Best camera to buy in the $750.00 - $1500.00 range.

[MassJester]

IMHO that would not be a very good WDW lens... unless you only photograph outside. For indoor photos, you really need a fast lens... 2.8 at the minimum, preferably much faster.

I'm sorry if you have already weighed in on which lense would be a good 'walking around lense' at WDW, but if you have, I missed it. Do you have a thought on this?

Save for the night photogrpahy, is there a good way to get through the day without a lense change?

 

[ukcatfan]

I'm sorry if you have already weighed in on which lense would be a good 'walking around lense' at WDW, but if you have, I missed it. Do you have a thought on this?

Save for the night photogrpahy, is there a good way to get through the day without a lense change?

I could get by with a 50mm prime if needed.

Kevin

 

[MassJester]

I could get by with a 50mm prime if needed.

Kevin

You know, Kevin, my first thought was, "oh, no that would never do." But then I thought, doesn't a 10.1 mp camera create an very large image with a 50mm at its highest quality settings? And if I'm right, that certainly affords some editing flexibility as far as cropping and zooming in on a subject after the shot has been taken.

Then again, I may have no idea what I'm talking about...

Paul

 

[ukcatfan]

While there are some shots at WDW that you just have to have more or less focal length than 50mm, many shots can rely on the foot zoom. We end up zooming out of convenience many times. I would probably never want to have just one lens while there, but if forced to, I would go with the prime due to the speed of the lens compared to a zoom.

Kevin

 

[MassJester]

While there are some shots at WDW that you just have to have more or less focal length than 50mm, many shots can rely on the foot zoom. We end up zooming out of convenience many times. I would probably never want to have just one lens while there, but if forced to, I would go with the prime due to the speed of the lens compared to a zoom.

Kevin

"foot zoom" ?

 

[ukcatfan]

"foot zoom" ?

You walk to where you need to be to get the shot instead of using your zoom. BTW, the foot zoom will give you better results b/c you are more open to use the shutter and aperture that captures your intended image. One place where a true zoom is needed is AK. You just cannot get close enough to many things there.

Kevin

 

[MassJester]

You walk to where you need to be to get the shot instead of using your zoom. BTW, the foot zoom will give you better results b/c you are more open to use the shutter and aperture that captures your intended image. One place where a true zoom is needed is AK. You just cannot get close enough to many things there.

Kevin

You know, I just knew it.

Actually, it's all good. My photography skills are a mess. For the past four years I've used sony point and shoot cameras. They get part of the job done, but they just weren't any fun.

Before that, I used the Minolta Maxxum line, but not very effectively. So, it's time to learn it all one step at a time.

The L series lenses have real appeal, and I will absolutely acquire a prime from that collection. The 24-70 f/2.8 L looks good (and gets good reviews), and should be fine for daylight (might even be ok for AK, but I'd be interested in your thoughts). Though, combined that looks close to $1,500 in lenses.

I'm trying to wait for PMA (and all the attendant announcements), but all this research has whipped me up into a shopping frenzy. (It's an ethnic weakness)

 

[ukcatfan]

The L series lenses have real appeal, and I will absolutely acquire a prime from that collection. The 24-70 f/2.8 L looks good (and gets good reviews), and should be fine for daylight (might even be ok for AK, but I'd be interested in your thoughts). Though, combined that looks close to $1,500 in lenses.

It all depends on your style. For me, 24mm would not be wide enough. That comes out to be effectively 38.4mm on your typical Canon. I looked at a 24-135 Sigma but went with the 18-55mm kit lens instead. For AK, I would not be happy with 70mm (i.e. 112mm effective on Canon) at my high end, but could live with it. I think something like a 200mm would be better if you want some of the animal shots. That could also be useful for shows, but that can be avoided by just being early and getting nice seats.

You might get better responses from the Canon users considering L glass. I have less than $100 tied up in my three lenses (kit, used 50mm F/2, used 80-210mm). I do not know if you really need to go up to the L glass for a decent prime. I guess it depends on your needs. The under $100 Canon 50mm is very highly regarded.

Kevin

 

[MassJester]

It all depends on your style. For me, 24mm would not be wide enough. That comes out to be effectively 38.4mm on your typical Canon. I looked at a 24-135 Sigma but went with the 18-55mm kit lens instead. For AK, I would not be happy with 70mm (i.e. 112mm effective on Canon) at my high end, but could live with it. I think something like a 200mm would be better if you want some of the animal shots. That could also be useful for shows, but that can be avoided by just being early and getting nice seats.

You might get better responses from the Canon users considering L glass. I have less than $100 tied up in my three lenses (kit, used 50mm F/2, used 80-210mm). I do not know if you really need to go up to the L glass for a decent prime. I guess it depends on your needs. The under $100 Canon 50mm is very highly regarded.

Kevin

The L series makes sense to me, as I want lenses that I can grow into, and I would like to avoid buying the same lense solution more than once. If it has an advantage over the other avalaible lenses, and I can manage it, my thought it why not.

Your point about the animal shots is well taken. a 70-200 would probably be the ticket there.

 

[jann1033]

You know, I just knew it.

Actually, it's all good. My photography skills are a mess. For the past four years I've used sony point and shoot cameras. They get part of the job done, but they just weren't any fun.

Before that, I used the Minolta Maxxum line, but not very effectively. So, it's time to learn it all one step at a time.

The L series lenses have real appeal, and I will absolutely acquire a prime from that collection. The 24-70 f/2.8 L looks good (and gets good reviews), and should be fine for daylight (might even be ok for AK, but I'd be interested in your thoughts). Though, combined that looks close to $1,500 in lenses.

I'm trying to wait for PMA (and all the attendant announcements), but all this research has whipped me up into a shopping frenzy. (It's an ethnic weakness)

a while back bobquincy posted some great ak shots using the 70-200f4L that is under $600.it is supposed to be a really good lens, they also have it in is for around$1000+ the non is is my next purchase...either that or 200mm f2.8l prime if i can find it used ( almost 700 otherwise) but depending on your budget even though i am always leary of 3 party lenses( nightmarish past usage ) the sigma 70-200 f2.8 looks like a really good lens( but 4 or so lbs ) for around 800+. the only problem with the f4 is the f4 since i ;d rather have an f2.8 but probably i could make do with that...and add a teleconverter and it's almost 300mm

 

[Groucho]

I'm sorry if you have already weighed in on which lense would be a good 'walking around lense' at WDW, but if you have, I missed it. Do you have a thought on this?

Save for the night photogrpahy, is there a good way to get through the day without a lense change?

Like Kevin, if I had to choose one single lens, day or night, it'd have to be the 50mm 1.4 (or equivalent for your system.) I used mine for half of the pictures I took on my last trip, and I carried a total of six lenses!

However, I do think that it's a waste to have a DSLR and just stick one lens on it. There's no such thing as a perfect lens for all conditions or all photographers. I understand that a lot of people like the convenience of one lens with a huge zoom range, but I do think that when you look for a single "walk-about" lens, you're really not getting the quality that you could (and can easily spend more and have a bigger, heavier lens.) You might as well be carrying a big-zoom PnS.

Just by expanding your selection to two lenses, you could then carry a 50mm and something between an 18-28mm F1.8 prime, and have enough to capture most stuff that you'd ever want to at WDW, with a few exceptions - the only major one IMHO being the animals at AK. You'd only have to carry around one extra lens, and it would be small and light - easily fitting in a small lens pouch on your belt or even in your pocket (as long as you are careful not to bump it against anything hard!) Lens changes should be quick and easy with a little bit of practice, and then you're all set. Pick up a longer zoom - 50-200, 70-200, whatever - for the days when you're going to AK.

 

[handicap18]

Jann, check out keh.com. They specialize in used lenses (as well as new ones), and are always getting new stuff. That is where I picked up my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro used for about $100 off the new price.

 

[MassJester]

Like Kevin, if I had to choose one single lens, day or night, it'd have to be the 50mm 1.4 (or equivalent for your system.) I used mine for half of the pictures I took on my last trip, and I carried a total of six lenses!

This may sound like a remarkably stupid question (hey, I survived two terms of Contract law some years back, I can take it...), when I go for a lense that is f/2.8 instead of f/1.4, what sort of shots am I taking off the table in practical terms?

 

[ukcatfan]

This may sound like a remarkably stupid question (hey, I survived two terms of Contract law some years back, I can take it...), when I go for a lense that is f/2.8 instead of f/1.4, what sort of shots am I taking off the table in practical terms?

The larger aperture allows for a faster shutter or a lower ISO. The F/2.8 is still pretty fast. That is not the only thing to look at when chosing a lens. The sharpness is also very important.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

The 1.4 lets you go a bit further without needing to dip into higher ISOs or slower shutter speeds. Of course, most lenses are not at their absolute best when wide open - the 50mm 1.4 performs better at F1.7 and up - but the same goes for the F2.8, so that part is kind of a wash.

I don't know if I'd say that you're completely eliminating the ability to take certain photos, but in some WDW situations, you need every drop of light you can get - on-ride photos for example, or Spectromagic - for example, check out a couple of the shots I posted on page two of the Spectromagic thread. There's some F1.7 shots there, and then you're already at ISO 1600 and 1/90th second shutter, there's not much more room to go.

Or put it this way - 1.4 is two stops more than 2.8, so you could leave the shutter speed the same and go from ISO 1600 to ISO 400... or leave the ISO the same and go down two steps in speed, like from 1/30th of a second to 1/90th of a second, or a combination of the two.

To put it in prospective - the difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is the same as the difference between 2.8 and 5.6. There's a good picture on the Wikipedia page that graphically shows the size difference.

 

[MassJester]

Thanks, I can never read enough different explanations -- the repitions are starting to peel back the scales and are letting some understanding penetrate.

One of the qualities I've heard mention of the L lenses is the improvement in sharpness, and I am wondering if that isn't a compensating factor when considering the option of a slower lense.

I spent several minutes going between the images you posted that were pre and post noise adjustment, and I have to say I couldn't notice the difference--the encumberance of an untutored eye, I suppose.

I was struck by what I thought to be a relatively shallow depth of field on the picture showing the CM entertaing the crowd before the parade. Was that on purpose, or was it the best you could achieve under the circumstances?

I saw the flashes from other people's cameras, and aside from the white holes created, did they present any other difficulty for you?

I looked at some of the other pictures posted on Page 1 of that thread, and noticed at least one poster was taking his pictures without a tri or monopod. I thought that was interesting too.

 

[Groucho]

Since Spectromagic is moving, a tripod or monopod is not as essential - in fact, I think I may have disconnected mine after the first few minutes and went back to hand-holding.

The shot with the CM does have a very shallow DoF due to the aperture being very wide (F1.7)... there wasn't much I could do if I wanted to get that exposure. I could close the aperture slightly, say to a 2.0 or 2.4, but would probably get a blurred photo - that one was at 1/90th second. A couple other pictures I took just before that were at 1/60th of a second and turned out fairly well, but one that I took at F2.0 had the shutter go down to 1/45th and has a bit of motion blur on the CM and the boy (plus the camera focused on the crowd in the background, argh). The first shot I tried taking was at ISO 800 in program mode (auto ISO set to 200-800), and it shot it at F1.4 and 1/20th of a second - it's pretty blurry.

Of course, that exposure in the CM shot is certainly brighter than it appeared in person - it's quite dark at night as I'm sure you're aware, and the parade itself often doesn't need to be exposed quite so brightly. But I like the way those shots of the CM turned out with the brighter exposure.

As for the noise reduction - it is pretty hard to see in the CM shot but it's there (maybe a little bit in the pavement), and in the second shot, you can see it if you look closely at the white of the outfits - it's smoother in the de-noised photo. The noise is certainly more visible at full resolution, but becomes pretty minor when shrunk down to 1024 or even 1600 pixels wide.

As for other people's flashes, those are no problem at all, they just make pretty coronas on my picture. (I think that's the right term... I'm not 100% sure.) They did make the Mickey picture a little odd, but it was going to be a "failed" picture whether that other flash was there or not!

 

[MassJester]

What would happen if you shot faster than 1/90th of a second?

 

[Groucho]

Well, any time you speed up the shutter, you're letting less light into the camera. You either:
1) live with it and get a darker photo, or
2) make up for it in another way. Since you have no control over the ambient light and we're trying to avoid a flash photo, your only options are to bump up the ISO or choose a wider aperture. 1600 ISO is the max on most cameras so there's not much room to wiggle there. For aperture... well, I was already at F1.7 in most of the photos, I could go to F1.4 (any possible loss in absolute sharpness is probably moot due to it being lost due to image noise anyway) but that's it - and again, few lenses can hit that kind of speed. The fastest zooms (that I'm aware of) max out at F2.8, and most primes are there, too... and the usual Canon/Nikon 50mms are F1.8s (they have F1.4s but they're a good bit more expensive - like 2x or more.)

Ultimately, I think that if you're still getting motion blurring and you've maxed out the ISO and aperture, you have no choice but to go for underexposed pictures and hope that you can brighten them up later in software (make sure you're shooting in raw format.)

 

[MassJester]

I see your point. Do you think f/1.4 and 1600 would have allowed for a shutterspeed that would have made an important difference, and perhaps a better image?