7-14mm or 50-200mm for Disney?

[Crystal_27]

I am buying a new lens for our upcoming trip to Disney, but want recommendations on which one to buy. I currently have a 14-45mm, 50mm prime, and 40-150mm. Can anyone offer any suggestions? Olympus Zuiko lenses, by the way (not that it matters). Thanks!

 

[YEKCIM]

I am buying a new lens for our upcoming trip to Disney, but want recommendations on which one to buy. I currently have a 14-45mm, 50mm prime, and 40-150mm. Can anyone offer any suggestions? Olympus Zuiko lenses, by the way (not that it matters). Thanks!

***EDIT***

I re-read your post and saw that you were considering the 7-14 or 50-200, and also checked and found that the Oly sensor crop factor is 2.0, meaning that 7-14 is 14-28mm equivalent and 50-200 is 100-400mm equivalent. If the choice were mine, I'd go for the 50-200, for AK, if for no other reason...but that's just me.

~YEKCIM

 

[Groucho]

Well, actually it does matter, as the Oympus "four thirds" sensor means that you have a 2x crop factor rather than the 1.5-1.6 crop factor that we're used to thinking of with DSLRs. So a 50mm on your DSLR is comparable to a 66mm on other DSLRs. Other than that, it doesn't matter.

That being said, I would tend to focus more on faster and wider lenses. There are uses for telephoto lenses at Disney but they're far outweighed by uses for wider lenses, and since most indoor areas are quite dark, a very fast lens can be a real help. This can also help if you want to photograph SpectroMagic.

 

[deletedpenguin]

For what it's worth, I just got back from four days at Disneyland, and I brought a 17-70/f2.8 and a 70-200/f2.8. Not once did I use my 70-200.

 

[JR6ooo4]

Crop factor - shmop factor. If the shooter only has one camera all this is irrelevant. A longer lens will get you closer etc...

Mikeeee

 

[Crystal_27]

Thank you for the replies. I've been leaning toward the 50-200mm simply because of AK - with the hope that I *can* get a bit closer to the animals. However, it *would* be nice to have the 7-14 in my bag, although I can't imagine that I would ever use that lens except for Disney. In addition, the 50-200mm is about $500 cheaper than the 7-14mm which is always a huge plus. Anyway, thanks again!

 

[handicap18]

For what it's worth, I just got back from four days at Disneyland, and I brought a 17-70/f2.8 and a 70-200/f2.8. Not once did I use my 70-200.

Is that the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens or is there another maker of a 17-70 f/2.8 that I haven't seen. I had thought about the Sigma because it does go down to f/2.8 at the wide end which is pretty convenient. If that is the same lens, how is it quality wise?

 

[deletedpenguin]

Is that the Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 lens or is there another maker of a 17-70 f/2.8 that I haven't seen. I had thought about the Sigma because it does go down to f/2.8 at the wide end which is pretty convenient. If that is the same lens, how is it quality wise?

Sorry, it's the Sigma 24-79/f2.8 EX DG that I was referring to. I apparently was trying to combine focal lengths of different lenses I own.

 

[handicap18]

Gotcha,,, I like those f/2.8 lenses too. Maybe one of these days I'll go that route, but for now the 24mm isn't wide enough for me, though I do like the thought of the f/2.8 througout. Luckily the option will be around for a while. Both Sigma and Tamron make some pretty good ones with that aperture in that focal range.

 

[deletedpenguin]

Gotcha,,, I like those f/2.8 lenses too. Maybe one of these days I'll go that route, but for now the 24mm isn't wide enough for me, though I do like the thought of the f/2.8 througout. Luckily the option will be around for a while. Both Sigma and Tamron make some pretty good ones with that aperture in that focal range.

The f/2.8 came in real handy this past weekend at Disneyland. These shots were handheld:

 

[jann1033]

Thank you for the replies. I've been leaning toward the 50-200mm simply because of AK - with the hope that I *can* get a bit closer to the animals. However, it *would* be nice to have the 7-14 in my bag, although I can't imagine that I would ever use that lens except for Disney. In addition, the 50-200mm is about $500 cheaper than the 7-14mm which is always a huge plus. Anyway, thanks again!

i think you touch on a good point here...you aren't always at disney but you will always be using your camera. at home.imo if you can only get one lens before your trip, get the one you'll use at home most as well. then next trip, get what ever shots you wish you had taken with the other lens

 

[0bli0]

i have never used anything longer that 135 at a disney park - and that was for some portraits and people shots in a parade. generally the 24-70 2.8 is the lens i'll take 80% of the shots with. i also have the 50 1.4 for indoor. i'll often take either the 12-24 or the 15mm fisheye for wide and lastly for special effect, i'll bring along the lensbaby.

for one of my trips last year to hkdl, i only had the 24-70 and it served me well.

 

[boBQuincy]

I would go along with 0bli0, the longer lens would probably get the least use. I was at WDW for three days in February with a 24-105, 10-22, and 70-200. I didn't use the 70-200 at all (didn't go to AK, where I probably would have used it).

The 24-105 is on my camera most of the time.

 

[Crystal_27]

Olympus makes a 18-180mm but it's not reviewed as highly as the other Zuiko lenses. If the 18-180mm was not garbage, that one would be a no-brainer to get for Disney. Perhaps, when Oly releases its 2007 lenses, there will either be an improvement to the 18-180mm, or maybe they will release a lens in that general range. We'll see - at least I have a little bit of time before we go. Anyway, thanks again!

 

[Groucho]

Crop factor - shmop factor. If the shooter only has one camera all this is irrelevant. A longer lens will get you closer etc...

Mikeeee

Shmop factor, nothing. What about the wide end? A 28mm lens on a 1.5/1.6-crop DSLR is still reasonably wide, the same on a 2x-crop DSLR will not be very wide. That's why the kit lens is a 14-45mm instead of the usual 18-55mm.