Not sure if image stabilization is a need at disney?

[nvtsallo]

Am going back to wdw in 90 days and have a canon 5d3 with 24-70 2.8 ii
Was thinking of bringing the 24-70 f4l is instead since there will be 12 of us and would be stopped down mostly to 5.6-8.

Just wondering if anyone can weigh in if its worth it or would I be better off with my 2.8 I own. Any thoughts on is and character shots shooting at say 1/60 with is vs 1/125 without is.

 

[SkaGoat]

If you plan on stopping down anyway, I would go with the L lens. But if you plan on shooting people and other moving subjects you will want the faster f/2.8 lens. The IS won't help you if the subject is moving.

 

[cisobe]

I agree with the previous poster, IS will not help freezing motion. I would go with the 24-70 2.8L. If you get a decent amount of distance between you and the characters and group, say 8-10 feet, you should be able to get a decent amount of dof... my dof calculator says 10 ft to subject at 24 mm at 2.8 you should have 11 feet of dof. So if you focus on some one in the front middle, anything 4.5 ft in front or 6.5 feet behind that point should be in relative decent focus.

The closer you go or if you use more zoom, your dof will narrow.

Do you have a flash?

 

[nvtsallo]

I agree with the previous poster, IS will not help freezing motion. I would go with the 24-70 2.8L. If you get a decent amount of distance between you and the characters and group, say 8-10 feet, you should be able to get a decent amount of dof... my dof calculator says 10 ft to subject at 24 mm at 2.8 you should have 11 feet of dof. So if you focus on some one in the front middle, anything 4.5 ft in front or 6.5 feet behind that point should be in relative decent focus. The closer you go or if you use more zoom, your dof will narrow. Do you have a flash?

Yes i have a 600 exrt. I know the question is 1/60 is vs 1/125 non is if that would help for indoor shots? Also 2.8 for 12 people is going to leave quite a bit oof at 10 feet especially with a character in that shot. I would most likely stop down to 5.6-8 depending on distance but curious of halving the shutter to allow for a lower iso.

 

[photo_chick]

24-70 f/2.8 iiL is regarded as one of the sharpest and best all around performing standard zooms from Canon. Take it for that reason alone. Seriously, if I owned that lens it would rarely leave my camera. Ever.

The IS can help you out with character shots and portraits. Where it doesn't help is faster action shots. However, when you pair the f/2.8 aperture with the 5D3's great high ISO performance you've got a really nice setup that to me really doesn't need the benefit of IS.

 

[Pixel Dust]

If you are refering to character shots indoors then, it will be perfectly fine without IS. They are lit well enough, if you really want to stop-down. But it's OK to shoot wide open too. These were all shot on a Nikon D600 with an old 35mm f/2 lens. Your 5D3 will have better noise control and your 24-70 f/2.8 is a much sharper lens than mine. Don't be afraid to bump up the ISO on the 5D3. Also, the last shot with Mickey missed focus. It focused on the curtain behind. But it's still an acceptable shot.

Also, do you really need 1/125, if you are trying to fit 12 people at 24mm? You should be able to get away with 1/30 or keep it at 1/60 to be safe.

By the way, these were all handed to the PhotoPass photographer or their assistant to take, as I'm in the shot.

Character Spot (Epcot)
35mm lens, f/2.8, 1/125 ISO 400

Princess Fairytale Hall
35mm lens, f/2.8, 1/125 ISO 200

Mickey at Town Square Theater
35mm lens, f/2.8, 1/125 ISO 800

FYI
You may need a flash for Princess Fairytale Hall. There is practically no ambient light. Just the spot light in the character area. So, 12 people may not fit into that spotlight.

I hope this helps!

 

[nvtsallo]

24-70 f/2.8 iiL is regarded as one of the sharpest and best all around performing standard zooms from Canon. Take it for that reason alone. Seriously, if I owned that lens it would rarely leave my camera. Ever. The IS can help you out with character shots and portraits. Where it doesn't help is faster action shots. However, when you pair the f/2.8 aperture with the 5D3's great high ISO performance you've got a really nice setup that to me really doesn't need the benefit of IS.

Yep your right. I just did some tests and there is no contest. I am sending it back and sticking to my 24-70 2.8 ii. Just was hoping to save some weight. Ohh well. I did get the 70-300 L for the trip as that should cover everything I may need beyond 70mm. To me that is worth it over my 70-200 2.8 ii.

 

[wiigirl]

24-70 f/2.8 iiL is regarded as one of the sharpest and best all around performing standard zooms from Canon. Take it for that reason alone. Seriously, if I owned that lens it would rarely leave my camera. Ever.

The IS can help you out with character shots and portraits. Where it doesn't help is faster action shots. However, when you pair the f/2.8 aperture with the 5D3's great high ISO performance you've got a really nice setup that to me really doesn't need the benefit of IS.

 

[cisobe]

I agree 2.8 at 10 ft isn't optimal for such a large group, but it is doable. In low light situations there will always be compromises, and getting a shot that has some slight out of focus but relatively ok for small prints is acceptable.
Which is why I asked if you had a flash, if so you can use a smaller aperture to get the dof you desire. You may want to pick up soft attachment for it to soften the light. Haven't been to wdw in a long time but at Disneyland character areas usually don't give you the opportunity to bounce flash. Ceilings are either non existent, really high or colored...

I was able to get by with my 5d3 24-105 f4 is. In dimly lit spaces I was shooting iso 1600-3200 and adding flash in spaces as necessary. I only have to worry about my wife, son and I so it's not as difficult a shot as having 8+ people.
Good luck

 

[havoc315]

I'm not a Canon user so can't speak to the definite strengths and weaknesses of these lenses.

But obviously, different lenses are meant for different tasks. if big group character shots are your priority, then you need to balance low light with adequate depth of field.
IS will definitely help in this situation. "Freezing the action" isn't an issue for a posed group shot. With stabilization, I'm taken posed shots as slow as 1/5th and 1/10th of a second.
So I wouldn't look at it as 1/125 vs 1/60. Assuming you're shooting around 24-35mm for these shots... 1/60 or so to err on the cautious side with the non-stabilized lens. With the stabilized lens, you may be able to go as far as 1/15 or so.

Of course, do you really need to stop down? If you are shooting wide, you'll get lots of depth of field. Even from 8 feet away, at 24mm and 2.8, you will likely have enough DOF for your big group. (Then again.. at f 4 and IS, you will certainly have enough DoF plus the benefit of a slower shutter speed).

 

[nvtsallo]

I'm not a Canon user so can't speak to the definite strengths and weaknesses of these lenses. But obviously, different lenses are meant for different tasks. if big group character shots are your priority, then you need to balance low light with adequate depth of field. IS will definitely help in this situation. "Freezing the action" isn't an issue for a posed group shot. With stabilization, I'm taken posed shots as slow as 1/5th and 1/10th of a second. So I wouldn't look at it as 1/125 vs 1/60. Assuming you're shooting around 24-35mm for these shots... 1/60 or so to err on the cautious side with the non-stabilized lens. With the stabilized lens, you may be able to go as far as 1/15 or so. Of course, do you really need to stop down? If you are shooting wide, you'll get lots of depth of field. Even from 8 feet away, at 24mm and 2.8, you will likely have enough DOF for your big group. (Then again.. at f 4 and IS, you will certainly have enough DoF plus the benefit of a slower shutter speed).

See that last line about f4 and is allows for a little more wiggle room at a slower shutter but after the sharpness tests I ran this am. I am bringing the 2.8 is that much better. I was hoping to lighten the load but its not in me to go with just my sony nex 6 and leave it behind. i wish. I was going to look at the g1x mk ii if its out in time so I could alternate days. It looks to be a promising camera.

 

[nvtsallo]

first is 24-70 2.8 left and f4 on right at 50mm f8

next is same but 70mm

I think the difference is big or I am just nuts which is very possible.

70mm

 

[photo_chick]

Yes, the difference is that big. And it's not that the f/4 is bad, it's that the f/2/8 ii is THAT good. The 24-70 f/4 L was put out as a more economical 24-70 since the current 24-70 f/2.8 ii is priced so much more than the old version. So it makes sense that it wouldn't be as good optically as the more expensive lens.

 

[nvtsallo]

Yes, the difference is that big. And it's not that the f/4 is bad, it's that the f/2/8 ii is THAT good. The 24-70 f/4 L was put out as a more economical 24-70 since the current 24-70 f/2.8 ii is priced so much more than the old version. So it makes sense that it wouldn't be as good optically as the more expensive lens.

Well thanks for confirming that I am not seeing things. I even afma several shots and this was the closest. Hopefully they will introduce a 2.8 is version in the future then i will be set. Now what to get for the occasional video clip. I don't have IS till 70mm. Sometimes its nice to get the kids dancing during a parade or some of the shows where IS helps. Just cannot justify this lens for the cost right now. Maybe I will look at the 35mm f2 is by canon for video.

 

[cisobe]

I just picked up a 35 f2 is, so far it's been great. Fast focusing pretty sharp wide open, however there is quite a bit of vignetting wide open. I disregarded it when it first came out because it was priced at $900! But it dropped in price late last year, and I was able to get mine for $550. I missed it when it dropped to $450 for a few days...

Definitely worth what I paid for it.

 

[Skywise]

I took a Canon 16-35 f2.8L II on my last trip. (I just upgraded everything and I could only afford one lens and I wanted wide angle!)

Coming from a Canon T4i with a 17-55 f2.8 with IS I was afraid that I was going to miss out on some shots without the IS and the truth was I did... When I was attempting long exposures (like a second or two of waterfalls without a tripod!). Surprisingly though, the 2.8 and FF did remarkably well so long as the ISO was high enough indoors and with night photography.

Unless you've got really shaky hands I'd say go the F2.8.

 

[nvtsallo]

I took a Canon 16-35 f2.8L II on my last trip. (I just upgraded everything and I could only afford one lens and I wanted wide angle!) Coming from a Canon T4i with a 17-55 f2.8 with IS I was afraid that I was going to miss out on some shots without the IS and the truth was I did... When I was attempting long exposures (like a second or two of waterfalls without a tripod!). Surprisingly though, the 2.8 and FF did remarkably well so long as the ISO was high enough indoors and with night photography. Unless you've got really shaky hands I'd say go the F2.8.

I do not. But funny you mention the 16-35 2.8. I was thinking of bringing that for the cruise part. I have decided to bring the 24-70 2.8 and may rent the 24-70f4 is and leave it in the room if I feel I need it. i do not have shaky hands but I feel there's only so low i will drop the shutter on that lens and only so high I will raise the iso. Really my ceiling is 4000 to maybe 6400. I rarely use 12800-25600. To me too much noise.

 

[havoc315]

first is 24-70 2.8 left and f4 on right at 50mm f8

next is same but 70mm

I think the difference is big or I am just nuts which is very possible.

70mm

Big difference... BUT...

Are those regular full images, or are they 100% crops?
If those are the regular images, the difference is HUGE.

If those are 100% crops, then those are real differences, but you're never going to notice them when viewing at regular sizes.

 

[nvtsallo]

Big difference... BUT... Are those regular full images, or are they 100% crops? If those are the regular images, the difference is HUGE. If those are 100% crops, then those are real differences, but you're never going to notice them when viewing at regular sizes.

100%
But still its a big difference and when the subject is at that difference and you want to crop them in the f4 version would be drastically softer to me.

 

[havoc315]

100%
But still its a big difference and when the subject is at that difference and you want to crop them in the f4 version would be drastically softer to me.

Yes, once you start cropping or if are you going to blow up a huge print, it's a big enough difference that you'll notice it. Posting it on facebook, you'd never notice it.