So you upgraded to a DSLR to take your photography to the next level and you now feel a strong urge to step into the big bad world of professional photography. You have the kit lenses, but you know they won’t cut it. Let me introduce you to the must-have kit lens of professional photographers.
Your Direction in Photography
When I transitioned from a hobby photographer to a part-time professional, I started off with model portfolio shoots and event photography. Then came weddings, portraits, editorial and commercial shoots and so on. A fair few of you will start off your professional photography career in a similar fashion. Or at least cover some aspects of the above-mentioned path.
When I was feeling that strong urge to make the jump to professional photography, I was given some great advice by a senior photographer: your next purchase needs to be a fixed aperture lens, preferably f/2.8 or lower. Upon further exploration of that advice, I fixed my gaze on a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. I saved up for it, bought it and can confidently say that it was the best return on investment I’ve had from a single piece of photography gear ever!
Hey Versatility, Meet Your Photography Twin
I call this my bread and butter lens. That’s because it may not be a specialist lens or rated top-notch at any of the focal lengths or have the creamiest bokeh, but you can use it to shoot events, weddings, portraits, editorials, products, travel, landscapes and so much more at a comfortably high quality. So versatile!
Reliability, Are You Sure Your Nickname Isn’t 24-70mm f/2.8?
Whatever the situation, whatever the lighting, this lens will deliver. Over the years, as I became better at photography, I relied more and more on primes and other specialized lenses. But if there is one lens I always carry, it’s the good old 24-70mm f/2.8. For example, in low light conditions, certain primes like the 50mm f/1.2 might struggle with auto-focus and when shooting an event or a wedding that can be a risky affair. I’ve found my 24-70mm f/2.8 to be much quicker in this regard.
Arguments Against Purchasing the 24-70mm f/2.8
“It is not as versatile as 24-105mm f/4”
One could argue for the 24-105mm f/4 as an alternative but I’ve found that extra stop between f/2.8 and f/4 to be a lifesaver many times. When I started shooting weddings, I came to understand why f/2.8 felt a whole lot more magical than f/4. For one, in low light situations that one stop of light made a huge difference if I wanted to maintain a reasonably low ISO and could not use external light (e.g in a low lit church during the ceremony). Secondly, I found f/2.8 to be a sweet spot between blurring the background to bring focus to my subject and not blurring my background so much that it loses context (e.g. shooting dynamic groups during events). Yes, at times I did wish that my lens also had a focal length of 105mm but it was always an easy compromise given its advantages over f/4.
“It makes you lazy as a photographer”
This probably has some truth in it. It’s a classic zoom lens and you can get comfortable with it. But if truth be completely told in context, when you’re starting out as a professional photographer, you are learning so many new things about your craft that it can be overwhelming at times. You can run out of poses for your client to do or your lighting may not be working with a particular scenario and on and on. You can allow yourself a crumb of comfort in the form of this lens as long as you keep developing your skills as a photographer. Moreover, I’m sure, further down your career, when you have the cash, you won’t mind honing your skills on your brand new bokehlicious 85mm f/1.2!
Pricing
The best part about this lens is that because it is so popular among professional photographers, pretty much every lens manufacturer has had a go making this lens. So you have a variety of prices (with some variation in quality) available to you. I won’t get into what is the “best” 24-70mm f/2.8 option out there but if you have one of the unenviable kit lenses that came with your starter DSLR, like the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6, you will be better off with any of these options below. However, I do recommend hiring some of these out to try before you settle on a favorite.
The Best Starter
Tamron - from $1,199
I have found it to be slightly slower on the auto-focus compared to its peers along with a yellow-er skin tone. But overall, a great starter lens.
For the Experimenters
Sigma - from $1299
This one is about 200g heavier compared to it’s Tamron and Canon cousins but I’ve been impressed with its overall image quality.
The Thoroughbreds
Canon / Nikkon / Sony - from $1599
These are the steam engines of the business: quick, easy, rugged and either one would be a great investment for the long term.
On a side note, these lenses hold their monetary value quite well. So if you wanted to sell these a few years down the line, you’d still get a decent return on your original purchase.
Is there another lens you’re considering purchasing as your first on your way to becoming a professional photographer? Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below.
Yes, used it the last 10 years and I was very surprised that the 24-70 mm f / 4 delivered the same performance on the Nikon Z6 and Z7, the f / 2.8 version is available within a week. I am very curious about that version.
I never found 24-70 my first wish for a lens. I wish they would make a 35-85. Or even 42-105. Preferable f2.
The wide part makes for a larger and more complicated design.
Doing portraits a 24-70 is pretty perfect, on a crop sensor camera. The range is good, and you use the sharpest part of the lens:)
"...It is not as versatile as 24-105mm f/4..."
I agree with you that the 24-70 is a better choice than the 24-105 but not because of the extra stop. Today's camera can go to such high ISO that the extra stop does not matter as much. Image quality, however, is the reason the 24-70 is a better choice. It is way superior to the 24-105. The sharpness and the details are so much better.
I owned the 24-70 and when I stopped taking wedding assignments I sold it. Although the 24-105 is much more versatile in wedding receptions and parties in general, the picture quality is not as good at all. Not to mention focusing speed in the dark conditions. When going to high ISO and fast moving subjects the 24-70 perform amazingly well.
Generally I agree with you regarding your lens choice when starting, but adding a 50mm to your bag is a no brainier, especially when you can find the f/1.8 for around $200 new. Here is a lens I will never sell.
Stabilization has also made the 24-105mm f4 much more competitive. In the Sony world I recommend that lens over the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 to everyone except those who want to shoot moving subjects in low light. The combination of OSS and IBIS is good for more than the single stop of light that the faster aperture offers.
Edit: Obviously f2.8 AND stabilization would be a better option yet but the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 doesn't offer it so the choice for Sony FE is one or the other.
I would say Sigma 17-50 F2.8
Never owned a Sigma but I have the 17-35 Nikon. I don't use it as much since I have the 20mm f/1.8. I use it for portraits but for a small percentage of shots.
All depends what kind of professional photographer you are (or want to be)…
If , for example, you are specialized in jewelry or little objects you surely don't need a 24-70…
Same is you are a still-life photographer, or a portrait photographer, a wildlife photographer, an architecture photographer…
Yes, the 24-70 is an excellent lens for reportage, landscape, and "general" photo… but not the lens "For Anyone Starting Out as a Professional Photographer"
A “thumbs-up” is not enough. I have to give you a…
𝘽𝙊𝙊𝙔𝘼𝙃!!!
Most people don't have a clue of what photography assignments are going to come their way once they decide to become a pro, hence my recommendation is for a great "general" photo lens. And yes, I agree that it is not the perfect lens for any field, pretty much. But it's one of the better "general" photography lenses.
Yes, the problem is that most people don't have a clue…
Here we are speaking of Pro or people wanting to pretend be a pro?
I think that if you begin to do a job without knowing what you will do, it is damn serious… and it is better that you do something else…
First off, thee is no perfect lens for “starting off,” without knowing what genre.
Second, the best lens for any job is not given in terms of focal length, but AoV. One could have said, “The middle lens of the zoom Trinity.” That way, all the APS-C and MFT users would have a good place to start.
Third, I would argue that a good all-round lens is a better place to start than a limited “fast” lens. In other words, a 35-105mm (35mm equivalent), or perhaps a 28-185mm (35mm equivalent), would be a better lens, as it can do landscapes, portraits, some sports & wildlife, some architecture, flora, still-life, etc. Sure, one may have some challenges in limited light situations, but then again, a 24-70mm (35mm equivalent) would give many challenges for sports, wildlife, etc.
There is more to say, but that is enough. I do not subscribe to the question, “which lens is best for a starter,” without some serious context.
for an overall lens, it is an obvious choice and the undeniable option. However, a portrait photographer might go for an 85mm and need nothing else, while a landscape might be happy with a 16-35mm.
It is unlikely that every portrait photographer starting out as a pro will always have access to a big studio space/outdoor space where the 85mm can truly shine. Sometimes they might have to shoot in tight spaces and there the 85mm will be rendered useless beyond a few headshots. Also, with someone starting out, they may not have the experience to say that I can make my favorite lens work by doing X. So for those people, having a good generalist lens will help them as they start out.
understand your point of view. however, my opinion is that you should start with a prime, even if a cheap 50 1.8. It limits your options and makes you move more instead of using the zoom, thus pushing you to understand composition much better.
a well seasoned photographer can get the best out of a 24-70. a rookie will have so many options he will be lost and just spray pictures all over. a prime helps focus on a specific focal lengh and that brings challenge, creativity and purpose up.
Anyway, these are simply different opinions. None of us is more right or wrong than the other one.
Most entry level pro's today shoot mostly in "available light". The reason being is that most of them are self taught and jump into the professional arena quickly after they begin to create some good images. I started serious photography in 1972, and did not turn pro until 1979. Today, many beginners will try turning pro within 6 months of getting their first camera. At that phase of a photographer's journey, their preference of genre is largely unknown. This is precisely why your recommendation for a 24-70mm f/2.8 fixed aperture lens is solid advice, as it extends them into the next phase of their development and is of sufficient focal length to tackle most subjects that are commonly available .It is a good beginning into the arena of fixed aperture lens purchases.
I've been debating about buying a Canon 24-70 for my video production company (https://www.open-window-production.com)... this definitely has sold me on the fact that I should!!
That is my go to lens for 90% of my shooting.
The 24-70mm non VR is better.
If you don't know what your "must have" lenses are before starting out in Pro photography, then perhaps you shouldn't be starting out in Pro photography.
Chris, that's a bit harsh! I think it is fine to not know what your "must have" lens is or is going to be. Heck, you may think you know and it might change in a few years!
…And after a few years, one can buy the next, “must have,” lens. I think it may be time to go pro when one realises what one likes to shoot, or better yet, what one is good at shooting. If one has not figured at least one of those two things out, one is not ready to go pro.
Going pro is for those who are good at something. There were only four things that kept me from the NBA; ♪ dunking, three pointers, ♩ foul shots, and dribbling ♬. Aside from that, I was ready! Love playing me some hoops, but the love of the game is not enough to go pro. I have to be good at it. (I was great at the sky hook. That, and the fade-away. I had to be. Everyone else towered over me. It was the only way to shoot without being blocked).
Once one has figured out what one is good at, then one can figure out, and buy, the best lens.
*P.s., hope you caught the notes of sarcasm in there.
one writes in a very original way... one must be from Narnia, G.O.Thrones or L.O.F.Rings maybe?
one has earned my respect because one's opinion actually makes sense.
going pro means making it your profession. That means you earn money from it, so you better be good at it and know what you're doing.
So in this sense, both Karim and Chris's opinions make sense.
I would say the 24-70 is the most versatile lens in the market by far. It is very useful, no doubt.
But there is no RIGHT lens to start as pro. To each their own.
Anyway, strong post, brings some different opinions to the public and creates a healthy discussion
One thing to consider if you're buying aftermarket is the direction of the focus and zoom rings. Canon users may wish to consider that the Sigma Art focuses and zooms in their direction, while Nikon users may wish to consider that the Tamron G2 focuses and zooms in THEIR direction.
The writer calls the 24-70 MUST HAVE lens for a professional. I shoot professionally, but a 24-70mm is practically useless for my which is exclusively wildlife.
I do use a 24-105 in my wildlife work, but very rarely, ever, use it at anything below 40mm, and I never shoot it wide open - when I am shooting at these focal lengths, I am trying to get as much DOF as possible.
So for your professional work, if you never want to shoot wider than 40mm and you never want to shoot below f8 in the 40mm to 100mm range, what good would a 24-70 f2.8 lens be?
The lens he calls MUST HAVE is a lens that I find UTTERLY USELESS. At least it is for what I shoot and the way I shoot it. I think that before people make blanket statements, they need to consider that other photographer's needs are different from theirs, and word their statements accordingly. If he had said it was a must have for professional portrait and event photographers, then it would be a much more accurate and reasonable statement. But, because he didn't qualify the statement, there are instances in which it is wrong, and a good writer will ensure that nothing he/she writes will ever be wrong.
IMO, there is no "must have" lens for professionals, it depends on what you do professionally. If you do model shoots then you need a longer lens, for wild life you are talking about big money heavy long lenses, for real estate you need a wider lens........... I agree, 24-70 f/2.8 is a good all around lens for many things.
I had one for a short time, then sold it. Not long enough for most of my portrait photography when I don't want exaggerated perspective, not wide enough when I want to exaggerate perspective. I really, really need that extra 30mm on my mid-range zoom more than I need the extra stop--now that higher ISOs have gotten so good.
Can you at least use photos that aren't heavily edited?
The black-and-white one of the couple in the seats at the theater is impossible to shoot without editing.
Good choice. For FX I use the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8. Very excellent results. It's the only non-brand lens I use for Nikon....well..I do have a Russian Helios lens for special purpose.
I find my self using 24mm & 70mm 99% of the time and barely anything in between when equipped with a 24-70mm lens. I actually wish there's a 20-85 or 35-85 instead.