OntheRez wrote:
A 5DII would not be my first choice for this type of work. Yes, it can create a fine image but really falls down in rough and tumble work. I've also not been impressed with its AF. If you're working in Wilkes Barre I'd guess you won't encounter a photog scrum or any such thing, but it is amazing how much bumping around goes on just trying to comply with simple things like "Mrs. Aragon receiving the garden of the month award."
If you could do a lateral move from the 5DII to a nice used 7D, you'd probably be lot happier. Don't know if that is possible, but current used prices suggest you could do it.
I can't imagine his 5D2 getting broken doing PJ work. I really don't recall any bodies breaking at school paper and most were xxD class. Center point is more trustworthy than on the 7D. Outer points are a different matter of course. 5D2 collects light better.
Jay Connor wrote:
Diz
I cant advise what to sell/buy but the working PJ big three that I see most in Boston is
70-200 2.8
24-70 2.8
16-35 2.8
Ah yes, Maybe in the future. This and and fast 50 is my dream bag. I think the first step is to sell the 17-40 and put that toward the 24-70. I can use my 70-200 F4 till I round up the cash for the F2.8 but I must say the reverse zoom of the 24-70 seems odd. The lens is in tele at 24mm? Interesting.
@skib i know of some older staff photographer that uses mostly primes so there are some out there. seems like your a believer of not. i dont have enough experience to know.
Jay Connor wrote:
Diz
I cant advise what to sell/buy but the working PJ big three that I see most in Boston is
70-200 2.8
24-70 2.8
16-35 2.8
If I get a general assignment thats what I bring
Of course if its a sports event then its a different ballgame
Many sports can be covered with the 70-200 especially if you add a relatively cheap 1.4x extender
I very rarely see primes used by the working press
Good luck and please tell us what you choose
Best
Jay
+1 on this trio, pretty much the standard kit for a PJ
yeah, the standard PJ trio seems to be the f/2.8 zooms -- 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. Which of those will be most useful depends on your typical assignments. I always seem to gravitate towards the 24-70 for what I do (general street shooting, for which I generally stick to the 24-50 range). The 70-200 is my next most used lens (usually between 100 and 200mm and usually when I cannot get close to the subject such as when shooting out of a car window) followed by the poor 16-35, which I seem to use more for landscape than PJ work these days
If you can wait a few months I bet there will be a ton of 24-70s for sale used as folks upgrade to the newer version
As a former newspaper photo editor, two bits of advice that seemed to help the folks who shot for me:
1. Don't shoot quality pictures, shoot a quality set of thumbnails (used to say quality contact sheet). Meaning show the subject comprehensively, with all the angles, all the framing, all the lighting choices covered.
2. What Robert Capa said, "If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."
Fairly soon, you may want a fast prime, something shorter than 50mm. I would put that ahead of improving telephoto capability, unless sports figures heavily. See No. 2 above.
You are getting lots of excellent advice. It is true that many (most?) PJs work with the "Holy Trinity" 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 all f/2.8. If you stay in the biz, you should get all three. Basically this covers everything you need except long reach sports work and very low light. I usually carry my 50 f/1.4 instead of the 16-35 cause (1) it's lighter and more compact, and (2) more importantly it is fast. It is the lens of last resort unless I specifically know I'm going into a "dark" situation. In those cases, I carry the 50 f1/4, the 85 f/1.8 (Canon's best bang for the buck), and my 135 f/2.0L. Examples of when I use these are say the Xmas school musical/show. (Hardly any light at all, but no motion). The other major place I use these is for indoor winter sports cause the light is soooo bad that f/2.8 can't do the job.
The 5DII argument is infinite so I'll just note that 1DII, 1DIIn, and 1DsII, are all superb performing cameras with excellent AF, bluntly far better than any thing the 5DII can ever dream of. They are also - at the moment - extraordinary values on the used market. I just sold my 1DsII in superb shape with many extras for $1200USD. Nice copies of 1DIIn (which maybe the best all around choice) is probably in the $850 range. Using any camera like these makes chimping difficult or useless, but bluntly when you are working you don't have time to chimp. Take more shots from more ways than you think you'll need and "get the shots right." Also all of these cameras work fine to ISO 800 and generally quite well to 1600. I've pushed them all to H (pseudo 3200) successfully on occasion. Their downfall for me was that one of my major tasks is to cover local HS sports both as photog and writer. Yes, I do general dogsbody work on other things, but the demands of sport pushes gear to its extremes.
Splatrop's (love that handle) advice is precise and cogent. Virtually all pix of "newsworthy" people are focused on the people - generally bust shots or group full body poses. Robert Capra's dictum is legendary and true. Get closer.
Finally, just lose the concern about boekh. That's an art school/gear board phenomena. As Ansochrome noted earlier readers don't intently study newspaper photos. They want to be able to identify the people and/or see the moment of action but they don't give a flip about background - though you as the photog must always be maneuvering for the best available backdrop for your shot.
Finally as for your question on whether or not the f/4.0 will be adequate I can't answer as I don't know what sort of light you'll typically have. I do know that the only time I can use my 300mm f/4.0 is spring soft/baseball in full light.
In the end find out what the editors' want and give it too them. Also learn what the print process is, as it will have an outrageous effect on how your pix looks. I'm working with a B&W 65 line screen process which is utterly antique and I never know from one edition to the next if the printer is going to go dark or light with the ink.
Above all have fun. Papers may well be doomed by they haven't died yet, and even in this world of 4 billion cell phones, I choose to believe that there will always be a place for a truly finely crafted picture.
Interesting. Having shot the APS-H 1D series since inception, I've found 16-35/50/70-200 (f4) a really nice PJ and general purpose combo. I guess if I was shooting FF, a lens starting at 24 might be wide enough, but I really like 20mm FF equivalent.
In your situation I would probably stick with the current set of lenses and add one camera, such as a 1DIII. As already suggested, there is a great benefit to working with two bodies. It's not so much about reach from the 1DIII (since cropping the 5DII will actually be a larger file) as it is an alternative level of performance for those times when you will need the faster fps, faster AF, as well as the redundancy of a second camera... just in case. Each camera will offer something the other doesn't and when working with both, you can quickly switch between the two, rather than switching lenses on one body and potentially missing something.
Your equipment is already good enough to do the job and depending on where you do the internship, there may be some pool equipment for you to access. I also agree to forget the notion of good bokeh. There are many other factors in making an effective news image that take priority, such as telling the 5 Ws. If you can fit in some artistic goodness, it's a bonus, but not the priority.
No one touched on video. It may depend on where you're interning, but video is definitely something to keep in mind and to be able to shoot with at least one of your cameras. Therefore don't sell the 5DII unless replacing it with something video capable.
And no, I don't think f/4 is too slow for 95% of the PJ situations I've been in (though up here high school football is generally played during the afternoon), so long as you can get usable results from ISO 3200 with some NR.
Indeed. I think I am well on my way to an informed choice, thank you all. A great example of what the board can help you with! Really thx all. So much ifno almost makes it harder.
I would choose a 35L and 70-200L 2.8 combination over a 24-70 and a 70-200L 2.8 one !
Even tough I know I might be the only one :-)
Nothing beats fast glass and I don't mind to move a few feet back and forth either :-)
Personally I do encounter more situations I'd want more light and using flash is not always possible ( and extra stuff to drag/carry around).
If you are sure that f4 is sufficiënt for your needs, I'd advise the 70-200L f4 IS, but as I said, you never can have enough light !
Most PJs I know use the 16-35mm2.8 and 70-200mm2.8 (IS 1, IS 2 or non-IS) combination and add a 85mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 for certain occasions. That would be my choice.
But the 17-40 is quite viable so given your choices id get the 70-200mm f2.8, whichever version you can get. Its a must have.
I'm not a fan of the 5D2, but unless sports are going to be among your assignments, I would caution you against trading down for poorer high ISO, regardless of the camera's other merits. I constantly find myself shooting at ISO 6400 and faster. Official receptions, goverment offices, shots in hotel banquet rooms, you name it. And that is without even looking at sports. One thing I've noticed in the last two years is that more and more venues have lights burned out or failing, making the lighting even worse. Not sure if they are short handed or saving money on bulbs, but it seems to be getting darker all the time.
I would keep what you have and start upgrading when you have the financials. Changing order? I slightly tend to keep this order:
1. 24-70 2.8L
2. 70-200 IS 2.8L II
3. 16-35 2.8L II
Considering a change of body would be an interesting and useful option to. Investing in a used 1dM4 (or 3) could be useful. In that case the importance at the wide end woul be more significant, justifying an upgrade oof 17-40 to 16-35 as first choice.
).
