Photojournalism Lens Ideas

Im looking to get into the photojournalism field, and my school loan check came today. Rent, utilities, books... its supposed to go for things I need. Well, being the photo editor for the school paper I NEED a new lens. I was looking at the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. I have a budget of around $1500. Ideas, thoughts? Possible primes instead?

At 200mm you'll really want IS, especially if you plan to use it low light. The 2.8 IS might come in used within your budget. Check the sell forum.

I don't think a tele will be good for your job. IMO, sometimes a tele is too tight for some venue. Telling story around the subject is part of the photojournalism as well. 24-70 f/2.8 MK I or the 24-105L will be my pick,they are both versatile and fit your budget.

If you are going the prime route, since you shoot crop....I will go for a 35L or a sigma 30mm f/1.4

I started my PJ career with a 135 f/2. Depending on what your main coverage is, you might be able to get by with the 17-55 f/2.8 and 100 f/2 combo. It's well under your budget.

James Natchwey, arguably the best photojournalist ever, said "if your images aren't good enough get closer." I would look into a 17-40mm F/4 especially considering the 1.6x crop factor. You could probably get that plus a 28mm F/1.8 and your 50mm F/1.8. All for about the same price as the 70-200. What will you be shooting mostly? Also does your department have any gear that you can use?

tylerpaulphoto wrote in post #14048241
James Natchwey, arguably the best photojournalist ever, said "if your images aren't good enough get closer." I would look into a 17-40mm F/4 especially considering the 1.6x crop factor. You could probably get that plus a 28mm F/1.8 and your 50mm F/1.8. All for about the same price as the 70-200. What will you be shooting mostly? Also does your department have any gear that you can use?

I would suggest the 17-55 IS over the 17-40. An extra stop faster, slightly longer range..and IS. Just remember Shawn, it doesn't have to be an L-series lens to get top-notch shots.. or even Canon, for that matter.

tylerpaulphoto wrote in post #14048241
What will you be shooting mostly? Also does your department have any gear that you can use?

I dont have a specialty right now, im picking up a few freelance jobs for a website called Patch.com. I've covered everything so far from the Polar Bear Plunge, to municipal meetings. I was looking for a telephoto because sometimes it is as close as I would be able to get, but I did want to get a wide angle too. And they don't provide for us, all my own gear right now.

1Tanker wrote in post #14048270
I would suggest the 17-55 IS over the 17-40. An extra stop faster, slightly longer range..and IS. Just remember Shawn, it doesn't have to be an L-series lens to get top-notch shots.. or even Canon, for that matter.

I was going to look into Tamron and Sigma as well.

I would get a 17-55 or the Sigma equivalent. I like f/2.8 constant aperture and full time manual focus.

I would then look at the 35/2 (Canon USA refurb for $235). That'll get you close to the classic 50mm 35mm equivalent focal length on a crop sensor.

A 50/1.4 for fast short tele or 85/1.8 are other ideas.

If you need a telephoto zoom, I'd look into the inexpensive 55-250. A 70-200/4L non-IS would also be tempting.

So, you're planning to subsist on Ramen for the next semester or two, huh? (Been there, done that.)

A 70-200/2.8 is a very popular lens for photojournalism, no doubt about it. I would recommend a stabilized version, though, if at all possible. Especially when using it on crop cameras such as yours.

If it has to be a 70-200, you might consider more affordable third party lenses instead of Canon. I know a lot of people who started out with a Sigma or other brand, then when they could more afford it upgraded to OEM.

Or look for a used Canon 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I"... There are folks selling them off when they upgrade to the newer Mark II. The Mark I is still a very good lens.

Have you ever used a 70-200/2.8? It's a big, heavy lens.

Since you have a flash, you might be able to get by with the 70-200/4 instead.

However, another thought. I see your only other lenses are 18-55 IS and 28-135 IS. The latter is a decent lens with fast AF and IS. There really isn't all that much difference between 135mm and 200mm. You could just get closer. The biggest "problems" with the 28-135 are that it's not very wide and it's an f3.5-5.6 lens... but, again, you already have a flash. The Canon 70-200s are better built than the 28-135, too. But it's a capable lens with pretty good reach.

If you really need more reach than the 28-135 offers, a prime you might consider the 200/2.8L. It's a super lens and a lot cheaper than most of the 70-200s. Smaller and less intrusive, too. The downside, it's not stabilized.

Going one of the cheaper routes, perhaps you also could afford the ultrawide you're wanting. I might suggest a used Tokina 12-24/4, instead of a new Sigma 10-20, though (okay, I'm biased). I've seen the first version sell for $400 used and it's a well made lens with decent image quality. Pair a 10-20 or 12-24 up with the 28-135 and with just those two you'll have more focal lengths covered than many film shooters ever owned in their entire lifetimes, back in the days of 35mm cameras.

Then you can sell the 18-55 and get that 50/1.8 to have a faster portrait prime, too. Or, if you've been frugal enough elsewhere and budget allows, get a 50/1.4 instead.... It's a better built lens that will hold up better to regular use, with faster, more accurate AF and some subtle but nice improvements in image quality as well.

A fairly fast "standard" prime on APS-C, such as a 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4, might be another lens to put on your planning list. But you could cover your range with zooms for now, add primes as you can.

Shop used and refurbs, to make your money stretch as far as possible.

amfoto1 wrote in post #14049120
So, you're planning to subsist on Ramen for the next semester or two, huh? (Been there, done that.)

A 70-200/2.8 is a very popular lens for photojournalism, no doubt about it. I would recommend a stabilized version, though, if at all possible. Especially when using it on crop cameras such as yours.

If it has to be a 70-200, you might consider more affordable third party lenses instead of Canon. I know a lot of people who started out with a Sigma or other brand, then when they could more afford it upgraded to OEM.

Or look for a used Canon 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I"... There are folks selling them off when they upgrade to the newer Mark II. The Mark I is still a very good lens.

Have you ever used a 70-200/2.8? It's a big, heavy lens.

Since you have a flash, you might be able to get by with the 70-200/4 instead.

However, another thought. I see your only other lenses are 18-55 IS and 28-135 IS. The latter is a decent lens with fast AF and IS. There really isn't all that much difference between 135mm and 200mm. You could just get closer. The biggest "problems" with the 28-135 are that it's not very wide and it's an f3.5-5.6 lens... but, again, you already have a flash. The Canon 70-200s are better built than the 28-135, too. But it's a capable lens with pretty good reach.

If you really need more reach than the 28-135 offers, a prime you might consider the 200/2.8L. It's a super lens and a lot cheaper than most of the 70-200s. Smaller and less intrusive, too. The downside, it's not stabilized.

Going one of the cheaper routes, perhaps you also could afford the ultrawide you're wanting. I might suggest a used Tokina 12-24/4, instead of a new Sigma 10-20, though (okay, I'm biased). I've seen the first version sell for $400 used and it's a well made lens with decent image quality. Pair a 10-20 or 12-24 up with the 28-135 and with just those two you'll have more focal lengths covered than many film shooters ever owned in their entire lifetimes, back in the days of 35mm cameras.

Then you can sell the 18-55 and get that 50/1.8 to have a faster portrait prime, too. Or, if you've been frugal enough elsewhere and budget allows, get a 50/1.4 instead.... It's a better built lens that will hold up better to regular use, with faster, more accurate AF and some subtle but nice improvements in image quality as well.

A fairly fast "standard" prime on APS-C, such as a 28/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4, might be another lens to put on your planning list. But you could cover your range with zooms for now, add primes as you can.

Shop used and refurbs, to make your money stretch as far as possible.

Already got the ramen covered, and mac and cheese was on sale 10 for $10. Id call that a win.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

tylerpaulphoto wrote in post #14048241
James Natchwey, arguably the best photojournalist ever, said "if your images aren't good enough get closer."

Wasn't it Robert Capa who said that?

tylerpaulphoto wrote in post #14048241
James Natchwey, arguably the best photojournalist ever, said "if your images aren't good enough get closer."

agphotography wrote in post #14056975
Wasn't it Robert Capa who said that?

Yeah, it was Robert Capa, and the quote was: "if you're pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough".

And a 17-40, 28mm and 50mm lens kit would be pointless overlap. Journalists need versatility in focal lengths. Even Mr. Nachtwey uses zooms now.

i'm currently in a photoj program and in terms of equipment, you will need versatility. Different events you cover will require a variety of choices. As a starter, the 24-70 or the 24-105 are your first best choices. Many would argue that fast lenses are needed in photoj work but that's a question up to the user if they need that extra stop or not.

Honestly given your current two lenses and their focal lengths, you could go to a 70-200mm 2.8 IS and have your bases covered with no gaps.

The 70-200mm is a workhorse and will give you brilliant photos.

I have had a whole host of the "Under $2k" L lenses including one of the best walk around lenses yet, the 24-105mm and even then the best for PJ would be the 70-200mm 2.8 IS IMO.

As long as you take care of your new2you lens you should be able to resell it with no or minimal loss.
So if you find yourself not liking the 70-200mm 2.8 IS as much as you though well then you can sell it and at that point you will know what focal length you need.



Good luck.

So I wound up expanding my budget to $2200 after a week of work and not spending a penny, and selling my Rebel, and after much thought and deliberation, heres what I came to and got:

Sigma 30 f/1.4
Canon 17-55 f/2.8
Canon 70-200 f/4 (non-is) - between my flash and tripod I should be alright for now

I sold my Rebel with the kit lens and some extras, and picked up a second body:

Canon 1Ds Mark II

Thoughts? Ideas for future upgrades?