how wide is wide enough?

[jgaeta]

How wide is wide enough for a disney trip? im not positive what parks we'll be visiting and so on, but i know i will be needing a wide angle lens for all the great architecture and also for taking pictures of my family in close proximity. i was thinking of the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or the tokina 16-50 f/2.8 if they ever release it). i have a 50 f/1.8 for indoors/low light photos and a 70-210 f/4 for the animal kingdom if we venture out that way. but would a 16 or 17-50 be wide enough for disney? ive read posts from people saying a 10-20 or 12-24 was great and others saying they would never go to disney without a 18-200. any suggestions from those that have been there? im also going to las vegas a month after my disney trip, so i figure i will be able to use the same lens for the same type of photos. any help??

 

[Master Mason]

I have never had a problem with 18 starting point on my XT. With the x factor, that would be a 28.8 start in 35mm...

I read somewhere else, that the human eye is approximated at 50mm on a 35mm camera So that would be a 31 on a 1.6 camera such as the canon dslrs..

 

[handicap18]

Everyone's photography preferances are different. Go with the equipment that you have. That 17-50 f/2.8 is a good lens. Decent range and pretty wide aperture. I mostly used my 18-70 f/3.5-5.6. Then used the 50mm f/1.8 for spectro and indoor rides and the 70-300 at AK and a few other places for the long reach. Sure I'd love to try out the Sigma 10-20mm, but its not a necessity for me. One day when I get a chance to buy the lens then I'll bring it along for a different perspective. The 18-200 lenses are great, but lack the wide aperture of your current 17-50 (f/3.5 at 18mm and smaller as you zoom (upwards of f/6.3 on some at 200mm) vs your f/2.8 at all lengths on one and f/4 on the other) Every lens is a give and take. Unfortunately there is no 18-500mm f/2.8 with VR/IS. Plus I think if one did exist you would need to buy a seat for it on the plane then need to rent a scooter to take it around the parks.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

How wide is wide enough for a disney trip? im not positive what parks we'll be visiting and so on, but i know i will be needing a wide angle lens for all the great architecture and also for taking pictures of my family in close proximity. i was thinking of the tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (or the tokina 16-50 f/2.8 if they ever release it). i have a 50 f/1.8 for indoors/low light photos and a 70-210 f/4 for the animal kingdom if we venture out that way. but would a 16 or 17-50 be wide enough for disney? ive read posts from people saying a 10-20 or 12-24 was great and others saying they would never go to disney without a 18-200. any suggestions from those that have been there? im also going to las vegas a month after my disney trip, so i figure i will be able to use the same lens for the same type of photos. any help??

Without knowing what body you are using, no one can know what field-of-view you'll get with these lenses. There are film bodies, bodies with sensors the size of film, and bodies with smaller sensors. The bodies with smaller sensors get a narrower field-of-view because the outer parts of the image are chopped off. The most common way to express this is with a number called a focal length multiplier. The most common ones are 1.6x, 1.5x, and 1.3x.

I was at WDW recently with a 17-40mm and a 24-70mm lens. My camera has a multiplier of 1.3x, so they were like 22-52mm and 31-91mm lenses on a film camera. I found that I rarely used the 17-40mm. The 24-70 was wide enough for all but the a handful of situations.

The 18-200 crowd really prize those lenses because they allow them to cover a wide range with one lens. That means that you don't have to bring as many lenses into the park and you don't have to swap lenses when you want to change ranges. The downside is that they are optically inferior to similarly priced lenses that don't cover such a wide range.

 

[jgaeta]

sorry, im using a nikon d50. 1.5x crop factor so id be looking at 26mm to start (in 35mm terms). did you use much above the 50mm side of things? i really can't see myself wanting to zoom in on too much, but you never know. im sure there is SOMETHING cool to get a picture of at ANY reach tho. thanks for your help.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

did you use much above the 50mm side of things?

Yes. At the shows like FotLK and Fanstasmic!, I shot a lot of longer stuff (equivalent of 200-250mm). The same is true for animals in the AK.

I haven't run any stats from my trip, but in 35mm equivalent terms, I think these were my rough proportions:

5% 22-30mm
50% 30-50mm
15% 50-100mm
5% 100-200mm
25% 200-250mm

 

[MarkBarbieri]

OK, I got curious and ran the numbers on my pictures. I posted the results at http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1316761

 

[handicap18]

sorry, im using a nikon d50. 1.5x crop factor so id be looking at 26mm to start (in 35mm terms). did you use much above the 50mm side of things? i really can't see myself wanting to zoom in on too much, but you never know. im sure there is SOMETHING cool to get a picture of at ANY reach tho. thanks for your help.

I also use a D50. The majority of my pictures were at 18mm, 50mm and 70mm. I also took a little under 400 pictures with my 70-300mm. I took just under 1400 in 4 days. I would have liked to have a longer reach than 70mm on the 18-70, but I didn't miss any shots. I also really liked having the 18mm width.

Here is my breakdown from my June '06 4 day trip:

 

[tinksdad]

We were in WDW in December and out of 525 pictures saved the following is my breakdown. I used a Nikon 18-200VR lens most of the time.

 

[Groucho]

I'm not sure if anyone pointed out one of the most important things about the ultrawide lenses - generally speaking, once you get past 18mm or so, you're looking at fisheye lenses. If you don't want a fishy look, you'll need to "de-fish" in software. On a common DSLR, this isn't really a big deal as the crop factor removes much of the fishiness, but it's still there.

I've done much of my shooting with my 50mm prime but also a pretty fair amount with my 18-55 and have really enjoyed using my 16mm fisheye as well.

There are just so many photographic situations at a Disney park that no one lens will do everything.

 

[jgaeta]

The 18-200 was also a possibility, if they ever become available. I was just thinking I would get better image quality going with a smaller range and a constant 2.8 if i didn't need the 50-200 THAT much. I guess I am trying to buy a new lens to cover a majority of the shots I will be taking over a few vacations this year. i was thinking a 17-50 would do that since im going to be seeing a lot of landscape/architecture shots at other places besides disney. i would LIKE to get the 18-200 and maybe a 12-24 or 10-20. but that is just not in the budget. oh well, i am sure ill be happy with whatever i decide on and will do the best I can with whatever I choose. thank you all for your help. since i am not exactly sure which portions of disney we will see, I might have to wait and see what we plan for certain.

thanks again all!