Only One Lens - But Which One?

[Macavity72]

I'll be taking my wife and 3 kids to WDW in June. This will be the 1st time my kiddos have ever been, so it's definitely a family vacation, not a photography trip.

That being said, I'm planning on only carrying my 60D with a single lens, I just can't make up my mind which to take. I've looked through numerous threads, and finally decided just to solicit some advice. I don't currently own any of these, so I'd be renting or purchasing one for the trip.

The two I am considering (well, technically 3):

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

or

Canon EF-S 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS / Tamron 18-270 f/3.5-6.3

I'm used to using 2.8 lenses, because I already own the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/2.8, and I love the DOF and low-light capability. I want to carry something with more on the wide end, which is why the Tamron I own won't suffice. I know the Canon 17-55 is the best lens of the bunch (with a price to match), but will I miss not having the reach past 55mm?

Just wondering if one of the super zooms would be a wiser choice for a "family 1st, photography 2nd" vacation.

 

[mom2rtk]

I just got back and carried 2 or 3 lenses to the park each day. I know how you feel being torn between the 2.8 and the greater range.

I LOVE the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 and it was on my camera 90% of the time. But I also had a longer lens I used from time to time. I brought my Tamron 18-270 in case I got tired of carrying the others.......... and it never left the room.

That said...... if you don't own any of them and want to rent just one........ I'd probably rent the Tamron 18-270. It's very versatile. At least with the 60D you get the higher ISO to make the smaller apertures more usable.

The one thing I'd give some serious thought to is getting an external flash of some sort. I use one for all my character photos, indoors or out. And there will reach a point where your pop-up will not be high enough to reach over the Tamron....... not to mention the external gives you better light and flexibility.

Have an awesome trip!

 

[zackiedawg]

Personally, I think so. I specifically made an 18-250mm my 'kit' lens 3 bodies ago, and it has been so ever since...the overall verasatility of this type of lens cannot be beat for my own style of walkaround shooting or casual shooting - when I'm on a photography specific trip, I'll use specific lenses for specific purposes - UWAs, fast primes, long primes, big zooms, etc. But when I need either A. a lightweight and unobtrusive yet highly versatile lens for when I'm not on a photo-specific trip but want the camera with me, or B. when I need to travel for photography but have to travel light and just with the camera, either for security or for hiking/exploring.

I've used my 18-250mm lens for virtually every type of shot - long exposure, night scenic, handheld high ISO, wildlife, travel, architecture, portrait, candid, landscape, macro...it can do it all in a pinch...and while a dedicated lens might do a bit better in specific types of shooting, the flexibility is hard to beat and modern cameras like your 60D are so capable with high ISO and dynamic range that you can get away with a slower lens in low light situations.

Just got back from Disney this past week where I was with a friend who hadn't been in many years. I didn't want to saddle us down with tripod and a bag of lenses because the trip was more for him, so I only brought two lenses - the 18-250mm and the Sigma 30mm F1.4 for low light/ride shots...the 18-250mm did 95% of the work, day and night, scenic and wildlife. He got his Disney trip, going anywhere he wanted to go without me slowing him down for photography, but I still got my shots!

 

[Macavity72]

I do have a 430ex external flash, so I'll be sure to throw that in our park bag.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

For a one lens trip, it would be the 18-270. That gives you the best options. Since you already shoot with 2.8's, you know the limitations of a variable aperture lens. Although as previously stated, your high usable ISO can somewhat compensate for the slower lens. Have fun on your trip!

 

[photo_chick]

from those lenses I'd go with the Tamron 18-270 if it has to be just one lens. Though the 17-55 f/2.8 is really tempting.

 

[VVFF]

I thought I would use my 30mm F1.4 more...but I ended up using my 17-55mm F2.8 95% of the time. I would use that. F2.8 is crazy valuable at Disney.

 

[Macavity72]

Wow, I wasn't really expecting everyone to choose a super zoom.

How am I gonna convince the wife to let me buy the 17-55 IS if I'm not gonna take it on the WDW trip?

Actually, the 18-270 probably makes the most sense, because I already have 12-200 covered with 3 lenses I already own and like. Renting the 18-270 for traveling is probably the smart thing to do.

But buying a new lens is so much fun!

 

[mom2rtk]

Have you checked the price of buying a used 18-270 on Craig's List, Ebay or any of the camera store sites? It's been around a while and I would think you could find a deal somewhere. I've thought about selling my Canon version now that I use the 2.8's so much, but don't think I'll get enough to make it worthwhile.

Only you can say if it's more important to you to have the 2.8 or the extra reach. The only time I used the zoom was for the Christmas parade, the shows at HS and at AK.

 

[Macavity72]

I thought I would use my 30mm F1.4 more...but I ended up using my 17-55mm F2.8 95% of the time. I would use that. F2.8 is crazy valuable at Disney.

Only you can say if it's more important to you to have the 2.8 or the extra reach. The only time I used the zoom was for the Christmas parade, the shows at HS and at AK.

This is the crux of my dilemma. Balancing the flexibility of 2.8 vs 18-270.

Sigh. This is why you carry more than one lens, isn't it?

 

[mom2rtk]

This is the crux of my dilemma. Balancing the flexibility of 2.8 vs 18-270.

Sigh. This is why you carry more than one lens, isn't it?

Well, they do say that weight-bearing exercise is good for you, right?

For me it's more about the hassle of the constant changing than actually what I'm carrying. But then I don't have a 70-200 f/2.8. THAT would be about the weight.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

This is the crux of my dilemma. Balancing the flexibility of 2.8 vs 18-270.

Sigh. This is why you carry more than one lens, isn't it?

Yes it is. On the trip I just completed, I carried four lenses most of the time, 28-70 f2.8-walkaround, 18-55 WR-water rides and wider angle, 30 f1.4 for dark rides and 70-200 f2.8 for reach (shows, safari, etc.).

 

[NLD]

Can you do two lenses?

A superzoom with variable aperture.

A small prime with f/1.8 or 1.4.


In 2009 when dh, dd, and I went on our first trip, and it was a family trip (not focused on photos), I had a Nikon D60, 18-105 variable aperture, and 35 f/1.8.

It was a perfectly fine Disney kit, gave me some zoom and the 1.8 for low-light. And all fit in a very small bag that was not hard to carry all day.

The prime can be so small you hardly notice it. Changing it with the superzoom isn't a big deal if you just do it while waiting in line for the dark rides (if you plan to shoot those) or waiting to get seated at a restaurant (when you'll want that 1.8 for the indoor lighting).

 

[zackiedawg]

This is the crux of my dilemma. Balancing the flexibility of 2.8 vs 18-270.

Sigh. This is why you carry more than one lens, isn't it?

Well remember that it's only 1/2 stop or so at the widest end anyway - you might be surprised what you can push the 18-270mm to do. I've done lots of handheld high ISO shooting with my 18-250mm lens at night...with your 60D, you shouldn't be too challenged at ISO1600-6400 which can get you fine results.

 

[Macavity72]

Can you do two lenses?

A superzoom with variable aperture.

A small prime with f/1.8 or 1.4.

I've actually considered this, as I have the Canon 50mm f/1.8, and it'll fit just about anywhere. Problem is, I hardly ever use it because it is almost impossible to focus in low light. Hunts like crazy on me.

Also, 50mm on my 60D would be way too wide for indoor character shots. To go this route, I'd have to rent the super zoom and a wider prime. Definitely something to consider, but sure makes my personal lens kit seem useless.

I keep fretting so much over this lens choice, that I have to stop and remind myself this is for the family, not my photographer ego.

 

[photo_chick]

Normally I would choose the 17-55 f/2.8 and then something longer to go with it. But you said one lens, and if I'm stuck with just one lens I want my range covered. It's why I use an older 28-105 as my walk around. So from what you listed, I'd go with the most range... if I'm limited to just one.