Photojournalism/ walk around lens

DeepSpring · Nov 29, 2006

So I'm looking for a good all around lens. Mainly for photojournalism and street type of stuff but also some portraits. The Canon [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=USA
seems to be the best I could find. It has a pretty good speed and it covers a nice focal distance. I know it might be stretching it a bit far but I think its ok. Does anyone have anything to say about this lens? Or reccomend something else around this price range $300 being about tops. Thank you
[/FONT]

Big Mike · Nov 29, 2006

You won't find much for $300. I'd stick with your 50mm F1.8

markc · Nov 29, 2006

Big Mike said:
You won't find much for $300. I'd stick with your 50mm F1.8

Ditto. A "normal" prime is the king of street.

DeepSpring · Nov 30, 2006

So you think just wait until I can afford a better prime?

markc · Nov 30, 2006

I think you are fine with what you have. I know it's tempting to buy new equipment to try and shake things up, but that rarely works for me personally. The 50mm/f1.4 does have nicer bokeh, so upgrading certainly isn't a bad thing. I don't think you *need* to though.

montresor · Nov 30, 2006

Agree with the others about the prime 1.8. I forget who it was, some big photo guy who, when asked, "What's the best wide-angle lens?" replied, "Two steps back."

Big Mike · Nov 30, 2006

DeepSpring said:
So you think just wait until I can afford a better prime?

I'd suggest you use your prime lens now...and if you want/need something more versatile...then wait till you can afford a better zoom lens. A good zoom lens will be hard to find for less than $500-$700.

Mohain · Nov 30, 2006

I've heard nothing but good things about the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. It seems to retail at $429 & B&H. I've heard it said it "should be in every photojournalists arsenal".

Michael Humle · Nov 30, 2006

To montresor...
NOW THAT'S FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don Simon · Nov 30, 2006

montresor said:
Agree with the others about the prime 1.8. I forget who it was, some big photo guy who, when asked, "What's the best wide-angle lens?" replied, "Two steps back."

Funny and to a large extent very true. However, sometimes attempting to take two steps back would mean walking into a wall or a river, i.e. it can't be done. IMO a decent wide-angle lens is incredibly useful if you do indoor photography, or shots of people where you want to include a reasonable amount of background (and it's easier to make a connection with the subject if you're closer to them). This is particularly true with APS-sized digital sensors, since the coverage of a 28mm becomes equivalent to a 42/44mm... that really isn't wide-angle. I used 35mm lenses on film for years and never considered it a particularly wide focal length.
Put it this way... if a wide-angle lens doesn't get you close enough you can still crop and enlarge what's already in the image, but if you couldn't actually get the subject in the frame then there's not a lot you can do about that. Also, what's the best telephoto? Two steps forward

As for the original question, I see from your sig you already have a 50mm prime and a 28-90mm. I honestly can't see that an extra 15mm on the long end and a max aperture of f/3.5-f4.5 instead of f/4-5.6 is really going to make enough difference to justify the money spent. If you feel the field of view with the 50mm is either too narrow or too wide, doesn't get you close enough etc, look for a prime or zoom that covers a wider angle or longer telephoto accordingly, but I simply can't see the difference between a 28-90 and a slightly faster 28-105 being worth the money.

markc · Nov 30, 2006

And while amusing, the "two steps" doesn't address the fact that different focal lengths look different, they don't just get you closer to the subject.

DeepSpring · Nov 30, 2006

I know what I have and this are similiar but what I have is the kit lens and I don't like it very much. It just seems sort of cheap and the focusing would be better with a USM and I also like the scale

Alex_B · Nov 30, 2006

montresor said:
Agree with the others about the prime 1.8. I forget who it was, some big photo guy who, when asked, "What's the best wide-angle lens?" replied, "Two steps back."

but he was wrong as two steps back means different perspective

I love my 17 mm ...

Alex_B · Nov 30, 2006

Mohain said:
I've heard nothing but good things about the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. It seems to retail at $429 & B&H. I've heard it said it "should be in every photojournalists arsenal".

That IS a very good lens, but it is rather large and heavy. Also the filter diameter of 82mm does not really make filters cheap.

I just sold mine on eBay as I upgraded. But in that price range the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is unbeaten I would say.