The Street Sweeper - lens/kit for news type stuff

[colda]

I read somewhere that the old 24-120 was popular amongst news type photographers because of it's wide range, of

course things change and I was just wondering what the 'ideal' news lens would now be

 

Looking at the press peeps that I shoot with, the 17-55/2.8 seems to be the stock lens, but this to me seems a bit

limited on the long end and it's approx FF equiv. of 26-82 really only replaces the standard mid range zoom. Yeah, I

know it's 2.8 pro stuff but in the world of fill flash, good high ISO perfomance and not forgetting the old press guy

motto of 'f8 and be there' is 2.8 really a requirement? - It seems to me that a lightweight zoom and a 50mm prime in

the pocket could well be a better solution.

 

There's the 16-85 which covers the 24-120 range perfectly but really, what advantage does this have over the 18-200?

Surely the extra range more than justifies the slight increase in size, there might be an IQ advantage for the 16-85

but we're not selling prints, it's all about just getting the shot.

 

So, for the modern day news bod, equipped with a small laptop and mobile broadband out the on the street getting

the images to the photodesk asap what would be the kit to use?

 

Just to set the ball rolling I'd suggest:

 

D300 (best DX around - see no advantage of FF in this case), 18-200 as mounted lens, SB-900, and a sigma 30/1.4

in one pocket and a P & S in another

[joe_a2]

I do not think an 18-200 would stand up, mechanically, to everyday professional use. The real

benefit of "2.8 pro stuff" is not so much it's slight aperture advantage, but it's construction. For what you're

describing, I'd use a D200/17-55 kit before I'd use the D300/18-200. If you're on some kind of budget, try a D200, a

35mm f/2.0D and an 85mm 1.8D.

 

By the way: "f/8 and be there" is a not-so-old 'landscape motto' made famous by the Galen Rowell.

[joe_a2]

The late Galen Rowell was what I was trying to type. More coffee, please.

[Matt Laur]

I guess it does all come down to how the images will be used. For a few-hundred-pixels-wide shot on a web site, or

something rendered only (ever) in newsprint, the minor softness that shows up at the long end of the 18-200 under

some circumstances is more than paid for by how easy it is to carry, relative to having the 17-55/2.8 AND the 70-

200/2.8 in your bag (and on your budget). The other consideration would be beat-up-ability. Neither the 16-85 or the

18-200 strike me as aimed at the rough and tumble every day PJ lifestyle. I say this as a happy occasional user of

the 18-200, which is terrific as a one-lens walk-around (the more so if you've got a body that doesn't have trouble at

higher ISOs).

[lex_jenkins]

I'd have been surprised to see a PJ using the old 24-120 routinely, if only because that lens was closer to the film era of photojournalism. It would have been a bit slow for most film, other than 800 color or b&w pushed. But the focal range would definitely be handy and even wide open it's probably sharp enough for newspaper reproduction.

 

But with dSLRs capable of adjusting ISOs on the fly, sure, the 24-120 VR would be useful for general purpose daylight and limited indoor use, especially with flash.

 

The 24-120 VR is tough enough. Not built to the "pro" standards expected by some folks, but hardly flimsy. Polycarbonate is tough stuff. And I never heard of one suffering from zoom creep, which might turn some PJs away from the 18-200 VR since a flopped out zoom would be more vulnerable.

 

24mm might not be wide enough for some situations commonly encountered by PJs, at least on a DX sensor dSLR. OTOH, when I was a journalist my widest lens was 35mm, roughly comparable to 24mm on a DX dSLR. The ultra-wide craze didn't really come along in daily use for many years and was popularized by and handful of PJs who used it effectively to capture crowd shots in riots and soldiers working in tight quarters. Most PJs played it smart and safe and used teles.

 

BTW, while Galen Rowell might have uttered the famous "f/8 and be there" phrase, as have we all, he didn't popularize it. That quote has been variously attributed over many decades. I heard it as a kid in the '60s-'70s.

[joe_a2]

Thanks Lex. It's always good to learn. Makes my hat size bigger.

[dan_brown4]

PJ=f2.8 zooms.

 

'nough said.

[josephwalsh]

It was the fedora wearing, cigar chomping, police radio listening, 4x5 Speed Graphic carrying, flashbulb popping, corpse shooting Weegee (Arthur Fellig) who said "f8 and be there." Probably in the late 40's.

Whether it was original to him, ...?

[dennis_oconnor4]

The old shooters did not expect to have to spell out every detail for you...

 

'F8 and be there', meant that you would have a #5 bulb and fresh batteries in your speedlight and Press ID in your hat band..

 

denny

[ellis_vener_photography]

two D300s , one with the 17-55mm f/2.8G and the other with the 70-200mm f/2.8 G (hopefully Niko nwill update both lenses soon with the new Nano Crystal Coating). I concur about an SB-900 but an SB-800 works well too. The 30mm f/1.4 and a Nikon 85mm f1.8D are good lenses to have in the pocket for ultra-low light work.

[craig_shearman1]

I used to be a newspaper photographer and currently work on/around Capitol Hill in PR. Before digital, the typical combo was something around 16-35, 24 or 35 to 70 or 80, and a 70-200 or 80-200. With digital it's shifted more toward a 12-24 or 14-24, a 24-70 or so, and still either ther70-200/80-200. Also a teleconverter (both with film and digital) and maybe a 300-400 kept handy if not in the bag. Nothing slower than 2.8 (which is why the 2.8 14-24 Nikon beats the 4.0 12-24) except for mabye the 300/400. Lens speed isn't just a matter of shooting wide open but rather having enough light to focus either MF or AF and to see through the viewfinder what you're shooting. As for focal lengths, you need something as wide as possible for when you're crammed into a tight shooting situation, either up front at a news conference/stakeout or working a crowded meeting/cocktail reception/event. The 80-200 is for the average news conference situation where you might be shooting from the back of a small/medium room and the 300/400 (plus teleconverter if necessary) for when you're even further back.

[niccoury]

As a professional PJ currently, I'll chime in. Mind you, I do shoot for a weekly newspaper, but my workload is consistently full.

 

My set-up consists of a D2H, 17-55 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 85 f/1.8 (portraits), 60 AF-s (food and other detail shots), 10.5 fisheye, (2) SB-800's all crammed into a ThinkTank Speed Demon with extra bags. I also have a Domke for larger assignments, mostly sports and weddings.

 

I shoot a fair amount for the paper too, and I use and F100 with a 24-120 and it's perfect with Kodak Portra 400VC.

 

For a while, before getting a D2H, my set up for as an intern for the weekly was a D70, 18-70, 70-300 VR and I made many great cover images, full spread in fact, with that combo.

[sking]

Darren,

 

I am a full-time PJ for a daily newspaper and my gear is simple. No working PJ travels with just one camera, so it's not limiting to have a 16-35 or 17-55 lens on a body. That's because the SECOND body will have the 70-200 or its variants. But, for most PJ's the wide zoom is the bread and butter lens. The pix thus made have a sense of immediacy and of "being there" that pix made with a telephoto don't.

 

By the way, I had always heard that "F8 and be there" was attributed to Robert Capa.

 

Good shooting.

 

Steven King