Sigh Another Lens Question

danpclements · May 4, 2007

For starting out in photojournalism and trying to build a portfolio, what do yall think would be better: Canon 24-70 F/2.8L OR Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 and Sigma 70-200 F/2.8. I don't know if I should want the best glass I can, or get two lenses to cover more situations. At the moment, I'm leaning toward getting the two sigma's but would like input from people with more experience.

Seefutlung · May 4, 2007

You will find that most all "Pro" level lenses from Canon, Nikon, Tokina, Tamron and Sigma all have similar resolving power. What difference there is in sharpness between these usually is insignificant.

As a former photojournalist I would opt for the Canon because of the beating your equipment takes from shooting everyday in all types of environments. But then again, when I was working the company supplied most of the equipment.

If you're buying the equipment yourself ... and working on a portfolio (string book), get the Sigmas. They will focus just a tad slower than the Canons (may make a very slight difference for sports and fast action shots ... but probably not significant) and you probably won't be in real tough situations where the higher build quality of a Canon L is important. If you are using an APS-C sized sensor, don't get the 24-70, on a APS-C it's an odd range. I usually shoot at one end of the zoom or the other ... so I'd use the 10-22 for the wide stuff and the 70-200 for the longer shots ... these lenses covered both ends of the 24-70 and gave me more range. Now that I have a FF camera ... the 24-70 is no longer dusty.

Gary

Big Mike · May 4, 2007

I would agree with that. The Canon is slightly better but it's also built tougher. However, the value of the two sigmas is pretty good, so you could really stretch your dollars.

danpclements · May 4, 2007

Anyone else? Should this be moved to Photojournalism section?

Big Mike · May 6, 2007

This is right section to ask the question...but it's not really a question that other people can answer for you. A good photojournalist will use a lens that is appropriate to the task at hand. Also, the lens that is best for you, depends on your style of shooting.

EOS_JD · May 6, 2007

One thing to considert is that the Canon lenses are weather resistant. If using a weather resistant camera, it makes sense to buy the better Canon lenses. The Sigma 24-70 f2.8 is a good lens for the money, as is the Sigma 70-200 f2.8

JIP · May 7, 2007

I am always a proponent of sticking with branded lenses so I would stick with the Canon but realize you will find out very soon that you absouloutley need the 70-200 and the 24-70. A suggestion I might make is to use a kit wide-angle lens if you have one to start out and get a fast 70-200 Canon and get the fast wide later.

danpclements · May 9, 2007

Will it be fine to take portraits with at 70-200? My friend's family wants me to shoot their son's senior picture, and I believe that this lens will work fine, but not sure if I should go wider? if not, i'll be getting the 70-200 and 50 f/1.8 until i can afford the 24-70 2.8L. I have a kit lens, 35-80mm f/4-5.6 and 75-300mm f/4-5.6

Mike_E · May 9, 2007

Put him under a tree and back up.

The 50mm f1.8 will do practically everything you need for portraits if you don't mind moving around a little. (you'll need wider for groups)

mike

EOS_JD · May 10, 2007

Another option is the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. Fantastic lens for the price. Sharp and fast zoom. Almost as good as the L and a lot cheaper.

fmw · May 10, 2007

I know people won't consider this helpful but I don't understand why people want to buy equipment without knowing why they want it and what they will do with it. If your photography is lacking something that a new lens will address, then you should know what is lacking and how the lens will address it. In other words it might make sense to use what you have and gain experience so that you will one day know what it lacking and how a lens might address it. I have many lenses. Each one has a purpose and was purchased with that purpose in mind. I don't think there is another good way to do it. Sorry, I know this isn't helpful in an immediate sense but I think it is worth considering.

Alex_B · May 10, 2007

fmw said:
I know people won't consider this helpful but I don't understand why people want to buy equipment without knowing why they want it and what they will do with it. If your photography is lacking something that a new lens will address, then you should know what is lacking and how the lens will address it. In other words it might make sense to use what you have and gain experience so that you will one day know what it lacking and how a lens might address it. I have many lenses. Each one has a purpose and was purchased with that purpose in mind. I don't think there is another good way to do it. Sorry, I know this isn't helpful in an immediate sense but I think it is worth considering.

well said and I do agree.

However, there are people who realise they have some money left over and want to play. so they wonder if a new lens could add some fun. I think this is legitimate as you might explore new ways in photography which you do not "need", but which are opened up for you by the purchase of a new lens.

but then I would really go for "play" lenses, like makro, or ultra wide angle, or fisheye,...

Alex_B · May 10, 2007

danpclements said:
For starting out in photojournalism and trying to build a portfolio, what do yall think would be better: Canon 24-70 F/2.8L OR Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 and Sigma 70-200 F/2.8. I don't know if I should want the best glass I can, or get two lenses to cover more situations. At the moment, I'm leaning toward getting the two sigma's but would like input from people with more experience.

I did own the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX whatever, and did like it. but later I sold it because of its limitations (CA and distortion and noise of the AF motor mainly). Still I think it is a nice lens and worth the money. You won't get perfection though.

For me, the AF motor noise was a problem in quiet places and with animals, and the CA and distortion most annoying with architectural shootings.

danpclements · May 10, 2007

fmw said:
I know people won't consider this helpful but I don't understand why people want to buy equipment without knowing why they want it and what they will do with it. If your photography is lacking something that a new lens will address, then you should know what is lacking and how the lens will address it. In other words it might make sense to use what you have and gain experience so that you will one day know what it lacking and how a lens might address it. I have many lenses. Each one has a purpose and was purchased with that purpose in mind. I don't think there is another good way to do it. Sorry, I know this isn't helpful in an immediate sense but I think it is worth considering.

Thing is, I know I NEED a 24-70 and 70-200, I'm just not sure what to get first, starting out in Photojournalism. I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with the 70-200 because I have a lot of opportunities to shoot sports, and it will obviously be much better to have that over the 24-70. I was just wondering about if other people have used the 70-200 for portraits, I figure if I get far enough away, I can get a better out-of-focus background than with a 24-70, but if I can get an even better out-of-focus background with the 50mm, I would end up using that. I will end up using both, because I will probably get both the 70-200 and 50mm and use my previous camera's kit lens for wider shots. That is were I'm at in the buying process, practically made my decision. Just wondering if anyone thinks it a mistake to skimp out on the 24-70mm and just get the 70-200.