Zoom or Prime?

So, I'm trying to get a job as a freelancer with a local rag, and as you can see from my sig, I have an EX f/2.8 18-50, and a 85mm f/1.8, but (if I get the gig) I'll need a longer focal length. They cover quite a variety of events, including local football (soccer) games, social events, polical things, and fundraisers. Would I be better off getting something like the 70-200 f/4L (don't want to need a monopod, or tripod), or a 200mm f/2.8 prime? I can't justify the price, or weight of a 2.8 (Sigma or Canon).

Any advice from people doing similar stuff?

Cheers

I'm reading comments like: I want to do it all with few lenses. That says zoom to me.

Well, the way I see it, I could get a fantastically sharp, and faster prime (and be slightly screwed if I need anything between 85mm and 200mm), or I could get the flexibility of a zoom, albeit with a slower aperture - although, since they're for a paper, and their website, I guess the images can get noisy, so cranking up the ISO isn't a huge problem. Also, since I don't have a second body, I need to have as few lens changes as possible.

I think you need the zoom, but I think you should think seriously about trying to get the f/2.8. It costs more, but you're likely to find you need the speed even with higher ISO available. I also think you should find yourself another body. If your only body fails when you're on assignment, you're going to be dead. Even another (used) 10D or 300D. I think I'd get the second body and really skimp on a lens if necessary. But having enough gear that they can be assured you'll be able to get the shot is going to be important to them.

That's a fair point Jon - a second body is something I was slightly worried about, and I take your point about the 2.8 - I guess the thing I'm most worried about, is splashing out money on a decent lens, and then only getting one assignment dished out to me - although I guess, buying secondhand means I can sell secondhand, and shouldn't lose too much overall.

Newspaper resolution sucks so a lower cost alternative lens wise should not be apparent in print, of course we all want the best regardless of what we really need.

If the f2.8s are out of the question, then you are looking at the 70200f4 or the new 70300IS. The latter's AF isn't as fast as the L, but it isn't dog slow either. It is probably fast enough for most of your shooting. The IS will come in handy too in many cases.

So could I get a cheap and (relatively) nasty 70-210 type lens? I guess my other worry is not looking like an amateur making it up as I go along - e.g. if a photo geek sees what glass I have on my camera as I'm shooting. . . Yes, part of it is ego, but if I really can get away with a cheap and nasty lens to start with, then it will allow me to get a feel for what focal lengths I get most jobs for.

By the way this is not as a main job - it's being on a list of photogs, and getting jobs dished out every so often - not that it makes it any less important for me to get the right shot on the job!

I did look at the 70-300, because I like the IS - but it's really expensive - more so than the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

Have a look at the sigma 70-200 2.8

If you're going to by hoping to do this for a living, then you really need to invest in some gear. You'll need a second body for sure

Any papers exc will expect you to have the right tools for the job. I know they say a fool and their money are soon parted, but sometimes you have to spend money to make it

Sean, I am inclined to agree with you. I'm not sure how to play it, because I have had an email back saying that they'll keep my details on file, and if a suitable job comes up contact me, so I can't really ask for feedback as to why I haven't got the job.

I guess I'll leave it a few weeks, and if I don't hear anything, then I can chase them up.

Although it still leaves me wondering about the lens / body question - a secondhand 10D will cost as much as a secondhand 70-200 f/4L, so maybe I could try to pick up a 300D, and a cheapo 70-210 type lens to start with, and take it from there?

goatee wrote:
I did look at the 70-300, because I like the IS - but it's really expensive - more so than the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

You might have been looking at the DO IS, not the new 70-300 IS introduced last October. The new one, at least in the US, is priced about the same as the 70-200 f/4 L, and a couple of hundred less than the Sigma.

Ooh - now that sounds more promising. I'm sure there are optical differences between them, but can't imagine they'd be critical for photos for a paper.

We aim to please!

When you say local rag I guess you mean newspaperIf that is the case I would go for a half decent zoom,lets face it they only print on crappy paper.I was talking to a local newspaper photographer and all he was using was a nikon 1Dh and a zoom and shot Jpegs.