lenses...yet again...

[cryssi]

Ok, so you all know that a few months ago I asked which lenses would be good to take to WDW this summer...then I thought I wouldn't get any lenses since DH was going to buy an HD camcorder...well now he's probably not going to get the camcorder, so I can get a lens again...

so...do I still stick with the 70-300? In addition to the 18-70 on the cam... and 50mm b/c they're so cheap...lol

or do I search for an 18-200...?

any other recommendations? we don't want to lug around a lot of glass...2 lenses, max (the 50mm doesn't count, as it is so tiny...)

I don't want to be redundant, but since you all have had a few more months to play...maybe your recommendations have changed?

thanks a bunch!

c

 

[Marinerbaby]

What kind of camera do you have?

I went with just a 24-70L last year and really missed some of the shots I wanted not having something longer. This summer I may bring my 85mm 1.2 depending on where we are going that day but am hoping to get the 70-200L before we leave. All are heavy lenses I know but they are what I use for business and I love the results.

 

[cryssi]

I have a D200...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

If the WDW trip is your only use for a long lens, you might consider just renting a 70-200 f/2.8 for the week. It'll perform much better than a 70-300 f/5.6, particuarly in the shows and on the safari ride.

 

[cryssi]

we have an 80-200 2.8 ...it's just so...heavy! LOL It's a fantastic lens for sure...one of my favorites! It's just...heavy. Also, it probably won't fit in the slingshot 200? I'll check the fit when I get home. Since DH is not getting his XH-A1 or even an HV-20...he gets to carry the gear! He has told me before that we wouldn't take the big lens...but...ah, well, I'll check when I get home...

 

[YEKCIM]

I'll let ya know after I get back in July. I'm planning on using my 18-135 for the vast majority of my photo needs, saving the 50/1.8 for low light and 70-300VR for AK and *maybe* MGM. I have referred to the 18-135 as my "poor man's 18-200VR", since it only costs about $300, vs slightly less than $1K for the 18-200VR *if* you can find one, and covers a very useful range. It doesn't have VR, but it is one more SHARP lens.

~YEKCIM

 

[Steve's Girl]

This past trip, I had my 18-200VR and the 50mm 1.8. For me, this was a great set-up with minimal lens changes. Since I have three kids, carrying around a bag full of lenses is just not an option. And besides, I never want to take the time to change lenses. I got a pretty good price on the 18-200 and would have spent as much on the two lenses I was looking at instead of this lens. So, to me, it was worth it to buy the one rather than two lenses.

 

[SharonLowe]

If the WDW trip is your only use for a long lens, you might consider just renting a 70-200 f/2.8 for the week. It'll perform much better than a 70-300 f/5.6, particuarly in the shows and on the safari ride.

Has anyone actually ever gotten a decent shot on the safari ride??? The only times I get good shots is when we do the Sunrise Safari and they actually stop to let you see the animals for more than 10 seconds.

Renting is a good idea; you might try this place:

http://www.lensprotogo.com/?gclid=CLWKxdLulYwCFQpUYQodpX-rfg

 

[tinksdad]

This past trip, I had my 18-200VR and the 50mm 1.8. For me, this was a great set-up with minimal lens changes. Since I have three kids, carrying around a bag full of lenses is just not an option. And besides, I never want to take the time to change lenses. I got a pretty good price on the 18-200 and would have spent as much on the two lenses I was looking at instead of this lens. So, to me, it was worth it to buy the one rather than two lenses.

Totally agree with this!! Our last trip I took the 18-200mm, the 12-24mm and the 50mm. 90% of the shots taken were with the 18-200mm. It's a great travel lens due to it's great focal diversity and the weight. I love my 70-200mm f/2.8, but it's a great LENS!! and will definitely weigh you down.

 

[handicap18]

Last June I used the 18-70mm and a 70-300mm along with the 50mm 1.8. The majority of the shots were with the 18-70. With that the majority of the shots were at the 18mm end, about 35%. I wouldl have liked a longer reach than the 70mm though. Thus I recently switched to an 18-135mm and I agree with YEKCIM, it is very sharp, I find it sharper than my 18-70 which is supposed to be an excellent zoom.

This year I'll be going with the 18-135, 70-300 VR (upgraded from an old 70-300) the 50 f/1.8 and I'll also bring along the 90 f/2.8 Macro and hopefully a wider f/1.8 like Sigma's 28mm. I also wouldn't mind the 10-20mm. But now we're getting into multiple lenses which you don't want.

So I'll say this. The 18-200 Nikkor lens is awesome, but bu-ku bucks. The 18-135 is the next best thing. Also, Sigma is set to launch a new version of their 18-200mm. It will have OS (optical stabilization, their version of VR) and will probably be priced around $500. Thats a lot less than Nikon's $750 SRP and actual $800+ price. Unless you want to wait months and months and months and months.


Sharon, I've gotten some very good shots on the safari ride during regular hours. Though I also do get a lot of camera shake shots too. I've upgraded to a 70-300mm VR lens, so I'm hoping that will make a much bigger difference and give me a higher success rate of clear shots.

I haven't seen any results yet with this lens on the safari yet. I know YEKCIM has one and is also going in a few months. So I'll be anxiously awaiting his results.

 

[cryssi]

great...lol

I've just added the 18-135 to my b&h wishlist...

I think I've mentioned before that I've been unhappy with the soft shots the 18-70 has been giving me...although I really thought that it was user error...

Maybe the 18-135 is the answer...?

 

[YEKCIM]

great...lol

I've just added the 18-135 to my b&h wishlist...

I think I've mentioned before that I've been unhappy with the soft shots the 18-70 has been giving me...although I really thought that it was user error...

Maybe the 18-135 is the answer...?

Of the four lenses in my bag (see below), I believe it is the sharpest; maybe as good as the 50; I haven't used the 50 enough to be sure. Here are some test shots I did a few months back, comparing all the lenses:

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j11/fasteddiew/Nikon D50 Lens Tests/

However, it was one sample photo on the dpreview D80 review that really convinced me to go for the 18-135: http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond80_samples/ Look at #13 of 40; the kids' choir or whatever it is. Sharp, sharp, sharp.

The sharpness, color, contrast, and range of the lens made it a no brainer for me; it focuses reasonably close (18"), too, if that's a consideration.

~YEKCIM

 

[cryssi]

YEKCIM, I remember that post. I can't see the pics here at work b/c they've blocked photo hosting sites... I'll re-look when I get home...

It seems like a good range, especially if I would have just left the 18-70 on most of the time, anyway. Hmm...

 

[YEKCIM]

Made with the 18-135 and D50:

f/16
1/4 sec
ISO 200
18-135 @ 80mm

If you would like a full res copy for evaluation, PM me your email address and I'd be happy to send it along.

~YEKCIM

 

[cryssi]

wow...YEKCIM...

pm sent! thanks!

 

[MICKEY88]

If the WDW trip is your only use for a long lens, you might consider just renting a 70-200 f/2.8 for the week. It'll perform much better than a 70-300 f/5.6, particuarly in the shows and on the safari ride.

I respectfully disagree with this thought.

for the safari ride, with limited time to get a good focus, you might want more depth of field anyway, so you'd end up stopping down the 2.8, eliminating it's benefits.

for the shows you can jump your iso to 400 to compensate for the diff, between 2.8 and 5.6



with my 2 35mm slr setup I used to shoot with, I kept a 35-105 on one body , and a 100-300 on the other and my pics were great, with a decent camera you can adjust for the lens and lose no pics or pic quality...

 

[garris3404]

I have the 18-200 VR lens. It's a great walk-around lens. I took 2500 pictures last time at WDW. I loved not having to change lenes. I got some great shots on the safari (just set the VR mode correctly).

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Different strokes for different folks.

for the safari ride, with limited time to get a good focus, you might want more depth of field anyway, so you'd end up stopping down the 2.8, eliminating it's benefits.

I've found that my biggest problem on the safari ride is shutter speed rather than DOF. I usually prefer shallow DOF for shooting animals, although focus accuracy becomes a problem when your moving. I usually shoot at an f/4.0 on the SR as a compromise. Even then, a f/2.8 lens stopped down is going to be much sharper at f/5.6 than an f/5.6 lens wide open.

The near constant motion of the ride vehicle is what force a high shutter speed. Even IS can't counter the motion and extreme bouncing. Forget the inverse shutter speed rule for this one, try for 1/1000 or higher if possible.

It is possible to just shoot when the ride stops for a moment. It makes lots of little stops that give you a fighting chance. The problem I have is that it always seems to stop when my view is obstructed. I think you'll get your max keepers by boosting your shutter speed (high ISO, wide aperture) and shooting when you can. If you can't get a high shutter speed, take what you can get when the ride pauses.

One more thing, be careful about holding up big, heavy DSLR to your eye on this or any other jerky ride. I've gotten smacked several times by jerks (in the ride motion, not people).

for the shows you can jump your iso to 400 to compensate for the diff, between 2.8 and 5.6

That works for outdoor shows like the car show. For something like FotLK, I typically shoot at ISO 1600 AND f/2.8. There's a lot of motion and not a lot of light.

I'm not trying to say that a wide aperture lens is mandatory. I just think that it gives you many additional shooting opportunities. Whether that's worth the extra cost and the extra bulk (carry a 70-200 f/2.8 lens around for a while before you commit to lugging one all of WDW) is a judgment call.

 

[Groucho]

FWIW, here's how my focal length breakdown looks from my January trip, where I took ~2,500 shots.

Yes, I like my 50mm F1.4 an awful lot. But overall, I just didn't do that much long zoom shooting.

Despite it being a long trip, we only got a chance to do the Safari ride once, and I totally blew it. I mounted my 50-200mm and left the camera on "Program" - big mistake! What it thought would be reasonable shutter speeds just weren't enough, with all the bouncing around. It wasn't helped that quick and decisive focus can be an Achilles Heel with my camera (only 3 AF points vs 11 on just about every other Pentax, that's my one real frustration with it) so I probably missed a few shots waiting for that.

Next time - I'll definitely use shutter priority mode, probably at least 1/250th or faster. It's bright enough that I think there shouldn't be too many issues with blur or noise if all goes well...

 

[MICKEY88]

Different strokes for different folks.



I've found that my biggest problem on the safari ride is shutter speed rather than DOF. I usually prefer shallow DOF for shooting animals, although focus accuracy becomes a problem when your moving. I usually shoot at an f/4.0 on the SR as a compromise. Even then, a f/2.8 lens stopped down is going to be much sharper at f/5.6 than an f/5.6 lens wide open.

The near constant motion of the ride vehicle is what force a high shutter speed. Even IS can't counter the motion and extreme bouncing. Forget the inverse shutter speed rule for this one, try for 1/1000 or higher if possible.

It is possible to just shoot when the ride stops for a moment. It makes lots of little stops that give you a fighting chance. The problem I have is that it always seems to stop when my view is obstructed. I think you'll get your max keepers by boosting your shutter speed (high ISO, wide aperture) and shooting when you can. If you can't get a high shutter speed, take what you can get when the ride pauses.

One more thing, be careful about holding up big, heavy DSLR to your eye on this or any other jerky ride. I've gotten smacked several times by jerks (in the ride motion, not people).


That works for outdoor shows like the car show. For something like FotLK, I typically shoot at ISO 1600 AND f/2.8. There's a lot of motion and not a lot of light.

I'm not trying to say that a wide aperture lens is mandatory. I just think that it gives you many additional shooting opportunities. Whether that's worth the extra cost and the extra bulk (carry a 70-200 f/2.8 lens around for a while before you commit to lugging one all of WDW) is a judgment call.

I would prefer a shallow depth of field also, but a longer depth of field will help get more clear pics on the bumpy fast ride if focusing is difficult...you can always bump your ISO to get your faster shutter speeds..