jaredangle
Photojournalist
I've been having issues with my 85mm when it comes to event photojournalism, specifically being too long in the midst of a crowd, but far too short when it's necessary to pick out an important individual. I've been using the 135mm f/2 for Nikon on occasion (borrowed), but it's getting about time to get my own. What's the most popular focal length this type of work, specifically large events during daytime?
emraphoto
Veteran
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
most of the time it's a two body 70/80-200 and 24-70'ish combo
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
+1.
I prefer primes shooting for myself, but when it's for work you just can't beat the flexibility of quality zooms.
gavinlg
Veteran
Without a doubt when you need to get the right shots, the 70-200mm is THE lens to have. The older nikkor 80-200mm is much the same, just a little older.
tlitody
Well-known
There's a new 24-120 F4G VR lens that would cover most everything except the really long stuff.
Not that I've ever used one but was reading up on the Nikon lenses and it would seem to cover all the common lengths pretty well without losing speed at the longer lengths.
Not that I've ever used one but was reading up on the Nikon lenses and it would seem to cover all the common lengths pretty well without losing speed at the longer lengths.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
I voted for the 70-200 - assuming money is no object. It's really an easy answer. Great optics and versatility. I can't imagine picking one of the other options - unless money is a consideration.
In that case, I'd go for the 80-200. Half the price. But still a fantastic lens.
That's actually the switch I just made - from one of Nikon's 70-200VRs for an older 80-200/2.8. For my purposes, it will do 99 percent the same thing. And I can live without that 1 percent.
In that case, I'd go for the 80-200. Half the price. But still a fantastic lens.
That's actually the switch I just made - from one of Nikon's 70-200VRs for an older 80-200/2.8. For my purposes, it will do 99 percent the same thing. And I can live without that 1 percent.
jaredangle
Photojournalist
The 70-200mm isn't affordable for me right now, but the 80-200 is close. Which version is the most current, by the way?
Aside from the 80-200mm, I'm probably also going to supplement it with either the 105mm or the 135mm, most likely the manual focus 135mm f/2.8.
Aside from the 80-200mm, I'm probably also going to supplement it with either the 105mm or the 135mm, most likely the manual focus 135mm f/2.8.
Bobbo
Well-known
When I was actively shooting for work, it was a Nikkor 80-200 AF-S on a D1h. Since my company is cheap and won't fund diddly squat for equipment, I bought my own (had it from college). I sold it when I started sitting behind a desk every day. Our sports guys (unfortunately) are stuck with a 70-300 cheapo Canon zoom, until one bough a Sigma 70-200/2.8.
It used to be a 105/2.5 and a 300mm lens (like, before I was born). Now, it's all about 70 or 80-200mm/2.8 lenses. There is no substitute. Anything cheaper is too fragile and not fast enough, even outdoors. Anything more expensive is... well, too expensive
. Also too heavy.
The most modern lenses are the 2-touch (i.e.: a zoom ring) 80-200mm lenses. They also have tripod mounts. The AF on the AF-D lens isn't horrible, but the AF-S is a bit faster. 6 to 1, half a dozen to the other.
Don't bother with a MF lens or a prime. You're just duplicating what you would already have. None of the primes you would consider in addition will add any real light-gathering ability.
It used to be a 105/2.5 and a 300mm lens (like, before I was born). Now, it's all about 70 or 80-200mm/2.8 lenses. There is no substitute. Anything cheaper is too fragile and not fast enough, even outdoors. Anything more expensive is... well, too expensive
. Also too heavy.The most modern lenses are the 2-touch (i.e.: a zoom ring) 80-200mm lenses. They also have tripod mounts. The AF on the AF-D lens isn't horrible, but the AF-S is a bit faster. 6 to 1, half a dozen to the other.
Don't bother with a MF lens or a prime. You're just duplicating what you would already have. None of the primes you would consider in addition will add any real light-gathering ability.
Last edited:
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
If you are looking for a budget zoom how about the old Nikon 70-210 F4 AF or the new Tamron 70-200 F2.8.
Bob
Bob
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I've said it before and I'll say it again...my favorite lens is the Nikon 180mm 2.8 AF
Bill Kapinski
Established
I voted for the 135, I have it and an 85 and a 70-200 f4 and 2.8 When I am shooting my weddings I have the 85 and 135 on me especially when I am inside. 85 is great, but people know you are there and they act differently. With the 135 it lets me isolate and I am far enough away they usually don't notice me. I go with this combo for the weight savings and the extra speed (and primes are always nice) It is also a lot more lo key, Canon's white 70-200 screams "look at me". Shlep a 70-200 all day on a pro body and you will be doing the ibuprofen later.
squinza
Established
My option is 135/2 for Canon, really an outstanding lens, fast and bokeh-licious.
I don't really like the 70-200 f/2.8 option, too big and heavy for my taste.
I don't really like the 70-200 f/2.8 option, too big and heavy for my taste.
rbsinto
Well-known
For me it is one of three lenses depending on which bag of equipment I grab:
With the SLRs it is either a zoom-Nikkor 80~200 2.8 ED AIS or (more often these days just because it weighs less than the Nikkor) a Tokina ATX 80~200 2.8 AIS.
With the rangefinders, I also carry a motorized F with a Nikkor 180 2.8 ED AIS for extra reach.
The zooms and the prime are all excellent manual focus lenses, and while I like their versatility, I actually prefer the 180, which is among my very favorites.
With the SLRs it is either a zoom-Nikkor 80~200 2.8 ED AIS or (more often these days just because it weighs less than the Nikkor) a Tokina ATX 80~200 2.8 AIS.
With the rangefinders, I also carry a motorized F with a Nikkor 180 2.8 ED AIS for extra reach.
The zooms and the prime are all excellent manual focus lenses, and while I like their versatility, I actually prefer the 180, which is among my very favorites.
Last edited:
Pablito
coco frío
love prime lenses but the flexibility of the zoom is very useful in journalism, I'd say essential today. Also 2.8. And by the way, that Tokina is quite good in AF too
TaoPhoto
Documentary Photographer
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.
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.
Pablito
coco frío
Well, he said "event photojournalism"
Ronald M
Veteran
70 or 80 to 200 2.8 zoom.
Avoid variable aperture lens as they get slow when extended, exactly where you need the speed.
For newspaper work, the crop tool is wonderful, shortcut is C.
For fine art, get the right lens.
Avoid variable aperture lens as they get slow when extended, exactly where you need the speed.
For newspaper work, the crop tool is wonderful, shortcut is C.
For fine art, get the right lens.
Steve M.
Veteran
I agree, go w/ an older (and cheaper) 80 200 ED zoom, which is as sharp as the Nikon primes. It's a beast, but it's 2.8 too, and when I shot Nikons I was always very happy w/ the image quality of my 80 200. For the closer shots, get a 35 70 2.8 zoom. That's the advantage of an SLR, the fact that they make outstanding zooms for them, and I don't think you need to go to the uber expensive ones. $1000 should get you the older 80 200 and the 35 70 lenses, and their IQ is just great.
Last edited:
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
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.
About half the size of the 24-70/2.8. May not be quite as nice, but it is still a professional-level lens.
css9450
Veteran
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, which also makes it VERY handy if I have to hand-hold it. However, Kirk has since changed the design of their collar and I haven't had a chance to check out their new one. 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. Something to consider if the 70-200 is too pricy.