Photojournalism Lenses

[OPTRICE]

If you had to chose between the 17-55mm 2.8 and 28-70mm 2.8 to go with a 70-200mm 2.8, which would you chose?

 

[lostprophet]

I'd go for the 70-200 2.8 as it would give you a chance to get shots when your a bit further away from the action, and that lens is as sharp as my wit

 

[OPTRICE]

Oh no, i mean i have the 70-200, I wanted to chose between 28-70 or the 17-55 as a midrange lens.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Get the 17-55 zoom. If you plan on doing PJ work, you will need the wide angle.

 

[itoncool]

go with 17-55.
the gap between 17 to 28 is huge, meanwhile between 55 to 70 is less noticeable.

 

[Snyder]

I agree in photojouranlism you need to get close to the action and a nice wide lense will help a great deal. Dont forget a notebook and pen. I enjoy using a 16mm fisheye sometimes, my standard lenses are 17-55 Nikkor 2.8 lense and 70-200 Nikkor 2.8 Vr and two D2X bodies.

 

[Digital Matt]

There is no 1 accepted style of photojournalism. Get the lens that allows you to take the photos that you want to take. Develop your own style.

 

[jstuedle]

For the little PJ work I do I carry a body w/35-70 2.8, a body w/80-200 2.8 and a 14 2.8 in a belt case. I usually have a 50 1.4 and maybe a 35 f2.0 in my pocket. But Matt is correct, to each his own. We each strive to develop a style, those who just copy others are destined to be left in the dust. BTW, if you do sports a 300 2.8 is handy.

 

[usayit]

For PJ, I rarely see a need for a long telephoto 70-200mm.. in fact.. it gets too distracting and you have a tendancy to step away from the action. This is all related to your signature
"If your pictures arnt good enough, you arnt close enough. -Robert Capa"

My personal choice in the Canon line would be the 16-35 f2.8L and/or the 24-105 f4L. Of the ones you listed, I'd go with the 17-55mm. I personally like shooting with the 35mm attached to a small rangefinder...

 

[OPTRICE]

Thanks for the comments guys, I really appreciate it. Im transferring from the 18-70 kit lens so the division was new to me. I'll probably go with the 17-55 since most of my photos are super wide.

 

[Bellphototcm]

17-55 sounds better. But the 24-105/4 L is the better choice maybe.

 

[Ockie]

im very happy with my 28-70...
I also have the 70-200

 

[OPTRICE]

If you had a choice, for sports, would you get a Canon 300 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8

 

[Alex_B]

If you had a choice, for sports, would you get a Canon 300 2.8 or Sigma 120-300 2.8

Depends on the sports ... if you require anything below 300mm, then the Sigma is the better option.
But from my experience, a telephoto lens is hardly ever too long when shooting sports. Often it is the details which make the shot, the faces, close action. if not, just step back

if you are talking about the Canon 300mm f/2.8 L, then keep in mind that it is probably the best 300mm you could get but be prepared to use a monopod

 

[sabbath999]

If you are talking about a Nikon, the 300mm f/2.8 VR is the best 300mm you can get, and you can forget about the monopod (unless you plan on shooting it for hours on end).