Position:Home>Visual Arts> Good Lens For Photojournalism?
Question: Good Lens For Photojournalism!?
I was doing an internship at a newspaper and so I would like a lens that would allow me to produce some better candid shots!. I like the idea of carrying a wide angle lens for more close actions shots, such as the being in the fray of a concert, or the after party of a high school graduation!. Right now I use a Nikon D50 and a 35-70mm f2!.8 Nikkor lens!.
My first choice for a new piece of equipment was the 17-55mm f2!.8 Nikkor!. But, this is a DX lens and quite expensive!. I was also considering the 17-35mm f2!.8!. But this is even more expensive!.
Another option would be to buy something like a 20mm f2!.8 prime and a Nikon D80, which would give me two bodies (and a much needed upgrade!.) But would 20mm give me the distorted depth of field as say a 17mm!? Or should I go wider!?
The Tamron 17-50mm f2!.8 or Sigma 18-50mm f2!.8 looked great as well, but they do not offer the build quality I was looking for!.
So, what would be the best choice, in your opinion!? I'm open to suggestions!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Just when I was ready to face the withdrawal symptoms, Dr!. Sam lures me back into Yahoo! Answers!.!.!.
Here's a third vote for the Nikon 17-55 f/2!.8!.
A prime lens is nice when you don't mind imposing limitations on yourself for the sake of f-stops and art, but for photojournalism it's mildly retarded to deny yourself the flexibility of a zoom lens!. The 17-55 was *made* for weddings and photojournalism!.
(Note to Gwyn: Cartier-Bresson transitioned from photography to painting and drawing in the mid 70's!. I Iove his work - I have the books - but I wouldn't dare speculate what he'd be using these days!. Same for Weinogrand, Doisneau, and all those other great Leica wielding street photographers of yesteryear!.)
The Nikon 17-35mm!. This was designed as a landscape lens for 35mm film cameras!. It's sharper than the 17-55 when you stop them down to f/8, but the 17-35 doesn't impress at f/2!.8!. And as you note, 35mm at the long end severely limits it's usefulness as a standard zoom!.
The Tamron 17-50!. Great image quality!. It's right up there with the Nikon 17-55!. The Tamron's less intimidating form factor is even a good thing for candids!. However, it lacks the Nikon's AF speed and build quality!. (Weather-sealing and the ability to use your camera as a blunt weapon are welcome features if you intend to shoot at keg parties ;-) At around $500, it's a very attractive alternative - if budget is an issue I'd give it some more thought!.
I can't comment on the Sigma!.
The DX factor!. A legitimate concern if you're upgrading to the full-frame D3 in a year or two!. This is something that's gone though all of our minds, even before the D3 was announced!. For $1200, you want this lens to last a lifetime!. Here's the thing though: the 17-55mm is the best lens to to get the job done *now*!. If you're doing an internship and you want to go pro, or even if you're 'just' a serious amateur, get the right tools for the job!.
I'm pretty confident that the replacement model for the D300 will also have a DX sensor, so you should still get a good price for the 17-55 if you decide to sell it in a few years!. Or you could continue to use it yourself when you upgrade to a D200/ D300/ D400(!?)!.
I use a D200 and the 17-55 is on it 99% of the time!. My 50mm f/1!.4 only comes out of the camera bag in low light situations when f/2!.8 doesn't cut it (rarely) or when I want an extremely shallow depth of field!. For a while I considered adding an inconspicuous Sigma 30mm f/1!.4, but I couldn't see myself using it very much - not when I already have the 17-55!. And then I have a 70-210mm tele-zoom and a 55mm micro somewhere - I haven't used either of those in ages!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Henri Cartier-bresson shot 50mm - if it worked for him, it will probably work for you!.
So, find a Nikkor that's 35mm (plus the crop factor, it will be around 50mm)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Another vote for 50mm!.
It lets in tons of light and is incredibly versatile!. Other lenses are great, but I always start my kit with a good 50mm!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Ill give you my story!.
I bought my d200 with the 28-120mm lens, and i hated it!. So i bought a 28 and 50, since i learned on a film camera with lenses similar to those!. Then i bought a 17-55
Guess what lens i use 98% of the time now
In PJ work, its important to be flexible, and ready for anything!. With a 17-55 i have been able to get most any shot i need!. Minimal, acceptable distortion in the wide end and long end!.
In all other work I have a 70-210mm old school zoom lens, and a lens baby
Honestly thats all you need for most work!. I know the 17-55 is expensive and insanely heavy, but the quality you get SURPASSES that of any prime lens ive owned!.
The 3 party lenses (save for tokinas 12-24, which is just as good as nikons) bring up a lot of headaches, and having the best possible glass on your camera ensures consistent photographs!.
Check out the link below to get the scoop on practically any lens you can think of
http://www!.fredmiranda!.com/reviews/
Good luck, save up for that 17-55 though!. Worth every penny, ask anyone that has ever owned it
EDIT: Yea the 50 is great, but the crop factor on a Nikon digital makes it into an 85mm, a portrait lens, NOT a PJ lens for most purposes
To get the same effect, a 28mm is used now for the so called "normal view" a 50mm lens offers
http://www!.millhouse!.nl/digitalcropfacto!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
ES1, all I can say is that I have the 17-55 and it's often my "go to" lens!. It is very useful for events, so I imagine that it would be good for journalism!. I can understand your DX hestitation, but since you mention a D80, it may be quite some time before the need for a full format lens becomes a concern!.
Here's a shot of a building that I took from ground level, looking up!. There is induced distortion due to my severe angle of view, but you can examine it more closely to see if there is any lens distortion near the edges!. I think it holds up pretty well!. Not 100%, but 98% anyway!.
http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.
Ditto!.
http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.
22mm: http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.
17mm with some Photoshop distortion correction, because this is an extreme angle!.!.!.
http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.
19mm, but I think I corrected some keystoning!. Once again, I was on teh ground level looking up!. http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.
You can click on 17-55 in the list of tags to see about 30 samples!.
I'm very happy with the lens!. I hope I<3Ponies! answers this question, so I'll place a star on it!.
And of course you know that a 35mm prime would be your "normal" lens on the DX sensors!. You've got that covered in your 35-70 zoom, although the prime lens goes to f/1!.8, which is slightly faster!. It's a sharp lens!.
http://www!.flickr!.com/photos/samfeinstei!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com