Beginner question. Which lenses should I carry?

[Luigi Sansone]

I bought a T5i a month or so ago and am slowly learning the basics around shooting with it. I took it to Animal Kingdom for the first time yesterday, but shot fully auto until I get the hang of it a little more. I brought my kit lens (18-55) and a 55-250 lens that I bought for things like the safari. Wasn't able to do much on dark rides (DINOSAUR, etc) and I know it's because I need a faster lens. I was looking into a 50mm 1.8, or the 30mm Sigma 1.4 that everyone seems to suggest. Can the Sigma replace my kit lens for regular out and about shooting? Or am I better off carrying all 3 lenses?

 

[mom2rtk]

It's all a matter of preference. Lots of people go out with just a prime mounted and choose not to carry anything else. But you lose the flexibility and reach of the zoom.

 

[havoc315]

Yes, you can use it in place of the 18-55, if you don't need the wider focal length.
If you go with a 50/1.8, you'll lose the whole 18-49. A 30/1.4 falls nicely in the middle, but you won't have 18-29 and 31-55. Whether you really need that range, is a matter of personal preference.
I like shooting with a prime, it forces you to give more thought to perspective and composition.

 

[Tigerlulu]

I've shot 50mm in the parks and it's fine. You'll be fine with the 30. I always bring a different lens each day when I go into the parks because each lens has a different purpose. And it does force you to alter your composition to complement the lens. It's good for you!

 

[Luigi Sansone]

It's all a matter of preference. Lots of people go out with just a prime mounted and choose not to carry anything else. But you lose the flexibility and reach of the zoom.

I'd still carry the 55-250 for the zooming aspect of it. Mainly just wondering if I can still get away with carrying 2 lenses or if I'd be up to carrying 3.

Yes, you can use it in place of the 18-55, if you don't need the wider focal length.
If you go with a 50/1.8, you'll lose the whole 18-49. A 30/1.4 falls nicely in the middle, but you won't have 18-29 and 31-55. Whether you really need that range, is a matter of personal preference.
I like shooting with a prime, it forces you to give more thought to perspective and composition.

I know alot of people recommend that 30mm as a "dark ride" lens. I just wasn't sure if it was ONLY a lens for darker shots. Still trying to learn all the terminology and meaning behind everything that comes with these lenses. If I could get away with replacing the 18-55 with one of these, I'd definitely go with the 30mm over the 50. If I had to carry all 3 anyway, I probably would just go with the 50 for the price difference. It'd be nice to keep that 18 for those wider shots, but if it's the difference between carrying one extra lens on my belt, or having to carry 2 in a bag, I'd definitely take the convenience of the 30.

 

[Luigi Sansone]

I've shot 50mm in the parks and it's fine. You'll be fine with the 30. I always bring a different lens each day when I go into the parks because each lens has a different purpose. And it does force you to alter your composition to complement the lens. It's good for you!

That's what I'm kind of hoping actually. I just wasn't sure if the 30mm was a good replacement for the 18-55. But now that I know it's doable, I'm hoping the "challenge" of not being able to zoom in and out with it and still get a good picture, teaches me how to make the proper adjustments a little quicker because I'd have to think about it more.

 

[Tigerlulu]

Have fun!

 

[havoc315]

In terms of image quality, the 30/1.4 is a far superior lens to your kit lens. Not just for dark rides. In regular light, it will give you greater control of narrow depth of field. When stopped down to the equivalent aperture of your kit lens, it will be a whole lot sharper.
You lose the convenience of zooming, but gain far superior image quality.

 

[Luigi Sansone]

In terms of image quality, the 30/1.4 is a far superior lens to your kit lens. Not just for dark rides. In regular light, it will give you greater control of narrow depth of field. When stopped down to the equivalent aperture of your kit lens, it will be a whole lot sharper.
You lose the convenience of zooming, but gain far superior image quality.

That's definitely exactly what I needed to know right there. I kind of figured that would be the case, but without completely understanding how exposure and f-stop and everything works, I wasn't positive. (A few books and possibly a class are in the very near future. )

 

[mom2rtk]

That's definitely exactly what I needed to know right there. I kind of figured that would be the case, but without completely understanding how exposure and f-stop and everything works, I wasn't positive. (A few books and possibly a class are in the very near future. )

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is a great place to start.

 

[Luigi Sansone]

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is a great place to start.

That's the one I keep seeing everywhere. I actually bought the Kindle Edition this afternoon, and I'll probably start reading it during my lunch breaks at work this week. More constructive than watching TV shows on my iPhone. :] Depending how much I learn from that, I also saw a few people recommend the "for Dummies" DSLR books. I might look into those as well.

 

[mom2rtk]

That's the one I keep seeing everywhere. I actually bought the Kindle Edition this afternoon, and I'll probably start reading it during my lunch breaks at work this week. More constructive than watching TV shows on my iPhone. :] Depending how much I learn from that, I also saw a few people recommend the "for Dummies" DSLR books. I might look into those as well.

I have used the Dummies books before as a more user friendly version of my camera instruction manual, so they are great for looking up how to use various controls and such. Bryan Peterson's book is more about understanding light, and the photographic triangle, and that applies to all makes and models. So hopefully both will be very helpful.

 

[boBQuincy]

While f/1.4 will give less depth of field than f/1.8 it may not be useful in daylight. If we use the rule of thumb exposure of f/16 at a shutter speed comparable to ISO to use f/1.4 in daylight requires a shutter speed of 1/12,800 second, a speed that not many cameras can provide.

The 30 f/1.4 can provide sharper images than the kit lens although at f/8 I doubt we can see a difference without some serious pixel-peeping. F/1.4 comes with a price, like 4x the cost of the 50 f/1.8. It is also larger and heavier. If none of these are an issue I would say go for the f/1.4.

Like others, I found that 50 mm was a little too long for indoor rides on a crop camera but instead of getting a 30 I got another camera.

 

[elmoandzoey]

I made the switch from 50mm to 30mm for my last trip and I do not regret it at all! 50mm was too tight in about 95% of the time on dark rides. 30mm was absolutely excellent! I also found the 30mm to produce less out of focus pictures. To give you an example: 12 rides on HM with the 50mm produced one usable shot of 2 hitchhiking ghosts (it was too tight for 3). 8 rides on HM with the 30mm produced usable shots of all 3 ghosts during every single ride.

Personally, I wouldn't use 30mm as a walkaround lens at the parks if you are into shooting buildings etc. If you shoot people with a little bit of building in the background, you'll probably be fine but for whole builings, I need wide angle when shooting. I usually swap for a 10-22mm so I can get really really wide angle. I also bring a 17-50 f2.8 for some of the more lit dark rides. I used it on IASW and on POTC on my last trip. First was fine, latter was very very borderline with ISO 3.200 (I wouldn't recommend using a 2.8 at all on POTC!) But I wanted to see if I can get some wide angle shots on POTC - just to find out I usually zoomed in around the 30mm mark anyway

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

While photography is a huge part of my WDW vacations, I'm not about to make it more difficult than it is. I try to carry the right lens for the right shot. If that entails carrying extra lenses, so be it. Disclosure: I am a pack horse so I don't recommend this to those that are adverse to extra weight. I don't use any "kit" lenses at WDW. Here is what I carry:

17-50 f2.8 for wider angle
28-70 f2.8 my walkaround
30 f1.4 dark rides
70-200 f2.8 length

So much of WDW is in lowlight conditions is the reason for the faster lenses. With this kit there aren't too many shots I can't get. Of course, the penalty is the added weight, however that is all relative due to the fact I normally carry 2-3 camera bodies with battery grips when I'm working!

 

[RustManFan]

last time I visited AK I took my Pentax and both my 18-55 and my zoom lens (55-300 I think) on day 1. Second day I only took the zoom so I could focus on getting Tree of Life and photos of animals at a distance. Did the same at MK and Epcot.

Now I will have to think about another lens for my new Canon Rebel T5 so I can get dark ride pics too!

 

[gunderda]

My go-to lens is a 18-250 (something like that) but lately I haven't been very happy with the quality of pictures taken with it... so I'm thinking about just taking my 18-55mm lens into WDW but i'm a little nervous that I will regret not having a zoom lens available. I just don't want a lot of weight to carry.

Someone tell me that I will be just fine with the 18-55 lol

 

[boBQuincy]

You will be just fine with the 18-55.

Most (all ?) of the superzoom lenses have pretty bad results at some focal lengths while Canon and Nikon's 18-55 lenses are not so good at 55. With the short lens you will have to zoom with your feet more and for some photos you will just have to crop or come back later with the longer lens. I am with you about not carrying a lot of weight! DSLR sales are dropping as the smaller/lighter mirrorless cameras are gaining.

 

[jec6613]

You will be just fine with the 18-55.

Most (all ?) of the superzoom lenses have pretty bad results at some focal lengths while Canon and Nikon's 18-55 lenses are not so good at 55.

I agree that you'll be fine with the 18-55, but while your comment about 55 mm may be true of Canon, check out the MTF curve on the Nikkor at 55 mm, wide open: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Pr...G-VR-II.html#!/media:image:2211_MTF_01_en.jpg

The 18-55 VR Nikkor is one of the most supremely competent lenses I've ever had the pleasure of shooting with, with no major optical flaws at any focal length. And, refurbished, one can pick up the latest II version of the 18-55 and 55-200 for under $300, shipped with tax.

The problem with your 18-250, and any super zoom really, is that the longer the zoom range the more compromises must be made in the optics. Ask a lens designer, and you'll find that it's easy to make a 2-3x zoom with few compromises, but at the 10x+ range, it's an issue. A dedicated telephoto, such as a 55-200 or 70-300, and changing lenses will almost always net you a better photo from a technical standpoint.

If those were my two lens choices, I'd take the 18-55 into MK, EC and HS, and the 18-250 into AK.

 

[gunderda]

I was questioning myself but I think i'm going to force myself to stick with the 18-55. I really love my zoom because I like to keep farther away but the lack of quality images is really starting to bug me because I think the focus is slightly off on my "all-in-one".

Oh I have a Nikon so my 18-55 lens is a Nikkor.

I've recently started shooting in RAW so I'm hopeful that even if I'm a bit further away than I would like that I can crop and still get some good images.

I wish the prices on DSLR's would drop if sales are dropping because currently I have a Nikon D5100 (started with a D3000 i think) and I'd really like to upgrade to a more compact Nikon body but I don't have the $1000 to spend lol