Canon lens: 18-135 or 18-200

[bronzebrunette78]

Hi there. Still a newbie to my Canon T1i and looking for my best walk around lens for WDW. I know that wide lenses seem preferred at Disney, but I'm frequently a fan of more reach in my photos. Thus far, I have my kit lens 18-55, a nifty fifty 1.8, and a 70-300 non IS lens. While I'm impressed with the variety of shots I can get, I'm guessing that I won't want to be changing lenses all that frequently on my trip. I'm liking the idea of the 18-135 or 18-200 (though def open to more suggestions). Any opinions on these would be greatly appreciated!

 

[VVFF]

Hi there. Still a newbie to my Canon T1i and looking for my best walk around lens for WDW. I know that wide lenses seem preferred at Disney, but I'm frequently a fan of more reach in my photos. Thus far, I have my kit lens 18-55, a nifty fifty 1.8, and a 70-300 non IS lens. While I'm impressed with the variety of shots I can get, I'm guessing that I won't want to be changing lenses all that frequently on my trip. I'm liking the idea of the 18-135 or 18-200 (though def open to more suggestions). Any opinions on these would be greatly appreciated!

What do you see yourself using the 200mm end for at WDW?

 

[SrisonS]

The 200mm would be pretty useful at Animal Kingdom. Other than that, you might not use that range too much at Disney. But would it be good for your non-Disney photos???

But I have the 135mm, and I REALLY like it. It stays on my cameras most of the time. Even at AK, that zoom range isn't bad.

And I've heard more iffy things about the 200 than the 135. Good luck on choosing.

 

[toomanycars]

The quality is better on the 18-135mm and on your camera there is a 1.6X crop sensor, so you get a 29-216mm equivalent.

 

[bronzebrunette78]

Sounds like the 135 might be the way to go. I've got to admit, Scott, I was admiring your photos just last night- you have some incredible (and inspiring) shots! In regards to what I might use with the 200 focal length? I don't know exactly lol......but I was thinking AK, shows, parades, and that sort of thing. I love trying to capture candid facial expressions from afar. On my last trip, I had only a point & shoot camera and I found myself snapping photos nonstop (about 1200 of them actually). At that time, I had NO knowledge of camera settings, but now that I've actually taken a class, I'd love to experiment some with my new DSLR. I really appreciate the input.....and am pleasantly surprised to hear that picture quality might actually be better with the cheaper lens! Many thanks!

 

[SrisonS]

Sounds like the 135 might be the way to go. I've got to admit, Scott, I was admiring your photos just last night- you have some incredible (and inspiring) shots! In regards to what I might use with the 200 focal length? I don't know exactly lol......but I was thinking AK, shows, parades, and that sort of thing. I love trying to capture candid facial expressions from afar. On my last trip, I had only a point & shoot camera and I found myself snapping photos nonstop (about 1200 of them actually). At that time, I had NO knowledge of camera settings, but now that I've actually taken a class, I'd love to experiment some with my new DSLR. I really appreciate the input.....and am pleasantly surprised to hear that picture quality might actually be better with the cheaper lens! Many thanks!

Thanks a lot!!! You definitely won't need the 200 for parades. And you probably wouldn't need it for the show either... unless you're way in the back of a bigger theater.

But i know what you mean about keeping your distance when it comes to taking candid shots. I've done that once or twice myself. But since it's Disney, and it's crowded, you can still be a good distance away with the 135 and look like you're taking a picture of something else. If not, just make sure you have comfortable running shoes.

 

[All American]

I have a T2i, and my husband gave me the 18-135 for Mother's Day. I love it! I'm new to SLR photography, so I have very little--zero, actually--technical advice to offer. What I can say is that it gives me just the right amount of reach to get the shot I want. I have uncooperative subjects (my kids) in my house, so it's perfect for those candid shots, which I prefer.

I also like that it is not very heavy. At first, I was a little surprised at the weight (only had the kit lens and 50 mm lens), but it sits quite comfortably in my hand down and isn't a problem when I carry the camera (using the Rapid Strap). So, FWIW, I'm a fan of the 18-135.

 

[bronzebrunette78]

Thanks for another thumbs up. It's especially nice to hear that a slr newbie like myself, is learning the ropes and enjoying success with her new lens. I'm excited to experiment and hopefully get comfortable with it by the time my WDW trip rolls around this November. Out of curiosity, do you guys have a camera bag or backpack that you prefer at the parks? I'd love to pack lightly and maybe just carry the bare necessities (pun intended) Nothing too fancy or expensive....prob just toting around my t1i and MAYBE an extra lens now and then. Thanks again!!

 

[bob100]

Hi there. Still a newbie to my Canon T1i and looking for my best walk around lens for WDW. I know that wide lenses seem preferred at Disney, but I'm frequently a fan of more reach in my photos. Thus far, I have my kit lens 18-55, a nifty fifty 1.8, and a 70-300 non IS lens. While I'm impressed with the variety of shots I can get, I'm guessing that I won't want to be changing lenses all that frequently on my trip. I'm liking the idea of the 18-135 or 18-200 (though def open to more suggestions). Any opinions on these would be greatly appreciated!

The wider zooms are not going to be as good as the 18-55IS and 55-250IS combination but I think of those two the 18-135 is better

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Hopefully, this will give you some perspective. I have attached two shots taken from the same spot to a similar spot on the stage in front of the castle. The first is at 135mm and the second @ 200mm. This does not take into account the differences in the quality of the glass, since these were taken with the same 70-200 lens, only the differences of the focal points.


Couples Castle Show 135 by Gianna'sPapa, on Flickr


Snow White Castle Show 200 by Gianna'sPapa, on Flickr

 

[WilsonFlyer]

You're right. That 70-200 lens is not a fair comparison to anything else being talked about in this thread except for focal length.

The 70-200's are the cat's rear end. I love my f4 IS and I'm saving up to get the 2.8 IS before my Oct trip. I doubt I'll have enough quarters saved up in time for the Aug trip.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

You're right. That 70-200 lens is not a fair comparison to anything else being talked about in this thread except for focal length.

The 70-200's are the cat's rear end. I love my f4 IS and I'm saving up to get the 2.8 IS before my Oct trip. I doubt I'll have enough quarters saved up in time for the Aug trip.

This is the Sigma HSM II Macro version ( I didn't need the OS version since I shoot Pentax with in-body stabilization). I also have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. Both lenses serve me well and I have no complaints. The one time I did have an AF failure problem, it was fixed and back in my hands within a week. I have absolutely no complaints with their equipment and service!!

 

[mom2rtk]

You're right. That 70-200 lens is not a fair comparison to anything else being talked about in this thread except for focal length.

The 70-200's are the cat's rear end. I love my f4 IS and I'm saving up to get the 2.8 IS before my Oct trip. I doubt I'll have enough quarters saved up in time for the Aug trip.

Man, you must get more change back than I do!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

This is the Sigma HSM II Macro version ( I didn't need the OS version since I shoot Pentax with in-body stabilization). I also have the Sigma 28-70 f2.8. Both lenses serve me well and I have no complaints. The one time I did have an AF failure problem, it was fixed and back in my hands within a week. I have absolutely no complaints with their equipment and service!!

I've been seriously considering the Sigma to save a few bucks. Nice to see even more good things about it. I might just have to start watching fleaBay. With these lenses, about the worst you can do is sell them and get your money back (as long as you buy used to begin with, of course).

As far as the 18-135, I told a long story in another thread about how I bought a 17-55/2.8 intending on it being my walk around at WDW in April. The 18-135 just happened to come with my new 60D kit from BB. I decided to try it out just for fun on the second or third day. It became my walk-around for the rest of the week, and still is. Outside, it's great. Inside, I still prefer the 17-55 just because of the larger constant aperture, but the 18-135 is no slouch, even inside in moderate light with useably high ISOs.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

The wider zooms are not going to be as good as the 18-55IS and 55-250IS combination but I think of those two the 18-135 is better

And in my opinion, comparing the two relatively cheap lenses you compared to the 18-135 and the 18-200 is not a fair comparison (I own all except the 18-200). The 18-135 is a different class of lens with better glass than the other two and clearly marketed in the moderate end of Canon lenses whereas the 18-55 and the 55-200 are clearly marketed and designed as entry-level lenses with basic glass (compared to higher end lenses).

The 18-55 IS kit lens and the 55-250IS are good lenses, don't get me wrong, but they are not in class with the other two, IMO.

 

[poplover777]

I only use my canon 17-55mm at disney. I have taken 1000's of pics so 135mm is plenty of zoom in my opinion. Happy shooting.