally like shooting with the 35mm attached to a small rangefinder...


----------



## OPTRICE (Sep 18, 2007)

Thanks for the comments guys, I really appreciate it. Im transferring from the 18-70 kit lens so the division was new to me. I'll probably go with the 17-55 since most of my photos are super wide.


----------



## Bellphototcm (Sep 23, 2007)

17-55 sounds better. But the 24-105/4 L is the better choice maybe.


----------



## Ockie (Sep 25, 2007)

im very happy with my 28-70...
I also have the 70-200


----------



## OPTRICE (Sep 25, 2007)

*If you had a choice, for sports, would you get a Canon 300 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8*


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 25, 2007)

OPTRICE said:


> *If you had a choice, for sports, would you get a Canon 300 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8*



Depends on the sports ... if you require anything below 300mm, then the Sigma is the better option.
But from my experience, a telephoto lens is hardly ever too long when shooting sports. Often it is the details which make the shot, the faces, close action. if not, just step back 

if you are talking about the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L, then keep in mind that it is probably the best 300mm you could get  but be prepared to use a monopod


----------



## sabbath999 (Sep 25, 2007)

If you are talking about a Nikon, the 300mm f/2.8 VR is the best 300mm you can get, and you can forget about the monopod (unless you plan on shooting it for hours on end).


----------



## subimatt (Sep 25, 2007)

1.6 crop - 17-55
FF - 24-70


----------



## Keith Gebhardt (Sep 25, 2007)

sabbath999 said:


> If you are talking about a Nikon, the 300mm f/2.8 VR is the best 300mm you can get, and you can forget about the monopod (unless you plan on shooting it for hours on end).


 

How do you figure that? Low light, slow shutter.. bound to have blur.

I shoot the 120-300 f/2.8 from sigma and i love it. For football i can stand sideline and get awsome shots of players. For soccer usually youd want 400-600mm, just throw on the 1.4 or 2x tele converter and you got 600mm at f/4.

not bad ehh. only $2600 compared to whats the 300 f/2.8.. liek $4000 or somthing?


----------



## usayit (Sep 25, 2007)

Keith Gebhardt said:


> How do you figure that? Low light, slow shutter.. bound to have blur.
> 
> I shoot the 120-300 f/2.8 from sigma and i love it. For football i can stand sideline and get awsome shots of players. For soccer usually youd want 400-600mm, just throw on the 1.4 or 2x tele converter and you got 600mm at f/4.
> 
> not bad ehh. only $2600 compared to whats the 300 f/2.8.. liek $4000 or somthing?



Man Keith.. for someone who hasn't even graduated from High School yet (class of 2009 according to your website).. you have a serious case of GAS (and perhaps wealthy parents).  (Gear Acquisition Syndrome for those not familiar with the term).

When Alex_B said "use a monopod", I believe he was referring to the weight of the Canon 300mm f2.8L IS... it is heavy. 

Say what every you want.. for pure image quality, I'd take the 300mm f2.8 canon anyday.



> If you are talking about a Nikon, the 300mm f/2.8 VR is the best 300mm you can get, and you can forget about the monopod (unless you plan on shooting it for hours on end).



Sabbath.. you did realize that your post doesn't really make sense... this is a Canon thread.  Unless you want to be guilty of sparking yet another Nikon versus Canon thread.  BTW.. the 300mm f2.8L has image stabilization as well....


----------



## GoM (Sep 25, 2007)

17-55

f/8 and be there.


----------



## Keith Gebhardt (Sep 25, 2007)

usayit.. i wasnt stating you should not use a monopod.. sabbath clearly said "you can forget about a monopod" and thats when i said "How do you figure that?"

I was not controdicting anything alex b had to say about the 300mm lense...at all!

Yes i might not be graduated from highschool yet.. your point? im sure i know just as much, or more about photography then alot of people on this site. Ive attended undergrad college level classes for photography and have been shooting since i was 8. Have worked for a couple media companies locally and have had some decent jobs. Yea im a youngster.. and im still learning.. and still gaining experience. Age or graduation has nothing to do with your skill levels. 

And on second though.. i take affense to "perhaps wealthy parents".. you realize how long and hard i had to work to beable to afford my gear?? I bought my camera and my 120-300 with my own money that i had saved up since i started selling lemonaid and cutting grass when i was about 6. I had to lifeguard for 4 years, wash cars at a dealership and work at a gym mopping the floors to pay for my ****. Maybe you should know somthing about someone before you make a slick little comment like that.


----------



## OPTRICE (Sep 26, 2007)

OOOOK i hear some hostility here. Keith, with the 120-300 at 120, can you get a shallow DOF? I getting into football and I figure, the more the range, the more area to get photos. Though the 300 would get much clearer photos... Price is wtber, Im taking a student loan for all my new gear anyways

O and BTW anyone use that Gary Fong Light Sphere? Any good?


----------



## usayit (Sep 26, 2007)

Even at a 120mm focal length @ f/2.8 you should be able to get the shallow DOF you are looking for.  

I've used the lightsphere.. it does work but no more or no less than other options that are far cheaper.  A diffuser on a flash held off camera with a off shoe cord should work wonderfully.  If you do a search, there are DIYselfers that have come up with some really great ideas... some cost pocket change.



OPTRICE said:


> Im taking a student loan for all my new gear anyways



grrr.. shouldn't student loans be used for school?  It is still a debt that you will have to pay off...  I'd highly recommend against accruing debt so early.  It is a wonderful thing when you graduate debt free.. trust me...

Any aspiring photographer must recognize the importance of education.  Coming out of high school affording and making it through college should be your number 1 concern.... not dropping thousands on a lens.

Robert Capa.. started out with far less.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 26, 2007)

just to clarify, yes, I was referring to the weight of the 300mm ... and even with lighter lenses like the 300mm f/4 a monopod is useful when you have to hold it horizontally for more than 1 hour


----------



## michael.josh (Sep 26, 2007)

17-55mm


----------



## OPTRICE (Sep 26, 2007)

usayit your right, student loans should be for school. Since im studying PhotoJ at school, it all goes together... 
Im probably gonna save money and just rent out the 300 2.8

Anyone ever played with one of these before?
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 27, 2007)

OPTRICE said:


> Anyone ever played with one of these before?
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030805sigma200500mm.asp




no, as I don't have any Sherpas to carry it around for me


----------



## Skyline (Oct 3, 2007)

another vote for 17-55  I love that lens!


----------



## LeftBehind (Oct 26, 2007)

Admittedly I love wide angle shots for almost everything. That includes Landscapes AND portraits. I rarely use the higher spectrum of my 18-55, but that's just my style. I often find myself wishing for more. I've taken very few photojournalism shots but they were always between 18 and 25.







http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs19/i/2007/278/a/9/Working_by_PossesedSmurf.jpg


That image, for example was taken at 18mm, and I wished I could go slightly wider. It's nice to be in the action, and it's nice to show as much context as possible, like this one where he's 'at work'. Furthermore, I would purchase the 10-20 and a 35mm prime, and a 50-200 for my crop of my 110D.

Your camera, however has a full frame sensor. I believe.... So i would recommend the 70-200 for zoom, the 50 f/1.8 for  'walk around' and the 10-20 for wide. Whichever fits your style is great. Remember, Sigma makes amazing glass too.


----------



## JIP (Nov 25, 2007)

Honestly there is a place for both lenses in your bag.


----------

