pawel_baranski Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>What would be the best reportage lens? I'm considering tokina 11-16 2.8 but I'm afraid it may be too wide.<br> I'm talking about dx body, please keep that in mind before you recommend lens that is used for reportage on FX and would offer much narrower angle on DX.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Not only is 11-16 still quite wide on DX, the <em>range</em> of focal lengths is much, much too limited.<br /><br />On a DX body, for daily use out there as a PJ, I'd get a 17-55/2.8, and would look for a 70-200/2.8 as a companion for it. Something like a 30/1.4 for poor light and DoF control would appeal, too. But if I had to have <em>one</em>, it would be the 17-55/2.8.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_deerfield Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <blockquote> <p>What would be the best reportage lens?</p> </blockquote> <p>The one you have with you when you need to record an image. That said, If I could only have <em>one </em>lens, I might opt for the 24-120 f/4.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>A lot depends on your shooting style. The image below is at 85mm focal length and fits in with my person style. The second is at 65mm. The 24-120mm would, therefore, probably be my ideal lens with maybe a 35mm f1.8 for low light.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_hickie1 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>And the second one.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_narsuitus Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>The Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 DX has a great reputation as a photojournalist lens. This would be my first choice.</p> <p>However, even though they may not be “the best” reportage lens, here are a few others I would consider:</p> <p>Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 FX (if I need a lens that also worked well on an FX body)</p> <p>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 (a lot less expensive than the Nikon version)</p> <p>Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 DX (if I need an inexpensive lens that was likely to get lost, stolen, or damaged)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hooper1 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Another vote for the Nikon 17-55mm F2.8 DX. If you can't afford the Nikon 17-50mm f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX, you might consider the Tamron AF 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II VC which gets pretty good reviews, though, is not nearly as well made as the Nikon lens. </p> <h1></h1> <h1 ></h1> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_narsuitus Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>I would never attempt to cover all photo journal assignments with only one lens.</p> <p>I would, however, carry the following lenses:</p> <p>14-24mm f/2.8<br> 20-35mm f/2.8<br> 35-70mm f/2.8<br> 80-200mm f/2.8<br> optional 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4 for low light situations</p> <p>In my case, all are FX lenses because I need my lenses to also work on film bodies.</p> <p><a href=" <p> </p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_doldric Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>I have the Nikon 24-70 2.8 on my D7000. I use the 24-70 most of the time and I never find my range lacking in the wide end, just on the long end. These lenses are big and heavy and everyone warns of that, but you just don't understand until you have one of them. I personally would find 11-16 way way too wide if I were taking photos of people doing things, but it really depends on your shooting style and subject matter.</p> <p>That said for daily reportage type use I would not recommend the 24-70. It lacks VR and could use just a bit more range on the long end. It's fantastic and perfect for what I do, but I personally think 24-120 is a sweet spot of focal ranges even on DX.</p> <p>The VR of the 24-120 would be more useful for reporting type things because you most likely want more depth of field vs wide aperture. You won't be able to get as low light in terms of motion blur, but you'll be able to get more "average" type shots with F4 and VR than with 2.8 and no VR since you'll most likely have to shoot at F4 and above anyway if you have more than one person in focus.</p> <p>Constant aperture is also well worth it because you set it and it can stay the same regarless of focal length. Couple all that with a lens thats a lot lighter and you'll be able to carry it all day.</p> <p>If all that doesn't quite match with what you want, top shelf glass like the 17-55 f2.8 DX is also a great choice smaller than a 24-70 and wider, but again, for my usage I would get a 24-120 f4 for reporting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>If by "reportage," you mean what typical pjs do when working for news outlets, then what is almost always used is a 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 regardless of camera brand.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soeren_engelbrecht1 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 From the current line of Nikkors, and on DX, I'd probably go for a 24/2.8 for a "single lens solution". Buy then again, I'm a "small prime" kind of guy... And my preferred style is wide-ish angle (normally 28-35-45-50mm on FX) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richardsnow Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>If I'm working a job that I'm unsure of what I'll need I carry the following (on FX):<br> 24-70mm f/2.8 - Body #1<br> 70-200mm f/2.8 - Body #2<br> 35mm f/1.4 - Swap for low light/DOF wide - usually body #2, but this can vary<br> 85mm f/1.4 - Swap for low light/DOF short tele - usually body #1, but this can vary</p> <p>I rarely shoot wider than 24mm or longer than 200mm unless it's a sporting event and I can't get sideline access.</p> <p>RS</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>In Nikkors for FX dSLRs, pairing up the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR would be best.</p> <p>For DX dSLRs, there isn't an ideal combination in the current Nikkor lineup. The closest would be the 17-55/2.8 DX and 70-200/2.8 VR. But that leaves a significant gap. While I would have found the equivalent 28mm wide end wide enough, I'm judging by 1980s standards. But an ideal pairing for the DX format would be something like 16-50/2.8 and a 50-150/2.8. That's never going to happen in the Nikkor lineup because the professional world has moved on. Fortunately there are good alternatives among the better third party zooms.</p> <p>There are very limited situations where something like a 11-16/2.8 might be enough: crowded urban areas such as demonstrations; following law enforcement on patrol or raids; some street fairs, parades; some indoor events.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>17-50 and 50-150mm f2.8 on dx</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>the OP is specifically asking about DX. 11-16 is too wide, although 12-24 could work if you also have a tele lens. when i shoot PJ assignments it's 17-50/50-150 on DX and 24-70/70-200 on FX unless i know i will specifically want to go wide. the 12-24/50-150 combo is pretty wicked actually. sometimes i use the 70-200 on DX for the extra reach.</p> <p>it's possible to shoot PJ with just a prime but almost no one ever does it as their sole lens. if you can only get one lens i would get the 17-55 if u need the faster focussing speed for sports or fashion and the sigma 17-50/2.8 OS for everything else, especially stealthier shoots or all-day carry. in practical field use the 17-50 OS's HSM is 'fast enough' for news/editorial (with a D300s) although not as fast as the 50-150's HSM, or the 24-70 or 70-200's AF-S.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 <p>Yeah, 12-24mm f4 or 17-50mm f2.8 depending on your style...17mm may not be wide enough on occasions.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcnilssen Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>Depending on your definition of "reportage", I'd go for a 17-55. Or, if you think you may go FX in the future, 24-70. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kohanmike Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>For event and photojournalist type work I use two D300s bodies, one with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC, the other with a Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 (wish it was OS). Great combination on Dx and easy to carry around.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>As John N mentioned the 18-55mm 'in case of accidents', then I guess the 18-200mm is on the books for that extra 'reach' for the fleeing suspect or inconspicuous/candid portrait.</p> <p>It's a slow (aperture) lens with questionable IQ (for some) but that's a-lot of range in <strong><em>one</em></strong> piece of glass.... Just bump up the ISO for that reportage look.... ;-)</p> <p>You don't mention <em><strong>WHICH</strong></em> DX you're using? One of the more modern or semi-pro ones ie D300s/D7000 etc. shouldn't be too noisy and be able to focus OK.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ty_mickan Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>35mm, the all time classic</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawel_baranski Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>Well... i'm talking about pictures that take viewer inside, and also require me to get *inside*.<br> I rather be part of the action than taking pictures from distance, so i'm talking about lenses wider than 35mm.<br> I though that nikkor 12-24 2.8 is typical reportage lens for FX, which is almost equal to 11-16 on dx.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_halliwell Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>Now Ty, are you stirring? :-) </p> <p>Do you mean lenses that have the same FOV as a 35mm lens on a 35mm camera, aka FX or a 24mm lens on a DX camera?</p> <p>or maybe a 35mm lens on a DX having the same FOV as a <em>Classic Standard Lens</em> of ~ 50mm </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawel_baranski Posted January 19, 2012 Author Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>I mean 35 on dx camera, so 50 on fx. <br> I'm going to buy 35 1.8, 85 1.8 (this one for portrait), and one more wide angle lens. The only reasonable options seems 11-16 2.8 - which may be too wide, or 12-24 4.0 - which may be too dark. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerry_sousa Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <p>I too have the 11-16 Tokina, and it is too wide for reportage. May I recommend the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 manual focus lens? I have it and it spends a lot of time mated to the front of my Nikon cameras.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 <blockquote> <p>The only reasonable options seems 11-16 2.8 - which may be too wide, or 12-24 4.0 - which may be too dark.</p> </blockquote> <p>BINGO! The peril of DX imo</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now