Need extra reach for my upcoming trip

[nvtsallo]

I can either get a
Canon ef-s 18-200mm
ef 70-300mm is
ef-s55-250mm

to cover what my 15-85mm does not on a canon 60d. My concern is if I even need it and if so what would be the best optically and considering I have kids and want to have fun. I am not sure if the 70-300 is better glass than the newer 18-200 with more wide angle than I need but I would change lenses less. I just want to make use of my 15-85mm. Please someone help. We are doing all the parks with 4yr olds and am not sure if there will be pictures I would miss if I did not have the reach.

 

[photo_chick]

What shots are you concerned about missing? Because I don't think you will miss shots of your family with the 15-85. You may not get all the hairs on the head of each animal at AK with it, but other than that I can't think of any place where you'd really come up short with the 15-85. It really, really sounds like you're over thinking it.

Of the lenses you listed I'd go with the 55-250. It's the best balance of price and image quality, IMO.

 

[nvtsallo]

So you don't think i will need the reach? I just used the 18-200 last year so was scared it will not have enough reach.

 

[photo_chick]

It depends on how you shoot. I didn't really need it 99% of the time. The only time I needed that kind of reach was at AK, and even then, it was for a handful of shots. My next trip I'm not even taking a long lens to the parks because to me it's just not worth toting the weight for those shots.

 

[Frantasmic]

The 55-250 will work well with your new 60D.

About the only time you do need reach though is either at Fantasmic (if you sit in the back), at AK, at any of the stunt shows at the Studios.

But, the 55-250 is a good lens to have anyway.

 

[nvtsallo]

I was told in reviews i read that the 55-250 lacked image quality and contrast. Thats why i was considering the 70-300. So if i get up close for fantasmic and most of the shows 85mm on my lens should cover it? What is the need for reach at ak?

 

[bob100]

I was told in reviews i read that the 55-250 lacked image quality and contrast. Thats why i was considering the 70-300. So if i get up close for fantasmic and most of the shows 85mm on my lens should cover it? What is the need for reach at ak?

you were told wrong!
seriously, the inexpensive Canon 55-250IS is actually pretty good
($177 at adorama http://www.adorama.com/CA55250AFSR.html )

with Canon Rebel XSi (450D)

with XSi /450D

 

[nvtsallo]

Nice do you have any at disney with it?

 

[photo_chick]

I was told in reviews i read that the 55-250 lacked image quality and contrast. Thats why i was considering the 70-300. So if i get up close for fantasmic and most of the shows 85mm on my lens should cover it? What is the need for reach at ak?

I'd actually put the 55-250 over the 70-300 as far as image quality. And way, way over the 75-300. Keep in mind the speed you may want at Fantasmic as well. If you're really set on getting the shots, make sure you can get them in that light. Size isn't everything here.

 

[Frantasmic]

Bob proved that you can get stellar pictures from the 55-250 and he even did it from a camera that doesn't have as good a sensor as you will have. It doesn't matter what was photographed or where, just that it is a capable camera/lens combination. Of course, bob, over the last two years, has proven he can get some really good shots with any camera he has in his hands, so it must be the photographer.

You've asked the same question in many different threads the last week. If you want budget, light-weight, and reach, go with the 55-250. Several people in several threads have suggested that same lens for your same requirements.

It will get you the shots you want, especially outside.

If want something a little more versatile, look at renting the 24-105 L lens, the 135 L lens, the 180 L lens, or the 200 f2.8 L lens. Those will all also provide really good shots, but you would have to foot zoom with 3 of them. In another thread, you cited the weight of the 70-200 as a drawback. It is quite possible that what you desire doesn't exist (a low-weight, great all purpose lens, that is also inexpensive). Sign me up with that lens too when it comes out. You should rent the 28-300 L lens. It and the sigma 30mm would probably cover almost all of your expectations, except that the 28-300 lens is heavy AND expensive.

 

[nvtsallo]

Thanks i will give it a try. I think i will slowly start renting lenses so i can answer my own questions on price vs performance.

 

[Marty Joe]

Nvtsallo… My last trip to WDW I used a Canon 17-135 IS almost the whole time. I used the 55-250 IS once at AK (the Safari/ in the rain) and once at Fantasmic (wasted time on that one). My next WDW adventure I’m just taking two lenses: my Christmas present 50mm 1.7 (I’m hoping) and the 17-135.