Help me understand 100mm, 200mm, 300mm

[Patrick in Oregon]

I'm doing some homework on these different lens lengths. I've looked up sample pictures but since I'm not familiar with the location of these pictures, I have a hard time grasping the distances. I'm thinking about what size I would need for shows like Fantasmic or in situations where there is a show going on and there is a wall of people in front of me. (I know that with long zooms the lens speed goes down and something like Fantasmic would be difficult to shoot if exposure isn't properly compensated).

I just have a hard time with common estimates like "2 football fields." For one, I've never seen 2 football fields end to end, and two: there isn't a football field right in front of me so I have a hard time imagining how long it is, especially since fields on TV look gigantic compared to ones in real life.

Can you guys help me understand, in "Disney park distances," how far the range on each of these lengths are. For example, if I wanted to take a picture of Sleeping Beauty's castle where it takes up the whole frame, how far back would I have to be for each of these lens lengths? It'd be great if it was explained to me via landmarks like the Partner's statue, or the Coca Cola refreshment corner. Or if someone could translate distances for me like, "You would have to be 100ft away from the castle and the draw bridge is 50ft, so estimate from that." Any attraction or landmark would work.

Even if an explanation is not in Disney terms, I'd appreciate any help. If I had to guess, I would think that 100mm is serviceable for most distances at the park, 200mm is probably more than I would need, but could come in handy for a few rare occassions, and 300mm is overkill.

BTW, my home park is Disneyland and the last time I was in Disneyworld, I was in 2nd grade and they were still testing Splash Mountain. So I have no recollection of DW layout.

Thanks again

 

[Patrick in Oregon]

Maybe an easier way to ask is

What is the longest lens you carry in the parks and do you ever need more than that?

 

[havoc315]

Remember, most dSLR cameras are *crop* bodies. Meaning, 200mm lens, gives you 300 mm results (approximately).

To capture things like the castle, you want to go WIDE. So more like 30-60m.

For most park shooting, you will want to be under 100mm.

The exceptions....
Animal Kingdom Safari -- The more zoom the better. Need at least 200m... 300-400 wouldn't hurt.

For stage shows, including Fantasmic -- If you are seated pretty close, than you can get good results at 100-200mm. But if you are further away, you could find 300mm+ useful.

I sat in the back at Fantasmic, and my lens doesn't have a lot of reach.

So here is Fantasmic, from the back, at about 60mm:


Aug 31, 2012-147 by Havoc315, on Flickr

Here is Beauty and the Beast stage show, from the back, at 100mm:


Aug 31, 2012-113 by Havoc315, on Flickr

Looking at these, you can picture the benefit of more reach.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I'm doing some homework on these different lens lengths. I've looked up sample pictures but since I'm not familiar with the location of these pictures, I have a hard time grasping the distances. I'm thinking about what size I would need for shows like Fantasmic or in situations where there is a show going on and there is a wall of people in front of me. (I know that with long zooms the lens speed goes down and something like Fantasmic would be difficult to shoot if exposure isn't properly compensated).

I just have a hard time with common estimates like "2 football fields." For one, I've never seen 2 football fields end to end, and two: there isn't a football field right in front of me so I have a hard time imagining how long it is, especially since fields on TV look gigantic compared to ones in real life.

Can you guys help me understand, in "Disney park distances," how far the range on each of these lengths are. For example, if I wanted to take a picture of Sleeping Beauty's castle where it takes up the whole frame, how far back would I have to be for each of these lens lengths? It'd be great if it was explained to me via landmarks like the Partner's statue, or the Coca Cola refreshment corner. Or if someone could translate distances for me like, "You would have to be 100ft away from the castle and the draw bridge is 50ft, so estimate from that." Any attraction or landmark would work.

Even if an explanation is not in Disney terms, I'd appreciate any help. If I had to guess, I would think that 100mm is serviceable for most distances at the park, 200mm is probably more than I would need, but could come in handy for a few rare occassions, and 300mm is overkill.

BTW, my home park is Disneyland and the last time I was in Disneyworld, I was in 2nd grade and they were still testing Splash Mountain. So I have no recollection of DW layout.

Thanks again

First of all, I would like to correct one of your misconceptions, not all zoom lenses slow down as they zoom. All my zoom lenses (other than kit lenses) are constant aperture lenses (28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 100-300 f4). Most of your constant aperture zoom lenses can be considered to be professional grade lenses and are larger and heavier than their consumer grade counterparts. With the size also comes more expense. What I am about to say applies to APS-C cameras with a 1.5 crop factor. For me it is too confusing to say that a 200mm lens is the same as a 300mm because of a crop factor if you are talking to someone who has never used a film SLR camera or FF digital camera. Its what you see when you look in the viewfinder. My walkaround lens is a 28-70mm. I take the majority of my pictures with that lens. When I want extra length I use my 70-200. I have carried my 100-300mm to WDW twice and have never needed it. Since the max I have ever needed is 200mm, there is no need for me to bring a second lens covering the same focal length. I will not bring it again just for WDW. The other lens that I bring for the dark rides is a 30mm f1.4. There is one lens that eventually I would like to bring is an UWA (10-20, 10-24, or 12-24). Right now if I need something wider than my 28-70, I will use my kit 18-55. With that will come a low light restriction because it is a slower lens.

Now it is hard to give you distances because it totally depends on your lenses, camera and crowds. I would recommend you bring lenses covering up to 200mm. This could be an ultra-zoom (18-270) or as many lenses you want to bring. Because there are so many lowlight situations at WDW, I prefer the f2.8 lenses. I use my 70-200 at AK (Safari Ride) and many outdoor shows. And depending on my seats, I have also used at some of the indoor shows. It really depends on your style (I like close-ups)

I hope that helps if not ask more questions.

 

[zackiedawg]

One of the better online tools available to get to know how 'close' or 'far' a particular focal length will get you is the one on Tamron's website:
http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

They give you some sample photos, and you can input the widest focal length you want to see (if you pick something like 35mm, then you see a fairly 'normal' camera view of the scene on a scale close to a human eye scale if you were standing there. Then you can move the slider to the 100, 200, 300mm, etc positions, and see how much tighter cropped you are to the scene.

Everyone's needs are different. You mention 100mm being serviceable at the parks - though in general I would find that far too much lens - I typically stick to 10mm to 50mm for most walkaround shots, rarely much more. 200mm can come in handy for the rare times you want to zoom in on something distant or photograph some details closeup. But 300mm is not overkill for me - in fact, I typically shoot with 420mm optically at Animal Kingdom, which on my cropped sensor DSLR body is giving me an equivalent of 630mm! Certainly not overkill - but that's specialized to that park for me, and I have rarely ever used that focal length at any other park (I have on occasion for stage shows).

 

[Patrick in Oregon]

Thanks everyone for your input, it is all very helpful.

A little insight to what I'm working with:
Currently I'm using my dad's old Canon AE-1 due to wanting learning the basics of photography. I want to get a modern DSLR at some point but I want to know how to take pictures before I spend so much money.

In my possession I have
2 prime lenses:
24mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8

And 1 zoom lens
80-200mm f/4
However this zoom lens has some haze on the front glass. Not sure if it is a fungus or discoloring from radiated glass. I haven't looked too much into it. When I did a test roll, the pictures didn't appear to be affected by the haze, and it is very very faint when looking through it as if you would a telescope, but I think I need to take a few more pictures in different lighting situations to truly see.

So I was looking around for different zooms to possibly replace mine. eBay has some for around $60 or less. I found a 35-210 and a bunch of 70-200 and one was 70-300. I'd like the 35-210 f/3.5 to cover the gaps between my prime lenses and beyond, but the seller says there are "some dusts and little fogs that may affect pictures." But it has a current bid of $9 with $25 dollar shipping. Might be worth taking a risk on if the bidding doesn't get very high. Also looking at a 35-105 f/3.5 for $30 (probably closer to $50 when bidding is done).

I'm currently leaning toward just working with what I got. Great thing about eBay is if you miss something, another one always seems to pop up.

 

[handicap18]

Since your using a film SLR I'll stick with the full zoom measures. I took these pictures from the same seats at Fenway Park in Boston earlier this summer. We were about 60 or so rows back from the field.

This one is at 24mm:

This one is at 105mm:

This one is at 450mm:

These lions were about 50-60 feet away. I could have thrown a rock at them. This one is at 105mm:

This one from the same spot is at 450mm:

 

[Patrick in Oregon]

^^^thanks for the post. Most of the comparisons I find via google are of landscapes which I find difficult to conceptualize, but having the baseball players as well as other people in the stands helps with perspective.

I finally got to play with the tamron comparison slider. Very cool!

 

[havoc315]

Thanks everyone for your input, it is all very helpful.

A little insight to what I'm working with:
Currently I'm using my dad's old Canon AE-1 due to wanting learning the basics of photography. I want to get a modern DSLR at some point but I want to know how to take pictures before I spend so much money.

In my possession I have
2 prime lenses:
24mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8

And 1 zoom lens
80-200mm f/4
However this zoom lens has some haze on the front glass. Not sure if it is a fungus or discoloring from radiated glass. I haven't looked too much into it. When I did a test roll, the pictures didn't appear to be affected by the haze, and it is very very faint when looking through it as if you would a telescope, but I think I need to take a few more pictures in different lighting situations to truly see.

So I was looking around for different zooms to possibly replace mine. eBay has some for around $60 or less. I found a 35-210 and a bunch of 70-200 and one was 70-300. I'd like the 35-210 f/3.5 to cover the gaps between my prime lenses and beyond, but the seller says there are "some dusts and little fogs that may affect pictures." But it has a current bid of $9 with $25 dollar shipping. Might be worth taking a risk on if the bidding doesn't get very high. Also looking at a 35-105 f/3.5 for $30 (probably closer to $50 when bidding is done).

I'm currently leaning toward just working with what I got. Great thing about eBay is if you miss something, another one always seems to pop up.

On a film camera, I may just stick with those 3 lenses, and primarily just use the 50mm prime. It will be the ideal lens more often than not.

To put it in perspective, Sony just introduced the RX1-- a full frame (film equivalent) camera. It ONLY has a 50mm lens - you can't change lenses - and the camera runs $2800. So really, it is a rather ideal focal length for many types of shots. And you have the other 2 lenses for when you want to go wide or telephoto.

 

[photo_chick]

Thanks everyone for your input, it is all very helpful.

A little insight to what I'm working with:
Currently I'm using my dad's old Canon AE-1 due to wanting learning the basics of photography. I want to get a modern DSLR at some point but I want to know how to take pictures before I spend so much money.

In my possession I have
2 prime lenses:
24mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8

And 1 zoom lens
80-200mm f/4
However this zoom lens has some haze on the front glass. Not sure if it is a fungus or discoloring from radiated glass. I haven't looked too much into it. When I did a test roll, the pictures didn't appear to be affected by the haze, and it is very very faint when looking through it as if you would a telescope, but I think I need to take a few more pictures in different lighting situations to truly see.

So I was looking around for different zooms to possibly replace mine. eBay has some for around $60 or less. I found a 35-210 and a bunch of 70-200 and one was 70-300. I'd like the 35-210 f/3.5 to cover the gaps between my prime lenses and beyond, but the seller says there are "some dusts and little fogs that may affect pictures." But it has a current bid of $9 with $25 dollar shipping. Might be worth taking a risk on if the bidding doesn't get very high. Also looking at a 35-105 f/3.5 for $30 (probably closer to $50 when bidding is done).

I'm currently leaning toward just working with what I got. Great thing about eBay is if you miss something, another one always seems to pop up.

I don't know how much you're looking to spend, but the Vivitar 35-85 f/2.8 is a nice lens on the FD bodies. And check KEH for used gear. Prices are comparable to Ebay but with the peace of mind you get with their reputation and a warranty.

And for whatever it's worth, I shot for years using a 35mm SLR with just a 50mm lens. It's totally doable if you're willing to work with having to move to get the shot you want.