Primary walk-around lenses

[goin3d]

First let me say that i've been a long time reader of these forums and appreciate the great advice everyone seems to have!! (first time poster though)

My Disney trip is fast approaching at just 3 weeks away!! This will be my first trip with a DSLR (Rebel XTi). To date the primary lens i've used is the trusty 18-55 canon included with the camera, with a 70-300 for a very few distance shots. I've been giving strong consideration to purchasing a new lens for the trip.....something with a little more versatility. I am not extremely knowledgeable when it comes to lens selection but I'm pretty sure I'd like something that can be used for my day to day shots, but doesn't require me to change lenses when i want a bit of "zoom". Most of my shots are on the fly and right or wrong i've never been one to enjoy lens swapping when i'm running around

Anyone found themselves in the same situation and could lend some advice?

 

[YEKCIM]

First let me say that i've been a long time reader of these forums and appreciate the great advice everyone seems to have!! (first time poster though)

My Disney trip is fast approaching at just 3 weeks away!! This will be my first trip with a DSLR (Rebel XTi). To date the primary lens i've used is the trusty 18-55 canon included with the camera, with a 70-300 for a very few distance shots. I've been giving strong consideration to purchasing a new lens for the trip.....something with a little more versatility. I am not extremely knowledgeable when it comes to lens selection but I'm pretty sure I'd like something that can be used for my day to day shots, but doesn't require me to change lenses when i want a bit of "zoom". Most of my shots are on the fly and right or wrong i've never been one to enjoy lens swapping when i'm running around

Anyone found themselves in the same situation and could lend some advice?

I'm not familiar with Canon lenses, but having just gotten into the dslr "game", I can tell you that my 18-135mm Nikkor is fast becoming my "go to" lens and will probably be the lens I use 90% of the time at WDW. I know Sigma makes an 18-125mm lens that would be pretty close, but have no idea how good a performer it is. The Nikkor is by far the sharpest of the four lenses I own.

Hope that helps.

~YEKCIM

 

[ukcatfan]

I'm not familiar with Canon lenses, but having just gotten into the dslr "game", I can tell you that my 18-135mm Nikkor is fast becoming my "go to" lens and will probably be the lens I use 90% of the time at WDW. I know Sigma makes an 18-125mm lens that would be pretty close, but have no idea how good a performer it is. The Nikkor is by far the sharpest of the four lenses I own.

Hope that helps.

~YEKCIM

I do not have any experience with this, but I have heard that the Nikkor is much better than the Sigma. That said, the Sigma has a decent reputation. It is not going to be a low light performer or anything, but I think for general outside daytime shots, it will not be bad. Everyone must decide on their own if it is worth giving up a little IQ for the ease of use. I have not taken my DSLR to WDW yet so my opinion could change, but I am in favor of two lenses to fill that range along with a good prime around 50mm. If you do not have a prime, you might want to consider that as well due to the low light abilities. The Canon 50mm is only around $80-90 I believe.

Kevin

 

[goin3d]

Kevin,
Would it be possible for you to explain this a little more?

"If you do not have a prime, you might want to consider that as well due to the low light abilities"

I've read this before but i'm not quite sure what the term prime means?

 

[Geoff_M]

I've read this before but i'm not quite sure what the term prime means?

"Prime" is the term used for a non-zoom lens. I'm not exactly sure of the origins, but zoom lenses almost always envolve "compromise" designs. Sharpness, distortion, maximum aperature, etc. are usually sacrificed to some degree in order to get that 18-135mm (or whatever) zoom range into the lens. Until the early 1970's zoom lenses had a pretty mediocre reputation and "prime" lenses were deemed as more desirable choices. Computer aided design has really advanced the development of zoom lens (though they generally still aren't quite a good as "primes") and now "prime" lenses are in the back seat in terms of sales.

 

[goin3d]

I appreciate the info...it helps a ton! I think what i'm really missing for my shooting style is something in the 18-125ish range. Now to go find a decent on e

While i'm checking that out anyone happen to have a link to somewhere selling a decently priced 50mm prime lens? Doubt i'll be able to do both but who knows

 

[Geoff_M]

While i'm checking that out anyone happen to have a link to somewhere selling a decently priced 50mm prime lens?

I don't shoot Canon, but there are usually some pretty inexpensive 50mm f1.8 lenses out there that will suck in lots of light. There's usually a big price jump when you go to f1.4 lenses, but it's only 1/2 stop quicker and often times people find the 1.8 to be a better lens in terms of image quality.

 

[DebºoºS]

Your prime lens would be a lens that would view the shot most like your eye would. I use my Nikkor 50mm f1.2 as my prime even though it's more like 75mm in digital. It's my fastest fixed lens. In 35mm primes would be 50mm or 55mm in digital it would be 35mm.
You have to concentrate more on framing and composition. More foot work too.Your feet are your zoom. Sometimes eliminates the need for flash in low light.
IMHO, pics are usually more natural looking with a prime.

 

[ukcatfan]

I appreciate the info...it helps a ton! I think what i'm really missing for my shooting style is something in the 18-125ish range. Now to go find a decent on e

While i'm checking that out anyone happen to have a link to somewhere selling a decently priced 50mm prime lens? Doubt i'll be able to do both but who knows

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8429&A=details&Q=&sku=12142&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

A "fast" lens like this is practically a must for any dark ride pictures. With the kit lens or a zoom like you are talking about, the aperture just does not let enough light in even at high ISOs to get a fast enough shutter speed. Plus, at the widest apertures on those zoom lenses, you will not be all that sharp. Wide open on the prime is also not the sharpest aperture, but the sharpness compared to the zoom would be noticable. If you can spare the extra $75, then I say it is a very worthwhile investment for using at WDW. For that matter, it will also be sharper for any pictures, not just low light shots. I believe that Groucho used his 50mm more than any other lens on his last trip.

One last thing to consider is how often you think you will be changing lenses. Some people do not even use their tele lenses except for at AK.

Kevin

 

[jann1033]

the canon 50mm f1.8 is regarded as a very good lens and is only $70-80. i just read a review that compared the 6 widely available 50mm for nikon and canon and in most tests the f1.8 came out very good
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/150/cat/10
i have had problems with this lens but it has to be me , i have a 100mm prime as well( really like the length of that better for a walk around, although not sure i would at wdw) but i have problems with the 50 focusing where i think it should be focusing..so just make sure your focal point is right where it should be.( i don't know , maybe it is due to the dof, i am going to take it out this weekend and work with it if the weather permits) i just posted a couple pics from that lens on the "what am i doing wrong with this" thread a few days ago and there is another link in that thread to some other's photos http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1418659
i've read good and horrific reviews of the 18-125 sigma..i only had one sigma and it constantly hunted for focus ( with my old canon film slr) and didn't work well at all with my new rebel xt even after i got it rechipped...however i have heard if you search for a good copy that lens can be good, just buy locally and take your camera body so you can get a good copy or take it back if you don't. i have a 28-135 IS for my walk around and had problems with the IS but they finally fixed it and it seems like it's ok now. it was sharp but some have had soft copies of that as well so you might want to buy that locally as well and try it out. but the is is handy if it's working i haven't tested this but i have a feeling any lens like the 18-125 that has a rep of not always being a sharp copy might be a dangerous buy used...since what are the chances a "good" copy is being sold vs a soft copy jmho

 

[Geoff_M]

Your prime lens would be a lens that would view the shot most like your eye would. I use my Nikkor 50mm f1.2 as my prime even though it's more like 75mm in digital. It's my fastest fixed lens. In 35mm primes would be 50mm or 55mm in digital it would be 35mm.

What you're describing is a "normal prime". From Wiki:

In film and photography, a prime lens is a photographic lens whose focal length is fixed, as opposed to a zoom lens, which has a variable focal length. A prime lens of a given focal length is less versatile than a zoom whose range includes that focal length, but is often of superior optical quality, lighter weight, smaller bulk and lower cost. This is because prime lens designs are simpler (fewer moving parts), and can be optimized for one particular focal length, whereas zoom lenses must function at a variety of focal lengths. Also since they sport a less complicated lens formula, these lenses won't suffer problems related to chromatic aberration as much as a zoom lens (lenses sporting from 7x and above are very prone to this phenomenon).

Prime lenses usually have a larger maximum aperture (smaller f-number) than zoom lenses. This allows photography in lower light (with the same shutter speed) as well as achieving a shallower depth of field.

In 35mm photography a "normal" prime commonly refers to a prime lens with 50mm focal length because it renders an image most like what is seen by the human eye. Small sensor digital cameras will usually require shorter focal lengths (in the ratio of their crop factor) to have the same magnification. Perspective is determined by the relative position of the camera and subject, not the focal length of the lens.

Link

 

[ukcatfan]

The 18-125mm Sigma gets a pretty decent review here. http://www.photodo.com/topic_42.html

Kevin

 

[jann1033]

The 18-125mm Sigma gets a pretty decent review here. http://www.photodo.com/topic_42.html

Kevin

that leads me to a question i asked a while back, where would you stop considering a lens "good" with number ratings..it only gets a 3.25 on that site. personally i try to stay in the "4"s( or get it where you can try it)...there is a tokina 24-200 i've seen rated pretty good for a third party ( 4.?? on photodo and 7.6 on fredmiranda vs 7.1 for the sigma) and is around the same price as the sigma..it's a little less wide but also longer so maybe a toss up

 

[Master Mason]

I have the sigma 18-125, and have been pleased with it.... my only real complaint is it is F3.5-5.6 so it doesn't open near as much as I would like.

I am thinking strongly of replacing it with the Sigma 24-70 f2.8

 

[DebºoºS]

What you're describing is a "normal prime".

oh I'm sorry. I thought that was the question.

I've always referred to my Nikkor 50mm as my prime, Nikkor 20mm as my wide and Nikkor 35-105 as my mini zoom.

 

[Geoff_M]

oh I'm sorry. I thought that was the question.

No problem... The poster was asking if the person had a "prime" for low light settings vs. a zoom with its characteristic smaller maximum aperature that would be less suited to lower light situations.

I have a 20mm f2.8 ultra-wide "prime" lens that would be better suited for low light instead of consumer zoom set @ 20mm at ~f4.

 

[PoohJen]

I was quite pleased with the range of my Sigma 18-125 on my last wdw trip (Rebel XT). On the day I went to Animal Kingdom, I brought only my zoom (Sigma AF 70-300), and it just wasn't versatile enough. On the first day (MK) I had both lenses with me, and found I didn't want to take time to change lenses, etc., as we were constantly on the move.

Here's some pics to give you an idea of the Sigma range. I am a total amateur, so can't tell you what the settings were on these, or what the settings "should have been"

Here's a hand held night shot:

Here's a night shot from waaayyyyy back of the Fantasmic arena (last row, to be exact); not a great shot, but gives you an idea of the range:

We were to the far left of the stage for this shot, which takes place far right..

and a close up...

I use this lens primarily for my sons' sports shots, and it stops the action great!

Good luck, and have a great trip!

 

[Steve's Girl]

On our last WDW trip, I had the Nikon 18-135 lens and found that range to be perfect for almost everything. I don't like to change lenses, so this was a really good walk-around lens (Groucho shudders as I utter those words! ) for me. I can't comment on the IQ of the Sigma lens, but the range is perfect for most uses at WDW. Most lenses of this range will not give you very good low-light performance. So, having a 50mm prime in addition will take care of the low light situations.

 

[photo_chick]

I have an older Sigma 28-105 that I used with my Rebel G. I used it when I first got my Rebel XT, but I found it a bit redundant for me since I have the 18-55 and the 75-300. I am lazy when it comes to changing lenses, but have found that If I really want to get the shots I just have to change it sometimes. I also found a good, comfy, well designed bag helps. Can't use them if you don't carry them!

I did just get the 50mm f/1.8 and I would recommend that. With all the low light stuff there is to shoot at WDW, I would want to make sure I have a good fast lens. It is worth every cent IMO.

 

[goin3d]

I truly appreciate all the advice and feedback!

I've gone ahead and ordered the 50mm 1.8 so i look forward to getting familar with that before the trip. I'll continue to do some research on the sigma 18-135 but the pictures that pohjen posted will help a ton!