Lens Recommendations

[Gianna'sPapa]

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!

Like you, I am limited to 1600 ISO and that is noisy ( I shoot a Pentax K10). To obtain the fast action low light pics, you will probably need faster glass and a good noise reduction program. Since my brand does not produce long fast glass, I had to go with an off brand 70-200 lens. Its a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 HSM II. I did have a minor problem with it, but it was quickly fixed and is now working great. The 70-200 gave me the lowlight and the reach that I need for what I photograph. As others have posted, the lower the f stop #, the shorter the depth of field. That is a consideration as you are shooting. I also use Topaz DeNoise 5 for my noise reduction. There are other applications out there and some other members can recommend further. I am very pleased with DeNoise 5.

 

[seashoreCM]

... 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..

1. If you are not taking a close up then this is a poor quality lens, not a depth of field issue.
2. Alternatively you are using the wrong lens for the camera. Do not use a lens intended for a smaller film frame or sensor on a camera with a larger film frame or sensor (working with a crop factor less than 1.0); you will get this problem because the sweet spot for the lens is too small.

 

[Bstanley]

Hmm, if you took a shot at 1/500th and it came out blurry it might also be that you weren't focused...was the entire frame (picture) blurry?

For Sports you should change your auto focus mode to 'AI Servo' - using the 'AF' button on the right rear of the camera you can change from the default setting.

This tells the camera to continuously adjust the focus (as long as the shutter is half-pressed) as you pan the camera - like if you were following soccer or a fast moving football play. Setting the Scene Mode to Sports will change to this setting as well.

You might want to give the focus a try - if you were able to shoot at 1/500th you should have been able to stop the action (ie - no blur).

A longer lens will enable you to 'reach' across a football field to get a picture, but alas those fast telephoto zoom lenses weigh about as much as a Buick and cost about the same (just a small exaggeration).

 

[GrillMouster]

Not sure what you're shooting, but if you're using a shutter speed of 1/500 to negate camera shake, then stabilizing the camera (on a tripod) will allow you to use a slower shutter speed, thereby increasing exposure (not so dark). If you need a shutter speed of 1/500 because you're trying to freeze a moving subject, then your alternatives are to increase ISO sensitivity and/or use a wider aperture (lower f-stop number). You've already said that you've maxed out the ISO on your camera body, so that's not an option for you right now, so let's look at aperture.

Your camera lens has a variable aperture. For example, let's say it's a 18mm-55mm lens with a variable aperture of f/3.5-5.6. That means that at the widest focal length (zoomed out to 18mm) the largest aperture you can get is f/3.5. At the longest focal length (zoomed in to 55mm) the largest aperture you can get is f/5.6. If you're zoomed all the way in but your image is still too dark (and you're at the max ISO and you're at the slowest useable shutter speed), then you'll need to zoom out so that you can select a wider aperture. That means that your subject will be smaller in the frame, so you may need to move the camera closer or crop the image in post-production.

A new camera body should allow a higher ISO limit and perhaps better high-ISO performance (lower noise). Prime lenses (fixed focal length) tend to offer wider apertures than zoom lenses and better zoom lenses tend to have a constant max wide aperture (like f/2.8) throughout the focal length range.

Better lenses tend to be clearer, have better transmition of light, better contrast, less distortion and less chromatic abberations. All of those things could result in better cropped images, but there's still a limit in how much you can crop and get a useable image, because cropping means throwing away pixels. You can't recover image detail that wasn't present in the original capture. The real world isn't like CSI where some technician can up-rez the license plate of a car one mile away and make is crystal clear.

 

[ChiSoxKeith]

I've been taking HS football shots for the last four seasons (my kid playing football) and I have to agree 100% with the previous poster......as the night goes on you really need to get a tripod / monopod to help steady the camera.

 

[GrillMouster]

For fast-moving subjects there are a few things you can do to minimize blur caused by their movement besides increasing shutter speed.

One is tracking. That' where you follow the moving subject with your camera. You pivot your body and in one smooth motion continue tracking the subject before, during, and after the exposure. Don't wait until you press the shutter release to begin tracking, and don't stop tracking after you've pressed the button. Keep following the subject. If you stop tracking right after you've pressed the button, then the subject will continue moving through the frame and will be blurred. It takes practice to get good at this.

Another thing to remember is that the more space a subject occupies in the frame, the faster it will appear to move across the frame and the faster the shutter speed will be required to capture it and maintain the appearance of sharpness. For example, if you take a picture of a plane flying through the air, but the picture is from far away and the plane is tiny in the frame, it will appear sharp, even with a relatively slow shutter speed. However, if you have a superzoom and manage to get that plane filling a bunch of the frame, that plane will appear to move across the frame more quickly (assuming you're not tracking). Any motion blur will be more apparent, so you'd need a faster shutter speed to freeze it.

Another thing you can do to minize subject motion blur is to photograph the subject moving toward you. Since the subject won't be moving across the frame as much there won't be as much blur. If you've ever photographed or looked at a photograph of horses, racecars, bikes, or runners going around the corner of a track you'll see that some horses (or racecars, bikers, runners) are running toward the camera while others are running across the frame. The ones who are running toward the camera appear sharper than the ones who are running across the frame.

Something else I'll add regarding camera shake, not motion blur: Zooming in magnifies the blur caused by your camera shake. To demonstrate this, imagine holding a broomstick at the far end and moving around slightly in a circular motion. At the point where your hand is holding it there may be very little movement, only an inch or so. However, at the far end of the broom, that circle you're making in the air may be a few feet in diameter. If that broomstick were a hundred feet long (and you had the wrist strength and stabilization to hold it) the circle would be even larger. The broomstick represents the line of sight of your camera. The slightest movement the camera's film/sensor plane will appear more maginified the more you zoom in.

 

[SrisonS]

Do you have a sample pic of how much you're trying to crop the photo??? If it's too much, that'll probably be why the player still looks blurry. And there's not really too much you can do about that.

And I'm sure the answer will be 'yes'; but do you have image stabilization turned on?

 

[*pixie*]

Wow, what a wealth of info!

As far as the cropping goes, I think I was just trying to crop it down way too much. If I don't crop them as tight, they're not blurry.

My Halloween lights pics turned out pretty well last night. I am starting to get more of grasp for how ISO, aperture, and shutter speed work, and what to change for different pics.

I'm also still re-reading everyone's advice and will be trying things out. Thanks so much to everyone for taking the time to explain things.

 

[dan.k78]

Ok, obviously it doesn't exist, but I'm curious as to your opinions as to which lens offers the best compromise for the parks. If you had one lens to bring what would it be? Would you opt for the versatility of a nice zoom like the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, or sacrifice focal range for the speed of something like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Which do you feel outweighs the other?

I've decided that on my next trip (hopefully will be soon) I'll be taking my dSLR gear instead of just my point and shoot.

Thanks in advance for your opinons !

 

[JoeDif]

If I had to take only one lens it would be my Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. Other than the safari ride in AK and parade close ups, this lens can handle mostly any situation. I'm not much of a dark ride shooter so that isn't a concern for me.

 

[WDWFigment]

If this is a photo trip, the answer would easily be my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8. I'm most definitely a UWA man, and this lens takes the cake in that department for me.

If it's a family trip, probably the 18-200mm or Sigma 30. Most likely the 18-200 just because of its versatility.

 

[photo_chick]

The Canon 24-105.

 

[zackiedawg]

I'm not one for taking only one lens...but if I absolutely had to take only one, then hands-down it would be the 18-250mm, because of the enormous flexibility it offers for any theme park and any shooting condition.

Though in real life, I couldn't go to Disney without access at least to my 30mm F1.4, my 10-24mm UWA, or my 300mm F4 on top of the 18-250mm. As it is, I bring all of those, plus my 50mm F1.7, 90mm F2.8, and 200-500mm.

 

[dan.k78]

I guess what it boils down to is how much you want to make photography a part of the trip. I try to keep things at a happy medium (whether it be Disney or any other vacation destination). I want to go above P&S quality photos, but don't want photography to overtake the whole vacation. I don't think my fiancée would appreciate that very much. lol. I guess the versatility vs. speed issue depends on how much photography you plan to do on dark rides. If that isn't a big thing, then having fast glass isn't super critical I guess. I suppose the versatility of a zoom lens is more beneficial.

 

[NLD]

Easy. 50mm 1.4 (for FX sensor.... 35mm for DX).

The flexibility of having that wide aperture would be way more important to me than flexibility in focal length range.

Last month I brought several lenses and ended up using that "normal" fast prime most of the time, anyway. It actually got more use than the super-zoom (28-300).

 

[annnewjerz]

I'd definitely bring the Sigma 30 f/1.4 if I could only bring one lens. Last trip in December I brought the Sigma 30, Nikon 18-55 kit lens, Tokina 11-16, Lensbaby, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 and the majority of the time, the lens that stayed on my camera was the 30mm f/1.4.

The 30 f/1.4 is good for low-light shooting for indoors and dim rides, as far as focal length I love it because it's wide enough without having to worry about any UWA distortion, it can allow for great subject isolation when shooting at a low aperture and in general it just produces some of my favorite straight out of the camera images.

 

[poplover777]

I used to take a 28-135mm with great success. Now that I have a 17-55mm canon, its a no brainer. Perfect range for a crop camera at Disney.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't think I could even begin to answer the question without more information on why I was at Disney and what I planned to do. I'll assume that the only reason I would be carrying a single lens was because I was there with family and wanted photography to be a minor element of the trip. In that case, I'd opt for a super-zoom (18-200 or such).

I would be using the camera to take pictures of my family. For fireworks shots, dark ride shots, show shots, or other stuff without my family in it, I'd just download other people's. For shots of family, I'd gain more by the focal length flexibility than having a fixed focal length and having aperture flexibility. Obviously, I would lose the ability to take really shallow DOF shots of my family, but I don't see that as a big problem because most of the time I'd want to see the background to help set the scene.

If I was there for photography, I'd take more than one lense. If I couldn't, which lens I would take would depend on my mood.

 

[rossb]

Like others have said, depends on why you are going. If this is a vacation trip and I could only carry 1 lens it would be my Nikkor 18-200VR. If I can carry two lenses on my vacation I'd add my Nikkor 10-24. If this is a photo outing I'd be carrying my 10-24 and a few primes.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

My one lens would be the new Pentax DA 18-135 WR. While it may not work quite as well on the low light rides (with the newer high ISO bodies it may do better), it has both the wide angle and the reach for most things at Disney. Even better, is that it is weather resistant to go along with the Pentax WR bodies. No more having to wrap your camera in a plastic bag at the hint of the ever present rain storm and wet rides. Weighing in at less than a pound, it solves the weight issue. IMHO this lens, on a high ISO body, will be the perfect 'one' lens for the type of photography I do at WDW.