More journalism/sports lens questions

[wmmk]

Hey everyone,
The high school I'll be attending next year had a fair for extracurricular activities tonight, and I just signed up to shoot for the year book, school paper, and arts magazine. I must say I'm quite excited. I had heard that a lot of high end equipment was available, but the "high end equipment" turns out to be 10 P&S cameras and a few D50s with 18-55s and 55-200s. Too bad the people who shoot sports aren't as well endowed as the guys on the field (or court).

Anyway, this'll be a good justification for me to buy some new lenses! Luckily enough, I just finished a $1,400 webdesign job and may be doing a $1600 project over the next few weeks. Html is a nice thing to know. I wouldn't be so blunt, but I keep nothing from my fellow Pentaxians.

Now that I know what focal lengths and features make the most sense for my own photography, I can seriously shop around.

Since I posted a similar thread, I've realized that I need a 12-24, fast normal zoom, and something long. Wide aperture, fast and quiet AF, and durability are big selling points. I don't think having great sharpness at a 400% crop will help me tell a visual story, catch a decisive moment in a game, or even show up on newsprint.

I'm going with the DA 12-24 because it has a convenient FL range, is fast enough (my hands are steady enough to shoot at 1/10-1/15 when I'm doing wide angle), and is of "good enough" quality. The lack of SDM is a bit disappointing, but the thick DoF of a wide angle makes a small imperfection in focusing less visible.

The 16-50 and 16-45 both look nice, but the f/2.8 and SDM could help on the long end. As a normal zoom would be my most frequently used lens, having weatherproofing could be a plus.

Finally, on the long end, I could either go with the DA* 50-135 and 200 combo, Sigma 70-200, or DA* 60-250. Other than sports, which I might not end up shooting-or even wanting to shoot-very much of, I can think of no application for which I need much more than 135mm. For other (rare) occasions, I could always use my Tamron 28-200mm. Still, the 70-200 isn't much more than the 50-135, and it does offer me the ability to not need new glass if I end up doing a lot of sports or wildlife.

I suppose I just essentially talked myself of the 60-250 and 200 prime. So, might I find the 135-200 range or 50-70 range, SDM, and weather sealing more attractive? By the way, that isn't a rhetorical question.

As usual, suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Will

[blende8]

Originally Posted by wmmk

I can think of no application for which I need much more than 135mm.

Now then it's easy, go with the DA* 50-135.
It also has f2.8, which is better than f4 on the 60-250.
Perhaps you could later buy an DA*200, if you need that, it has also f2.8.

[-spam-]

If i were in your shoes, i would go with the 12-24, tamron 28-75 f2.8, sigma 70-200 f2.8 and a fast 50mm prime.

If you needed to get closer than 200mm you could also try and find a sigma 1.4x teleconverter or a tamron or sigma 2x

It covers pretty much everything to 200mm and from 28-200mm you have some pretty fast glass.

Its also not that expensive when you think of the alternatives, for me that would be mighty expensive L glass. Id be pretty happy with that set up no matter what brand i was shooting to be honest.

[wmmk]

Hi everyone.
@blende8: I guess I've been favoring your recommendation recently, but that may only be due to the fact that it is the traditional photojournalism kit, but with all focal lengths divided by 1.5 for use on an APS-C body.

@Spam: There are many occasions when a 28-75 seems more practical than a 16-50, but for some reason, but I admit to being afraid of straying from the conventional 16-35, 24-70, 80-200 equivalent (12-24,16-50,50-135) setup. I suppose I'll try shooting a day with my Tamron 28-200 only in the 28-75 range and my kit lens in the 18-50 range and see what I like better. If the 28-75 had SDM and weather sealing, I'd certainly want to try it out.

[egordon99]

I have the Tamron 28-75mm and I was nervous about giving up the wide angle. Before I made the purchase, I put on my Vivitar 28-210mm for a day to see how I would fare. I found it wasn't too bad for alot of the people shots/candids/etc... I still had the kit if I neeeded to go wide, but I find 28mm is a good starting point for my walkaround. Unless I'm doing big group shots, I tend to stay at the long end anyway.

Heck, most P&Ss start at around this FOV. I now have the Sigma 10-20mm when I need to go W-I-D-E.

Good luck! When I was in High School, I took B&W photography with an old Olympus fully manual SLR and some flavor of a 50mm. Seems like you have your head on straight and are well on your way to a great life of photography!

[blende8]

Regarding the wide angle zoom I would also consider the DA 10-17.
I have it and use it very often.
The fisheye effect is not that problematic. I just recently saw a fisheye image of the Elysee palace in my local newspaper (image delievered by a press aency).