Best telephoto option for SLR photojournalism?

Best telephoto option for SLR photojournalism?

  • 85mm (f/1.4, f/1.8, etc)

    Votes: 20 13.3%

  • 105mm (f/2, f/2.5)

    Votes: 25 16.7%

  • 135mm (f/2, f/2.8, etc)

    Votes: 16 10.7%

  • 180mm (f/2.8)

    Votes: 9 6.0%

  • 70-200mm

    Votes: 60 40.0%

  • 80-200mm

    Votes: 20 13.3%
  • Total voters
    150
tbarker13 said:
That Nikon 35-70/2.8 is just wonderful - particularly when you consider that you can find them for under $300.
About half the size of the 24-70/2.8. May not be quite as nice, but it is still a professional-level lens.
Click to expand...

I worked quite smoothly with a D700, D2xs, 20-35 2.8 (as mentioned), 35-70 2.8 and the 180 2.8.

A good budget lens kit that never left me wanting. All were sharp enough and never hiccuped being used day in day out.
 
Two bodies exactly the same one with 16-35 and the other with 80-200, 300mm on the shoulder (I'm a Canon shooter) those three lenses will do 99% of everything.
 
I have the one-ring "D" version, from about 1994 or so, which almost seems to be the "forgotten" version of this lens since the earlier non-"D" ones seem to pop up much more often. I get by the no-tripod-collar issue with an aftermarket collar from Kirk...But yes, its a wonderfully sharp lens. AF isn't as fast as an AFS (and there's no manual override) but it remains my favorite and most-used lens to this day.
Click to expand...

Good one:). The lack of a ring always put me off, but never bought one or the Kirk adapter. $150 seemed a little steep to me, but if you get a smoking deal on the lens, you could still be faaaar under the cost of the AS-F or the AF-D lens. Could be worth a look for the OP.
 
TaoPhoto said:
By the best lens for photojournalism, I think we need to define photojournalism a bit more. What I do, which is more documentary photography, is long-form photojournalism, and I find having a 28/2, 50/1.8, and 85/2 or 135/2.8 in my bag does just about everything I need to effectively tell a story.

If, on the other hand, we're talking hard news photojournalism, getting those great shots of today's building fire with a tight deadline, then a zoom is really the only way to go.

Still, too much of a case can be made for the long, huge white lenses. We're not shooting for National Geographic, after all (OK, maybe some of you are). I've shot a number of events with nothing but two primes and an OM4t, while other media photographers shot the same event with their giant lenses. By the time the photos are resized for online publication and posted to a site, there is little or no difference between mine and theirs. You'd be surprised how many photos on major media web pages were captured with iPhones and Blackberrys. Alex Majoli covered the Iraq war and other news events with nothing but a P&S. Editors just aren't that picky anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm shooting for a bi-weekly college publication currently, and looking to get the zoom for that job and other freelance work for the daily in my city. My longer term interest is documentary photography, so that's what has me gravitating toward the 105/135/180mm. My daily work will actually rarely require anything long-lens wise. Sorry, I should have clarified in my first post.

Adding the 35-70mm also sounds like a great idea for rounding out the kit. Then a 135mm for the longer stuff. Thank you!
 
tbarker13 said:
That Nikon 35-70/2.8 is just wonderful - particularly when you consider that you can find them for under $300.
About half the size of the 24-70/2.8. May not be quite as nice, but it is still a professional-level lens.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an excellent lens but unfortunately it is push-pull, and the 35mm setting is when it's fully extended. Nothing wrong with this in theory, but I use the wide end more than the tele end so I wish it were the other way around. And I'd prefer a two ring design. Still a great lens.
 
Depends. For digital at work, two Canon zooms, one short and either the 70-2whatever inside or the 100-400 for outdoor daylight sports. For my work with film, when I'm using an SLR Nikon MF kit of 28 2.8, 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 180 2.8 along with a couple of F3s with motors. Really old-fashioned, but durable and it works.
 
presspass said:
Depends. For digital at work, two Canon zooms, one short and either the 70-2whatever inside or the 100-400 for outdoor daylight sports. For my work with film, when I'm using an SLR Nikon MF kit of 28 2.8, 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 180 2.8 along with a couple of F3s with motors. Really old-fashioned, but durable and it works.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking my current kit could end up being my F100 with the wide zoom and midrange zoom, and my F4s with my 50mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/2.8.
 
I guess it depends on how much more reach you need?

70-200 may be too long?

Or do you need two overlapping zooms, 24-70 and 70-200 and give up the primes?

I guess it really depends on your shooting style.
 
Thank you again, everybody, for all your advice. I've decided to go with one of the more-recent versions of the 80-200 zoom for my PJ work, and the manual focus 135mm for my documentary work.

I will be posting my 20mm f/2.8 in the classifieds at the end of the week to fund the new zoom. Thanks, everyone!
 
emraphoto said:
70-200 is a staple. if money is a concern the 80-200 is a darn fine lens.

most of the time it's a two body 70/80-200 and 24-70'ish combo
Click to expand...

+1.

There's a reason working pro's almost always use this arrangement.

Zooms now, at least the quality ones, are good enough now to use wide open in low light, and as standard lenses. Me, my personal preference is small fast primes but often times (for reasons you mention) you need the flexibility only zooms offer.
 
I did a quick write-up on my site about mixing a Leica with 35mm f/2 and a Nikon SLR with 105mm f/2.5 for a political event.

I really liked that combo and I keep thinking about how I can achieve it digitally. Fuji X100 paired with my 5D and a Canon 100mm L?
 
How I work it is I have two canon DSLRs one with 70-200 2.8 or whatever and one with 16-35 2.8 and then I have my M9 with either 28 Summicron or 50 summilux, the M9 has taken over as my full frame body. If I'm doing a job where its all going to be long lens stuff then I will Have one Canon with 300mm 2.8 and the M9 with 90mm Summicron and the 28mm just in case I nees something wide. If its something important I will take 5dmk11 with 16-35 good in a scrum with 70-200 on a Canon Mk111 and 300mm on my other Canon Mk111 and the M9 stays at home!
Telephoto work I think you can't beat the 80-200 or 70-200etc, I still have a few Nikon f4s and I bought an old 70-210 f4 the two touch one which is very good considering it was less than £100.
 
I've been shooting when I'm sent out to do so with my 5D and a Tamron 28-75 and a 100-300 consumer zoom. It gets the job done, I'd prefer to have the 70-200 over my cheapie 100-300. Granted I'm a canon shooter, but the focal lengths are essentially the same deal. I'd like to grab a second body to stick a 70-200 on and the other for the 28-75 and call it a working combo. At the moment, it's one body and the 28-75 most of the time and a lens ready for a quick change in the midst of the action is how I work, not ideal, but it'll have to do for the time being.
With my paper's need for video I've considered something that does video as well, like the 7D -- but were not going there with this conversation now, are we?
 
I have a full-frame DSLR and a 1.6x crop DSLR in my bag with a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro II attached to either one. A 50mm f/1.8 II is in there too, mostly for emergencies should one of the other lenses fail or I need it for low light.

The Sigma is not doing it for me. I had the original version of that lens that I loved but it was replaced under warranty with the new Macro II version. Even the technician said to me over the phone that this new lens is not as sharp and to me it shows.

I have been thinking about replacing it with a Canon 135mm f/2 L, it would be lighter and I could really use the extra stop and tighter DOF. The convenience of the zoom has stopped me from doing it because I probably wouldn't keep both... I'd have to sell the Sigma to buy the Canon.

The X100 @ 35mm f/2 and the 5D with the 135mm f/2 is really an appealing kit to me.
 
I ended up buying a Nikon 300mm f/4.5 AI for $170, and used it yesterday to cover President Obama's Labor Day speech, alongside a borrowed Sigma 120-400mm and my Nikon 20-35mm. The 300mm worked out fantastically. Still going to get a shorter tele to go in between the 85 and the 300.
 
I voted 105, but consider the Nikon 105/1.8 AIS.

To me the added speed and being able to really isolate a subject that this lens affords over the 105/2.5. Also the 1.8 has more aperture blades than the 2.5 for smoother OOF and better bokeh. Sometimes there's nothing like a fast prime, especially because zooms didn't work for me.

At one time I had the 85/1.4 AIS, the 105/1.8 AIS and 105/2.5 AIS. I ended up keeping the 105/1.8 and selling the other two.

I also perfer shooting fast primes and often just carried only two cameras. I learned to make 35 and a 105 work for me, but sometimes I carried a 180/2.8 in the bag.

Cal
 
A fine choice a 300. I voted for the 180/2.8 as you did not have a 300 on the list. I think a prime is much better option than any zoom because of weight, speed and robustness. I have a 300/4.5 ED-IF version that I LOVE. Internal Focusing is much better IMHO, again less things to break and it just focuses faster. I'm a bit of a manual geek and all.

For something in between I might go fast 135 as 105 is just too close to 85 to be worth carrying.

B2
 
since I don't use zoom lenses I voted for the 85mm. Got the 1.4/85 Planar and it's very impressive.

A 180 isn't bad either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom