Lens Recommendations

[mom2rtk]

I have the 17-55 and love it, but I'm sure you can't go wrong with either.

For just range, I'd go with the 17-55. At Disney there just always seems to be so many people around. That makes it hard to back up when the 24 is too long. I struggle with this too. A little more length on that 17-55 lens would be great, but given the choice, I'd go with the wider lens for Disney.

 

[Aerorea]

Thank you both for your input! The 17-55 was my original choice and then I started reading about the 24-105, and well, you know how that goes. Major lens lust all around!

 

[poplover777]

17-55mm. that is the only lens you need at Disney. I thought maybe my 70-200mm for AK but really didn't use it that much.

 

[AlbertZeroK]

I have owned both, sold the 24-105.

A couple things you may not know. The 17-55 is known to have a higher repair rate than the 24-105, however, I can see that with the build quality.

The 17-55 is made with L quality Glass and until the new 70-200 IS f/2.8 Mark II came out, had what some consider the BEST IS of any canon lens. But the build quality of the 17-55 is less than that of a standard "L" lens.

The 24-105 has a nice red line of paint around it.

 

[DizzyV6P]

Newer versions of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS haven't had as much problems than the older ones. It's usually THE LENS to have if you shoot weddings with a crop camera.

Another lens to consider is the Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS. Reviews and sample pictures on POTN have been great.

What's your budget? For about $200 less, the new Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM has also gotten very good reviews and appears to be comparable to the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

Putting a 24-105 on a crop camera will really cut in on your wide shots. I sold my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 to get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 precisely to get the wide options that I missed having from my kit lens. Wide shots are great at Disney so keep that in mind.

If money is tight, the Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS HSM ($590 at Abes of Maine w/ "loyalty15" discount code) plus a Canon 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 IS ($230 on Amazon) will cost about the same as the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. That will get net you a great combo that will last quite awhile. Want to go even higher? Then a used Canon 70-200 f/4L for $500 will be even better. I used my 70-200 F/4L at AK the entire time on the safari and got quite a lot of good shots. Be sure to ride the safari either in the early morning or late afternoon to see the most animals.

 

[photo_chick]

I'd go for the 24-105, but then my current walk around lens is an older 28-105 and it a range I really like on my crop camera. We all shoot differently so go with your gut because you know your shooting style a lot better than we do.

 

[Aerorea]

Thank you all so much for the further insight. I truly appreciate it.

After thinking about it more and more, I think I'm going to go with my initial choice of the 17-55. My budget is under $1500 as long as it is "THE" lens for a long while, and this sounds like it will be for me. I'm happy to hear about it's outstanding IS performance. It'll be an exact replacement of my 18-55 (that I'll sell). When I looked over my past photos at Disney, I found that I tended to take a lot more wider shots or telephoto shots of small details (I had an S3 and loved to see what it could do). I think I would be disappointed if I couldn't get wide enough to fit all the scenery I wanted, plus I can always just crop for tighter shots.

I have the 55-250 and the 50 f/1.8, both will likely stay in the room. I might bring my smaller camera bag and the 55-250 with me as need arises. Maybe for MVMCP? I don't think we're hitting AK this time.

Thanks, again!

 

[mabas9395]

For me, it would be the 17-55 at Disney and the 24-105 for everything else.

 

[Sunshineanddaisys]

So I have a D5000, the kit 18-55, 55-200 and 35mm lenses. While on my last Disney Cruise, I decided my next lens needs to be something that overlaps the 18-55 and 55-200, because I noticed I'd often want to take a quick candid (too close for the 55-200) and then shoot something too far for the 18-55. I want something that overlaps to try to avoid missing shots when trying to quickly change lenses.

My three options....18-105, 16-85 and 18-200. As much as I'd love to pick the solve all, 18-200, I think I've settled on the 18-105. The only problem is every time I think I'm certain, I switch to one of the other options....

If you were me, what would you pick?

 

[Experiment_626]

Have you considered the 18-135? I have one and use it often; it has a very versatile range. Reviews (not actual experience) lead me to believe it is optically better than the 18-200 -- or indeed all of Nikon's other 18-XX kit zooms, other than the 18-70. The only thing it lacks, of course, is VR. The 18-105 does have VR, so if that is really important to you, that might tip the scales in its favor.

 

[*pixie*]

I've been practicing with my new Canon XS with the kit lens. When taking fast action pics, I can't go much faster than about 1/500, because my pics get really dark even with the ISO set at 1600. Would a different lens fix this?

Also, when taking pics of things that I can't zoom in on, when I try to crop them down (i.e. pics of football players at the line and wanting to crop down to just one player) they get very blurry and out of focus. Would a different lens also fix this?

I really need to find a "general photography" board to ask all these technical questions that have nothing to do with Disney!

 

[ukcatfan]

If this is night time football under the lights (and not an NFL game) then you do need a faster lens than the kit to get very good results. I think you are at max at ISO 1600, but some cameras can get decent results with kit lenses and around ISO 6400. You will probably need to go with a fast telephoto to get really good results, but be aware that those typically run $900+.

 

[ukcatfan]

I really need to find a "general photography" board to ask all these technical questions that have nothing to do with Disney!

You are probably better off here because you will get honest answers that are not insulting. We realize that many newbies come here. Many camera specific boards make you feel about an inch tall for not knowing the answers already.

 

[*pixie*]

So, even if my camera maxes out at 1600 ISO, a better lens would allow me to take fast action pics in low light? And, if I had a lens with a better zoom, that would eliminate the need to crop pics down to get the close-up I want?

I have lurked around a couple of photography boards, and you are so right, they are downright vicious! I would never have the nerve to post a question.

Tonight, I'm going to try working on taking pics of my Halloween lights outside in the dark. Thought it might be good practice for Disney at night.

 

[ColleenG]

Hi Pixie, and to the Dis Photography board. It's a great place to start. I have learned so much from all the great people on here, and no question is ever a dumb question. I have a Canon also. If you go into the menu and go to the custom functions setting. See if there is an ISO expansion, and turn it to on. It will get you upto 6400 and 128000. That might help some, but you will get more noise and will make it difficult to crop down really tight. As UKcatfan said to get a fast zoom lens will cost some big bucks.

 

[photo_chick]

Unlike the Rebel T1i and T2i, the Rebel XS tops out at ISO 1600.

With the 18-55 kit then you probably don't need to be faster than 1/500 to stop football action. However, one thing you can do to bump up the shutter speed with the existing lens is not zoom in. The shorter the focal length, the less light required for the exposure. Also at the wide end of the kit lens you have a wider aperture, which also lets in more light.

As far as why it's blurry, could be any number of reasons. Chances are it's more your technique than the lens.

 

[JR6ooo4]

You are probably better off here because you will get honest answers that are not insulting. We realize that many newbies come here. Many camera specific boards make you feel about an inch tall for not knowing the answers already.

But here, those that may actually be an inch tall, are often the main characters! Often turning out to be the hero as well! hehehehehe

Mikeeee

 

[seashoreCM]

The main question about zoom and indoor/night shots is, what is the maximum aperture you are really getting at the amount of zoom you are using.

 

[MHolleman]

Just wanted to chime in here and say that you just need a lens with a smaller f stop number. This will allow more light to enter the camera so that you can keep your shutter speed higher. Maybe try to rent a few and see if there is one that works well for the type of events you are trying to capture. Hope this helps some.

Melissa

 

[Frantasmic]

Football is difficult to shoot. I've gotten decent shots even with my point and shoot at some games, but I wasn't shooting an offspring either, so the little blurriness was okay (for me).

A better lens will help, but the lenses with a smaller f stop bring about new situations you need to deal with, mainly depth of field.

Some relatively inexpensive lenses to look at are the 85mm f1.8, the 100mm f2.0, and the 135mm f2.8. These are all about $400-$500 and will improve your photo taking, but since these are primes, you'll have to move around to get better pictures and these lenses can be very clear for a small portion of the picture, so you may get a good clear shot of someone's face, but his knees might be blurry.

You can also go up to the prime L lenses. The 135mm f2.0 is gorgeous. I rented it to shoot volleyball for my son's school yearbook last week and it was very sharp and produced good shots indoors. I imagine it would be awesome outside. The 200mm f2.8 is supposed to be really good too.

Then, you can get into the prime L zoom lenses. There are various varieties of the 70-200mm f2.8 that can run from $600 to close to $2000. But, they will increase your picture taking skills. Finally, I'd think the 300mm f4.0 might be good for you. It's about $1200. It would depend on how well lit your field is, but that lens would be great for field type sports. The f4.0 is the only worry.

You might try renting a lens since they aren't too bad to rent. I got the 135 L for $45 for 8 days. You may also google canon forum and go to the first link. That place has a thread with just various examples from lenses and cameras.