Lens Advice

[rocco]

I am thinking about purchasing another lens shortly. But I am in two minds about what I want next.

My want is:

85mm f/1.4 or 17-35 f2.8 or 70-200mm f/2.8 VR

I was dead set on the 70-200 as it's known to be a fab lens. I held the Canon equivalent in the weekend and it was a monster heavy lens and it threw me into this two minds. Plus I know only a few of you on here have it. So does this mean realistically it's a lens you don't really use much?

What really is this lens main purpose besides focal length. Is it more for action shots or bird watching?

I want to get into more portraiture and photo journalism. Would the 85mm be good for this then the 70-200? I have found the fixed lenses to be so sharp.

also: If I have a 24-70 - how different would a 17-35 f2.8 be?

I apologies for asking too many question on lenses all the time. But I am sure you understand the money you invest in them you want to get it right.

[Luke W]

You know my response...

Go the 70-200.

For everyone else...

Note, mine is a Canon.

It's on my camera 90% of the time - but I'm a biggish bloke with big arms who doesn't really notice the weight.

It's a great action lens, a great portrait lens and even takes some nice scenic/landscape shots (if you like the longer focal length style).

It's a bit too short for birds, but with a 1.4X teleconverter on a cop body, it'll do in a pinch I suppose.

[Guest Tess32]

If I were you, I'd rent them both and see which one suits YOU best.

Rent a Lens is pretty cheap, I rented the 70-200 from there and was glad I did as it didn't suit me.

[Ashanali]

Rocco - Alex uses the 70-200, I only use it when he doesn't as I prefer the 50mm. The next two lenses on our list are the 10-22mm and either an 85mm or 90mm fixed focus lens (which will be mine).

As much as I like the 70-200, I have a deformed finger on my right hand (damn sporting injury! ) and the weight is just too much for me particularly with the injury.

85mm or 90mm is a great lens to use in place of the 70-200, hence why I'm going with this option.

(btw - you did pretty good on the weekend too )

[rocco]

LukeW I knew your answer before I read your post. I might be a bit smaller in the arms.

Tess thank you I will check it out.

Ash, I noticed Alex and his 70-200. I carried it in the weekend and thought, crap its big. I get sore hands from my 24-70, hence wondering if I will make use of the 70-200. If you think you would use the 85 instead of the 70-200. I might look into that then.

(ps. Ash I have been feeling abit down about the weekend. I thought I didn't go as well and let you both down. )

Edited April 6, 2009 by Rocco1

[ruthless]

If you like primes, get an 85, a 135 and a 200 Helpful?

[Ripley]

I apologies for asking too many question on lenses all the time. But I am sure you understand the money you invest in them you want to get it right.

Totally understand your last paragraph.

I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS Canon lens so it's lighter but not fast and doesn't have IS. I find it suits my needs fine and don't find it heavy. However, I also have a 1.4 teleconverter and have only attached it once and I couldn't keep my hands still enough with the added weight, so I could not hand hold it at that length and would have needed to affix the lens to a tripod (but it doesn't come with a tripod collar so that's another gripe, I need to buy one).

Suggestions above sound great. It depends what you are into and you have said what you're interested in. I've used my 70-200 for wild bird photos when I've been able to get close enough and some town landscapes shots and dog shots. Perfect lens for all of those.

I recently purchased a Sigma 10-20 and tried it out for the first time the other weekend. Very happy with it, although with a polariser attached it does give some vignetting at the corners when at its wider end. I bought it for landscapes though, although some people's head shots could look pretty amusing if taken with it.

[kja]

I've been using my 70-200 more and am loving it more and more. As you might remember from an earlier blather of mine, I have a weird hand condition thing that basically means they're pretty weak and prone to bad cramps and pain. So far, no badness from this lens on the new big camera at all. It's heavy, yes, but it's feeling good now that I'm using it more.

It's not really a birding or wildlife lens as 200 just isn't really that long.

Clearly as it's a zoom it will give you the best range and the most options. It's great for pj type stuff because you can be stealthy and you can change your framing in an instant.

I have the Canon version (2.8 IS) but think the Nikon version is just as wonderful. I would not be without this lens.

I also have the 85 and it's a hot piece. But it's not as flexible and I find the 85 just a tad too long quite often...or just a tad too short. I use it when I have more control over my distance and subject. Which might seem obvious but...

Both are great but they are different tools. From what I've seen of your shots, the 85 won't really expand the types of shots you are doing that much. The 70-200 will let you do what you do and allow for a great deal of growth and experimenting.

But, there's no way you can go wrong with either and you will end up with both eventually

[rocco]

Both are great but they are different tools. From what I've seen of your shots, the 85 won't really expand the types of shots you are doing that much. The 70-200 will let you do what you do and allow for a great deal of growth and experimenting.

hmm Kja you have given me something to think about with this comment. I do want to expand my work where possible. But my style is not fast movement, landscape-y stuff and def no birds. So my thinking was if I want to capture portraiture and general people just living life would you be flicking a enormous lens out?? I know Ash partner Alex's use this lens but I did notice it's when he needs depth and his work he gets on it is insanely amazing.

I will eventually buy both. But I wanted to buy better grade camera before that next lens. So this lens will be the last for awhile. I just want to get it right.

[rugerfly]

Shit Rocco if you can afford that one, go for it dude. I would.

[kja]

Does Nik have a 135 f2.0? This is an awesome walk around, capture life lens that rocks for portraits, too. Downside is you need a lot of working room. But as a travel or city on the fly lens for candids, it's awesome.

I'd go the 70-200 out of your original choices ... and I'd go it over the 135 right now, too, unless stealth was a bigger issue. It is a big lens but it's an amazingly versatile lens that will allow you enormous freedom to create images.

[Poo d'état]

Rocci1,

As far as photojournalism/documentary photography goes: the closer you get to your subject -- the better the photo, which your 24-70 should do fine, but the 17-35 f/2.8 would be awesomer.

That said, Sebastiao Salgado is known to persistently use only 28mm, 35mm and 60mm lens on his Leicas for many years up to the earlier part of the '00s, so you could well be sorted. In which case, if it were me, i'd go the 85mm f/1.4, mainly because i don't ever really need that long a lens for what i do.

Happy decision-making!

[rocco]

Rocci1,

As far as photojournalism/documentary photography goes: the closer you get to your subject -- the better the photo, which your 24-70 should do fine, but the 17-35 f/2.8 would be awesomer.

That said, Sebastiao Salgado is known to persistently use only 28mm, 35mm and 60mm lens on his Leicas for many years up to the earlier part of the '00s, so you could well be sorted. In which case, if it were me, i'd go the 85mm f/1.4, mainly because i don't ever really need that long a lens for what i do.

Happy decision-making!

I am getting no where with this thread I keep changing my mind. I was going to buy a prime 35mm as they are pretty cheap. What would be the lens you use most for your street/photojournalism?

I have a friend that does a lot of street photography and his work is divine, he mentioned he used a prime 85mm 99% of the time, hence why I am considering it.

[PossumCorner]

.... I have a friend that does a lot of street photography and his work is divine, he mentioned he used a prime 85mm 99% of the time, hence why I am considering it.

I'd agree, I love my 85 prime the most for sharp, it's a 2.8 and I'm sure the 1.4 would be even better. I did a few (very few) portraity shots on Sunday in the rain, and had the prime 150mm on the camera, and it was driving me mad having to back-off so much to get in frame. But I wasn't going to take out the 85 and get it wet as well.

But re your friend doing "street", how is he going lately with all the resentment against street photographers at present? There is so much difficulty these days shooting in public, even adults (children have become a no-go subject even at public events, it is not worth the flak). It's another mild reason to use a prime lens, let your feet be the zoom, and even though chunky, they do not have quite the invasive appearance of a zoom.

[rocco]

But re your friend doing "street", how is he going lately with all the resentment against street photographers at present? There is so much difficulty these days shooting in public, even adults (children have become a no-go subject even at public events, it is not worth the flak). It's another mild reason to use a prime lens, let your feet be the zoom, and even though chunky, they do not have quite the invasive appearance of a zoom.

PC do you have the 50mm as well? If so how different do you find that from the 85mm?

My friend always ask peoples permission before he takes a photograph. His style is more about interesting people he finds out and about.

I dont think I would slink around peoples children with any lens, communal showers at camping grounds are far more exciting.

kidding............

[Poo d'état]

I am getting no where with this thread I keep changing my mind. I was going to buy a prime 35mm as they are pretty cheap. What would be the lens you use most for your street/photojournalism?

If money were no object, i'd have the 17-35 2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4, but until Bill and Melinda Gates decide to adopt me, i'll be quite happy with my 17-55 2.8.

I think the 35 prime is a good option, it'll keep you nice and close to your subject for it (the close distance) to still show in the photo.

My friend always ask peoples permission before he takes a photograph. His style is more about interesting people he finds out and about.

That's the only way to do it, really. And it's a skill that not everyone has, least of all myself (hence the course i'm taking... starts next weekend, can't wait!). When i was at uni (and before i became interested in photography, strangely), this American photojournalist came up to me in a bookshop one day and asked if he could take my picture, just because he liked the way i looked (which i thought was a really nice compliment). And he didn't take it then and there - we met up a couple of days later at Hyde Park and chatted, he was genuinely curious about me (as a citizen of this city and that), then afterwards he took some snaps. So it was a very nice experience, not a Hi!-snap-Bye! type of event (and had he not caught me completely off guard and tried to kiss me after our third meet, we might've stayed in touch and i might've gotten to see how the pix turned out... whole nuther story but anyway ).

I dont think I would slink around peoples children with any lens, communal showers at camping grounds are far more exciting.

Just don't forget your trench coat! :)

[PossumCorner]

My friend always ask peoples permission before he takes a photograph. His style is more about interesting people he finds out and about.

That's the only way to do it, really.

Ummm no - then it's posed, it's portraiture, (available light). But not street, not candid, not photo-journalism. And how difficult (impossible) it'd be to get permission from the Anzac Day marchers as they go by, or a small crowd-scene of people watching the march. And you'd have to forego city-life shots like a group boarding a tram or patting a police horse.

With your American, that's a good twist on "Would you like to come up and see my etchings". Now we need to know the nutha story.

Rocco I don't have a 50 prime it's on wish-list. I use the 18-70 zoom which is fairly sharp at 50. The 85 is better for face or head-and-shoulders. The 50 is best for full length person or small group.

Edited April 8, 2009 by PossumCorner

[Poo d'état]

My friend always ask peoples permission before he takes a photograph. His style is more about interesting people he finds out and about.

That's the only way to do it, really.

Ummm no - then it's posed, it's portraiture, (available light). But not street, not candid, not photo-journalism. And how difficult (impossible) it'd be to get permission from the Anzac Day marchers as they go by, or a small crowd-scene of people watching the march. And you'd have to forego city-life shots like a group boarding a tram or patting a police horse.

My comment was in response to Rocco1's friend's style of photography.

Furthermore, posing/portraiture and street photography/photojournalism are not mutually exclusive. You can go up to a fruit-seller and take a photo upfront, eyes to camera and all, and that would still be street photography.

The only kind of truly candid and unposed shots, puristically (is that a word?) speaking, are either papparazzi-type voyeuristic telephoto shots, performance/sports/etc, or live news as it's breaking. In terms of street/people photography, in a documentary but non-news sense, the proper way is to ask your subject for permission. 'Asking for permission' doesn't always have to be verbal - it can be much more subtle like making eye contact, lifting your camera and suggesting it with the cock of the head/raise of the brow/pointing, or by making it very obvious that you're about to take a person's photo but giving the person time to object to it^*. If it is a special or unrepeatable moment where you don't have time to check, then asking for permission afterwards is an option. If the person is your 'shot'^#, like in the case of Rocco1's friend, then the only right thing to do, imo, is to ask for their permission^.

*There are situations where permission can be 'assumed', such as a public procession like the Anzac Day marches or Mardi Gras, or even rallies/riots. It is a major event/spectacle that participants know will watched and photographed/recorded by the media as well as members of the public

^#As opposed to more general shots of a particular scene such as a group of people boarding a tram

^{^}That's also why the papparazzi are so reviled by celebrities and real photojournalists alike

[chezzyr]

"they do not have quite the invasive appearance of a zoom"

This I would agree with and if I wasn't so interested in wildlife

photography I would HAPPILY use small, black prime lenses.

I have been having a little break from telephoto photography

because of some neck/shoulder problems!

If I was mainly interested in portraiture, the smaller prime

would win for sure. But if I was travelling somewhere with

minimal equipment allowed, the 70-200 would be the one.

In fact Id probably even forego the 2.8 or the IS/VR to

make it a lighter lens to drag around all day ;-)

[Luke W]

My friend always ask peoples permission before he takes a photograph. His style is more about interesting people he finds out and about.

That's the only way to do it, really.

Ummm no - then it's posed, it's portraiture, (available light). But not street, not candid, not photo-journalism. And how difficult (impossible) it'd be to get permission from the Anzac Day marchers as they go by, or a small crowd-scene of people watching the march. And you'd have to forego city-life shots like a group boarding a tram or patting a police horse.

My comment was in response to Rocco1's friend's style of photography.

Furthermore, posing/portraiture and street photography/photojournalism are not mutually exclusive. You can go up to a fruit-seller and take a photo upfront, eyes to camera and all, and that would still be street photography.

The only kind of truly candid and unposed shots, puristically (is that a word?) speaking, are either papparazzi-type voyeuristic telephoto shots, performance/sports/etc, or live news as it's breaking. In terms of street/people photography, in a documentary but non-news sense, the proper way is to ask your subject for permission. 'Asking for permission' doesn't always have to be verbal - it can be much more subtle like making eye contact, lifting your camera and suggesting it with the cock of the head/raise of the brow/pointing, or by making it very obvious that you're about to take a person's photo but giving the person time to object to it^*. If it is a special or unrepeatable moment where you don't have time to check, then asking for permission afterwards is an option. If the person is your 'shot'^#, like in the case of Rocco1's friend, then the only right thing to do, imo, is to ask for their permission^.

*There are situations where permission can be 'assumed', such as a public procession like the Anzac Day marches or Mardi Gras, or even rallies/riots. It is a major event/spectacle that participants know will watched and photographed/recorded by the media as well as members of the public

^#As opposed to more general shots of a particular scene such as a group of people boarding a tram

^{^}That's also why the papparazzi are so reviled by celebrities and real photojournalists alike

I disagree with this - strongly

The proper way is to NOT ask for permission.

I think it's perfectly acceptable to stand on a street corner and take photos of the goings on - without any permission what so ever.

That is the essence of streed photography imo - totally candid, unposed. Bresson, Winogrand, etc...

A street photographer has to overcome shyness and just snap away like he belongs. No long telephoto lens - a 50mm or shorter.

I've done some street photography before. The easiest method is to simply plonk yourself somewhere and start snapping away - after a while people start to ignore you and get on with their lives.

I think we, as photographers (and society in general), risk loosing some important historical records if we allow true candid street photography to disappear.

My 2c.