Yet another lens question

[bingb0ng]

Hi all. Longtime lurker, first time poster.

Getting excited for a trip to WDW in the coming months and trying to figure out the best lenses to bring (or rent, or buy!) that can meet a few requirements. We don't got to WDW very often (this is our second visit with our kids, last one was a few years ago) and I'm an avid hobbyist photographer but still trying to get better. Here are the kinds of images I'm going to take:

1) Lots of outdoor photos of our 2 elementary schoolers out and about at the parks.
2) Lots of indoor photos with characters.
3) Some pictures of shows
4) Less likely on-ride pictures. Maybe one or two for fun, but not a main goal.

I have a new DX (crop sensor) Nikon body (D7200) that is my first upgrade to a more than decade old D50 (this was a rare treat for myself). For the D50, I have only two lenses - the original Nikkor 18-200 f/3.5-5.3 VR lens and a Nikkor AF-D 50mm f1.4.

We're doing the parks in two phases per day (AM rope drop, lunch break back at hotel, late afternoon evening return to park). I'd like to bring just one lens per trip out to the parks but don't mind changing lenses midday at the hotel.

Is the 18-200 good enough for indoor shots? Is the 50mm on a crop sensor too long for, say, princesses and Mickey? Should I do the 18-200 in the morning and the 50 in the evenings? I see a lot of people like the Sigma 30mm f1.4, which I might like instead of the 50, but on Flickr I can only find ride pictures taken with it--no character interactions. It seems like the 17-55 f/2.8 might do the trick, and I don't mind the expense (because I can rent it), but most posts here and elsewhere are something to the effect of "why would you carry something that heavy at WDW?" and "aren't you on vacation?".

Last time we went to disney, all I took was the 18-200 and while most of the shots are on the wide end, I'm wondering if a little faster glass might improve those shots without flash. So... any and all recommendations welcome!

Thanks!

bb

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Your 18-200 will work well in good light while walking around and with the outdoor shows (again in good light). With indoor character meets, you are correct about the 50mm. It will be a little tight. The minimum you would need is a 2.8 lens such as the 17-55. There is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 which can serve two purposes, indoor character meets and the darker rides. As far as any indoor shows, depending on your seats, you may need length with low light capability. I don't take this recommendation lightly (no pun intended), but I use the 70-200 f2.8. Of course, I'm a pack mule and do not mind the weight. Its not everyone's cup of tea. Otherwise, you can raise the ISO (with accompanying increase in noise level) and use the 18-200. It will depend on how much noise is acceptable to you and post processing noise reduction software.

 

[havoc315]

The 30/1.4 is perfectly good for character interactions. You may just need to foot zoom your composition a little. In terms of image quality, it will surpass the 17-55/2.8, but without the convenience of a zoom.
As Gianna'sPapa said, the 18-200 will be perfectly adequate for a wide range of outdoor/good light shots. It will suffer indoors and low light, especially when zoomed in. When zoomed out to 18mm, you will get slightly better indoor/low light performance, but still not stellar.

 

[jec6613]

Congrats on your D7200, I love mine.

Fair warning, the D7200 is a massive jump in resolution, and the 18-200 really doesn't hold up well. Your 50 f/1.4 is going to be considerably sharper, sharp enough you'll probably want a new lens when you see the difference on your computer monitor. The compromises of a super zoom were hidden on your 6 MP D50, but even in the 1.3x Crop mode of the D7200 it's still about 15 MP.

On the flipside, there's good news going to the D7200 as well: several stops in ISO performance. ISO 6400 is no problem for snapshots, with significantly lower noise at high ISO than even other 24 MP bodies, and 12,800 is very usable and I wouldn't hesitate to use it. So an f/5.6 is usable indoors, so you don't absolutely need to buy anything.

As for a mid prime, Nikon sells a 35 f/1.8 DX lens for about $200, and it's a stay on the body type of lens, that gives you speed for indoors and well as enough working room for characters indoors, without the bulk (and expense) of a big f/2.8 zoom. It takes 52 mm filters, which matches your 50 f/1.4 (which is small and good for some short portrait work). This is a lens you should get, and I've never met anybody who didn't like it, and it is about the proper focal length for most indoor shots at WDW.

The best mid zooms for a 24 MP DX body, IME, are the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 VR II Nikon, 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR Nikon, 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon, 17-50 f/2.8 Sigma, and 17-70 f/2.8-4 Sigma. Here's the gotcha with these: none of these replace a telephoto, like your 18-200 mm does. Unfortunately, the longer the zoom range, the more the optical compromises. The good news is, at WDW, 96+% of the time the telephoto range will go unused, so you don't need it, and I don't plan on bringing it into the parks most days, myself (although for shows you want the telephoto). That said, you want one many other times, so I'll give you a couple ideas of sensible mid-tele pairings below:

These are from cheapest to most expensive, but they're all optically excellent:

• 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 VR II Nikon, and 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR II Nikon: although any of the 18-55 and 55-200 pairings will work better than the 18-200, the new VR II models are significantly better, and tiny with collapsible barrels, bringing your total weight and size down (at the price of convenience of lens swapping). Bonus, Nikon USA has them refurbished in their own store for a bit over $200 for the pair. Oh, they also take the same 52 mm filter size as your 50 f/1.4 and the 35 f/1.8
• 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR Nikon, and 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR Nikon: Just like above, they share a common 67 mm filter size with each other (although that size is a bit unusual for Nikon), but they bring higher optical quality to the table, as well as wider wide angles and longer telephoto.
• 16-85 f/3.5-5.6 VR Nikon, and 70-200 f/4 VR Nikon: Same idea as the 70-300 above, but the 70-200 is optically much better (and gets to 280 mm at f/5.6 with a 1.4x teleconverter). Not cheap though, the 70-200 costs about as much as the D7200 body.
• 17-55 f/2.8 Nikon or 17-50 f/2.8 Sigma, and 70-200 f/2.8 VR II Nikon: These are the big boys, and new can set you back over $3,000 combined. But they are the best available.

 

[dmaxphil]

Congrats on the d7200. Great camera! For the money, you cannot beat the 35mm f/1.8.

 

[bingb0ng]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone! Lots to think about and I really appreciate it!!

 

[jec6613]

Just a follow-up, Nikon announced a new lens: a 16-80 mm f/2.8-4E. So far, it looks pretty amazing, and it probably replaces the, "Money no object," lens in that focal length range.

 

[OKW Lover]

Is the 18-200 good enough for indoor shots? Is the 50mm on a crop sensor too long for, say, princesses and Mickey?

I use the 18-200 (on a 5300) as my walk around lens for the parks. Most of my shots tend to be on the 20-70 range but the longer end is still useful for shots at AK and across Epcot's World Showcase. So, with the one lens I've got it all covered.

As to your question about the 50mm goes, yes that is too long for a M&G or even most inside dark rides. At least that's been my experience.