Need good Paparazzi lens

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8. They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Mike G.

i would go for light before reach,
so the 70-200 2.8

still usable in dim light and still has plenty of reach on the 40D

but I am not a paparazzi

--if your doing that kind of work you need neither .... why you may ask ...because you need to be in the subjects face ...up close and personal to make any money

You may regret that comment if all you have is a wide-angle lens are you're faced with Oprah's bottom.

the 100-400 is great when you need reach, but it needs light, and more light at 250mm or more.

Works great in the middle of the day, but once your subject is in the shade, or the sun is setting, you'll wish for something in the 2.8 range

The 24-105 F4L was designed as a pap lens ,giving wide and a bit longer than a 24-70 on one lens thats not too heavy when waiting around .I would pick that ,plus a 70-200 iS and a 1.4 converter .If you want that candid shot then the 1200 F5.6 is essential LOL .I note some paps use a 17 -40 F4L but its a bit slow with no IS .often a pap needs a shot ,any shot ,and F2.8 will always deliver, which is why the 24-70 is so popular among paps .Most magazine shots dont need a huge file or a work of art ,they need a hint of nipple, or more,..... and hopefully someone who is not supposed to be there to be photographed .

Joekarter said:

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Click to expand...

No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion, respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I changed my mind: yes, take offense.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...

No offense taken.

Mike G.

therickman said:

Joekarter said:

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Click to expand...

No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the
worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images
of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or
improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of
successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion,
respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you
will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I
changed my mind: yes, take offense.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...

Click to expand...

Don't bother, people who do paparazzi work are most likely psychopaths (having lowered empathy, seeing other people as stepping stones, being impulsive and easily be able to justify and rationalize their behaviour just to name a few common traits) and thus won't listen to you or care what you say at all.

Should we also blame the people who buy those tabloids/ magazines?

The psychopath paparrazi will not exist if there is no interest. I see them just trying to make a buck just to satisfy a psychopath's lust of the celebrity!

I am not part of the paparrazi, nor do I support them by buying tabloids. I feel sorry for the poster who received all these negative comments, when people don't actually know him/her.

My answer to the original question is whatever lens it takes to get the shot.

I'm no pro, but in that world, I would imagine one should carry 2 or 3 cameras with different lenses.
Wasn't Michael Phelp's picture from a celphone camera?

All those nasty impulses making people buy tabloids are much more to blame.

As for the OP, I'd say that the Sigma 120-300 f 2.8 looks like a better compromise between your choices, and it's black.

But I actually agree with the others that probably with a 70-300 DO IS and with a good high iso camera you would probably get better results.

--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bogdanmoisuc/

For this and similar uses, I would choose the 70-200 f2.8 IS over the 100-400mm IS lens because the content of the shot is more important than the quality. You can always do better by cropping an image that isn't large enough than trying to correct one that is too blurry or too dark.

That said, I don't condone this type of work when it gets to the point of being abusive, predatory or invades the subjects privacy.

therickman said:

Joekarter said:

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Click to expand...

No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the
worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images
of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or
improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of
successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion,
respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you
will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I
changed my mind: yes, take offense.

Click to expand...

tend to agree

although perhaps the OP is a more tame sort of paparazzo so it is perhaps a little dangerous to comment quite so strongly

I reckon a 35-350 might be a good one if you're only planning on carting one body around.
--

5D MkII, Sigma 12-24mm, 17-40mm F4L, 24-105mm F4L, Sigma 100-300mm F4, Sigma x1.4 converter & 580EXII
http://www.digitaljersey.co.uk

For papping 2 bodies are the best. 1 with the 16-35L or 17-40L. The other with the 70-200 F2.8. Both bodies with flash. The D1 body series is best as your usually out in the rain and every hing gets soaked. A 'Old granny bag' to carry your gear on the tube and bus is best as well to conseal your valubles. Finally make sure your equipement is insured! If I had to choose I'd go for the 70-200 over the 100-400.

Cheers

James

No doubt if I was wanting to shoot sweet shots of taylor swift, I would want precision, a 70-200 2.8 IS with 1.4 tc. F4 or F4.5-5.6 = not so swift. lol

No bs. lol

You make a good point and I have to agree with all but the last part. I am however curious if you feel the same why about fashion (and similar) photographers.

I assume you know what I mean, but if you don't I'd like to quote a bud light "real men of genius" commercial: "thanks to you (centerfold retoucher, if I remember correctly) we can enjoy beauty just the way we like it: completely fake!"

Best regards,
Alex

PS: the 28-300L sounds like it was build exactly for the purpose of adapting to any situation quickly.

therickman said:

Joekarter said:

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Click to expand...

No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the
worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images
of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or
improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of
successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion,
respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you
will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I
changed my mind: yes, take offense.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...

Click to expand...

--
I like them fast & silent, fast & shallow...
.......................................................USM Primes

If the 1.4 tc drops one stop on the 70-200 f2.8 then you are at f4, so.......... then what?

Mike G.

Joekarter said:

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Mike G.

Click to expand...

The Canon standard paparazzi lens is the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM.
It covers wide to tele lengths with IS.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=9802

The older non-IS version was the EF 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6 L USM.
You can still find some of those around for cheap.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/telephoto_zoom/ef_35~350_35~56l_usm.html

candleJack said:

You make a good point and I have to agree with all but the last part.
I am however curious if you feel the same why about fashion (and
similar) photographers.

Click to expand...

Fashion photographers get paid to shoot models who knowingly and contractually allow their images to be taken for the purposes of self promotion, selling a product, magazine, service or film. Most paparazzi get paid to spy, stalk, and harass celebrities in order to capture an embarrassing or otherwise akward situation to splatter on tabloid covers for the lifeless leeches in our society to gossip about. If not for the cameras in their hands, these people would be arrested for harassment, and probably should be. After all, they killed Princess Diana, and cause many young actresses to crash their cars to escape the flashing lights outside their windshields.

I'm waiting for the day when one celeb will grow the balls to start stalking and harassing some paparazzo, pointing the camera back in their face and peeking over their fence while they're sunbathing. After all, just because they're movie actors doesn't mean their right to privacy is any less than say a CEO, garbage man or car salesman.

candleJack said:

I assume you know what I mean, but if you don't I'd like to quote a
bud light "real men of genius" commercial: "thanks to you (centerfold
retoucher, if I remember correctly) we can enjoy beauty just the way
we like it: completely fake!"

Click to expand...

This is all within the boundaries of the contract between the photographer and the client. If the client wants 'airbrushing' or other photoshopping to add a sense of fantasy or perfection to the image, that's fine. But to do it without their approval or encouragement is altering reality. Remember when Katie Couric's waist was altered in her promos and she threw a fit? Or when Newsweek fixed that septuplets mother's teeth? Photojournalists should never, never alter an image other than a simple crop, curves or levels. Fashion photography, on the other hand, is entirely different.

candleJack said:

Best regards,
Alex

PS: the 28-300L sounds like it was build exactly for the purpose of
adapting to any situation quickly.

therickman said:

Joekarter said:

Would the 100-400 IS be a good lens. I bought a 40D from someone
that was doing Paparazzi work and they were using the 70-200 IS 2.8.
They want $1400 used for the lens but I fighured that I would check
out the 100-400 IS since it is about the same price new and give more
range. Which one would be prefered for that type of work?

Click to expand...

No offense, but that line of work is vulturous and contributes to the
worst of our culture. People who get off seeing unflattering images
of celebrities in tabloids, reading gossip that in no way affects or
improves their lives, and look forward to the fall from grace of
successful people are themselves leeches, absent of compassion,
respect for privacy, and personal ambition. And as a paparazzo, you
will become part of this cancer that is destroying civility.

Have fun stalking people more successful than you'll ever be. I
changed my mind: yes, take offense.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Insert obligatory quote here...