Photojournalism Lens on the cheap?

I was wondering if any of you have a specific recommendation for a budget beginner's photojournalism lens. Here's a few things about what I am looking for:

I am about to start shooting for my school's newspaper, so I will probably be doing pictures of all types of events. That being said, all I have right now is a 50mm 1.8. I will ideally want a zoom lens, but one that goes down to as low of an angle as possible. This is because today I noticed that I really wish I had a wider angled lens, for things that are in closer proximity. Obviously the other end is that I want the zoom for the furthur things. IS is obviously a big plus, like the 17-85 (something I looked into).

But ideally the pricerange (For used, definitely) would be up to $500 (US). Are my requests reasonable? Do you have a good idea of a lens that fits these purposes?

Thanks for the help.

The 17-85 would certainly work....and is within that price range...the 28-135 might work too....but it is a little wide on a crop body camera....but the tele-end is sweet. Both can be found for less than 500 new...

tamron 28-300 plain and simple.

Another one I have been looking into is the Tamron 28-75.

Statement wrote in post #2033487
Another one I have been looking into is the Tamron 28-75.

That is certainly a very good lens. You want something wider? Then take a look at the Sigma 24-70. Also f/2.8 but a tack less sharp than the Tammy, it seems.

P.
PS. I am going to a wine tasting event in the afternoon. Of course I'll be taking pictures for our magazine "Ken Wijn". I am fairly sure I'll only need the Tammy. Good journalism style lens.

If you get a white lens, you'll look like a journalist. Don't think it will be quite practical for you though.

Statement wrote in post #2033487
Another one I have been looking into is the Tamron 28-75.

I'm also doing some photojournalism for my school sort of. I'm looking at buying a tamron 28-75, sigma 70-300 APO macro and nifty fifty. Later probably get a 10-2x for wide and even before that a 70-200L of some sort (hopefully 2.8 IS if I ever can afford it.)

Spend a little more and get the 17-40L. I use it all the time for most anything that doesn't require a telephoto. I have never really felt the need for f/2.8-- remember, with wide angle you can get away with much slower shutter speeds. I love this lens to death. To note-- I have a 28-105 lens as well, but I find its FL to be fairly useless on a 1.6 crop sensor. Working for my HS newspaper, I used the 28-105 (some, but in a frustrated manner), the 50/1.8, and a 135/2.8 SF. If you go for a cheaper wide zoom, then definatly think about picking up a 135/2.8 for $280ish-- it's a high quality lens in an inexpensive package.

http://img243.imagesha​ck.us/img243/9960/sew1​wz3.jpg Here's a good example-- 1/40 F/4 ISO800.
edit: just wanted to add-- if you shoot film with an EOS, then the 17-40 has a major advantage of the crop lenses in that you can shoot SUPERWIDE with your film camera.

sigma 17-70 should be under your budget.

Of course the photojournalism lens is the 28-300L. But that one is heavy, expensive, not suited for bad light conditions unless with flash. And not really inconspicuous.

P.

peterdoomen wrote in post #2033643
Of course the photojournalism lens is the 28-300L. But that one is heavy, expensive, not suited for bad light conditions unless with flash. And not really inconspicuous.

P.

I think you kinda ruled that out with the light conditions thing-- working well in crappy light is pretty much journalism requirement #1.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2033601
Spend a little more and get the 17-40L. I use it all the time for most anything that doesn't require a telephoto. I have never really felt the need for f/2.8-- remember, with wide angle you can get away with much slower shutter speeds. I love this lens to death. To note-- I have a 28-105 lens as well, but I find its FL to be fairly useless on a 1.6 crop sensor. Working for my HS newspaper, I used the 28-105 (some, but in a frustrated manner), the 50/1.8, and a 135/2.8 SF. If you go for a cheaper wide zoom, then definatly think about picking up a 135/2.8 for $280ish-- it's a high quality lens in an inexpensive package.

http://img243.imagesha​ck.us/img243/9960/sew1​wz3.jpg Here's a good example-- 1/40 F/4 ISO800.
edit: just wanted to add-- if you shoot film with an EOS, then the 17-40 has a major advantage of the crop lenses in that you can shoot SUPERWIDE with your film camera.

Just curious, what didn't you like about the 28-105 f3.5-4.5USM? I've read it is a really nice lens. Is it just not wide enough for your purposes?

Bosman wrote in post #2034316
Just curious, what didn't you like about the 28-105 f3.5-4.5USM? I've read it is a really nice lens. Is it just not wide enough for your purposes?

Yep, pretty much. It's great on a film camera, but having a widest angle of 44mm just wasn't any good for me. The other aspects of a 'consumer' zoom were irritating as well-- variable aperture being the big one.

If I was a photojournalist I'd want a fast lens and something in the range of 24-75mm (on my full-frame). This narrows it down to the 24-70mm L, and the 28-75mm Tamron f/2.8.

Well it seems the two highest supported are the 24-70L or the 28-75 tamron. I wish I could somehow try them both out.