A photojournalist is often called upon to photograph a scene at a moment’s notice. It can be a car accident one day, a music festival, the next and a protest the day after. With that in mind, there are two useful lenses that every photojournalist should carry in their bag to cover such a diverse range of photographic opportunities.
The 24-70mm f/2.8
There are many variations of this lens, from Canon and Nikon, of course, but also now in more affordable versions with Sigma and Tamron that, like the Nikon, have image stabilization. In fact, it’s only Canon’s offering amongst the major brands that leave that feature out.
That said, the fast 2.8 aperture means it’s not usually necessary. Compared to the variable-aperture zooms you see included with cameras, you get a fast constant aperture that’s decent in low light, and a focal length that can let you get a wide scene-setting shot and then punch-in on the details. There’s no other lens for full-frame bodies that covers such a useful range at this speed.
The fast aperture means that these are often a company’s top-shelf lenses. I’ve often referred to the Canon and Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 lenses as “variable primes.” They are that sharp.
Crop shooters aren’t left out of the party either. Fuji makes an excellent 16-55mm f/2.8 lens that is a rough equivalent on the company’s APS-C bodies, and Panasonic and Olympus make their own versions of the lens for Micro 4/3 shooters.
85mm f/1.anything
When journalists need to create a portrait on-location, the 85mm lens does a better job of separating subject and background.
The 85mm is a great portrait lens (because an environmental portrait is something journalists are also often called upon to do), but it’s also a great smaller option for low-light work. When the 2.8 lens just won’t cut it (and as fast and expensive as they are, sometimes they won’t) that’s when it’s time to step up to the 85mm f/1.2, 1.4, or 1.8 variants to let in some more light with a wider aperture. Many versions are all available in various Canon, Nikon Sigma, Tamron and other flavors. Most manufacturers offer high-end variants, though you’ll often be just fine with the slightly slower models, which are often much easier on the wallet.
My favorite take on this focal length is Fuji’s 56mm f/1.2 mm lens, which works out to about 84 mm full-frame equivalent. Canon also makes an 85mm f/1.2, but image quality and focus accuracy aren’t anywhere close to the Fuji, owing to the latter’s sensor-based autofocus system in the company’s cameras.
Bonus Lens: 70-200 f/2.8
Of course, there are times you need to get closer than an 85mm lens will get you – and that’s why keeping the old reliable in your trunk or in an extra bag is a good idea. The 70-200mm f/2.8 helps you get that extra reach, though the reason I list it as a bonus lens is that I often look at the situation I’m about to be dumped into before grabbing for it.
I’ll bring it with me if I think I’ll need the reach, but I’ll otherwise sacrifice range for mobility and stealth in a journalistic situation and only carry my 24-70 and 85mm.
Canon and Nikon both make excellent versions of this lens, and there are many third-party options from the likes of Sigma and Tamron on the market. Sony shooters also recently got a new version of this lens (and the fast 24-70) for its line of full-frame cameras as well.
These are just the lenses that I’ve had the most luck with when it comes to photojournalism. Photojournalists, event shooters, and wedding shooters – what’s your weapon of choice when it comes to fast-paced shooting that these jobs require? Sound off in the comments below.
solid advice, i would consider adding a 50mm f1.x.
Well I think opening up to photojournalist event photographers and wedding is too broad and have really diff needs.. I will answer as a journalist, and that is very similar to you...the 24-70 2.8 but I jump to the 100 f2 for portraits instead of 85...gives a little more distance. I don't need the 70-200...that's more for being in a backed up press pit or concert/sports.
Times have changed. When I started at a weekly in the late 70s, they issued me a Nikkormat w/ a 50mm and a Rolleiflex w/ a fixed 80mm. For much of my career I made good use of a 24mm and a 180mm, supplemented by an 18mm, 85mm and 300mm. Zooms became popular when they became fast enough to use in all conditions. Often in photojournalism you are told where to stand/sit/kneel and zooms are great for being able compose pictures effectively in camera when you are unable get as close to subjects as you might like. Different focal length lenses deliver different perspectives. The last part of my career I settled into using a 16-35mm and 70-200mm for much of my work. The mid-range 24-70mm, though I had one at my disposal and have one personally, produces images w/ a normal perspective that has never really appealed to me. I’d almost rather carry a fast 50mm, w/ four times the light-gathering capability, to cover that middle ground, than a mid-range zoom.
I too, for a long time used the 16-35, a fast 50 and the 70-200, but I've warmed up more to the 24-70. as the Nikon/Canon versions I've owned are stupid sharp.
My experience is for Event work a 24-70 or 24-105 plus a 70-200 covers most bases. For Press work a 16-35 plus a 70-200 covers most of what would be needed.
An added bonus for press work is that the lenses doesn't have to be a very high resolving lenses because the photo is going to be used, at max, as 1/4 page photo in a newspaper or online at very low resolution.
That is why the “Holy Trinity” of lenses is so important. The 16-35, a 24-70 and a 70-200 plus a 2x converter in you pocked for the just-in-case.