Renting a lens for dark ride photography

[mouselovenfamily]

For future reference, there is a rental place in KC. It's Rentglass.com. I did look at the Nikon options though and don't see the 35 mm f/1.4. They just appear to stock the 1.8. And I don't think they have Sigma lenses. But if you're ever in the market for something else, it's handy to be able to pick up locally and save the shipping charges.

I rented a 2.8 zoom from there when each of the boys graduated.

Thanks.....and they are very inexpensive!!!!! Holy cow!!!!! Doesn't sound like the 1.8 would cut it though.

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks.....and they are very inexpensive!!!!! Holy cow!!!!! Doesn't sound like the 1.8 would cut it though.

They are in Overland Park not far from 87th and I-35 and were great to work with. It's a bummer they don't have what you want this time, but be sure to check them out next time.

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks.....and they are very inexpensive!!!!! Holy cow!!!!! Doesn't sound like the 1.8 would cut it though.

Maybe you could just rent a full frame body and rely on higher ISO?

 

[mouselovenfamily]

Maybe you could just rent a full frame body and rely on higher ISO?

I will shoot manual with the lens. Last trip I got some decent shot with my 50mm so it would be an improvement over that for sure....higher ISO won't bother me too much.

 

[photo_chick]

I will shoot manual with the lens. Last trip I got some decent shot with my 50mm so it would be an improvement over that for sure....higher ISO won't bother me too much.

Having higher useable ISO instantly adds stops to your lens. Imagine going from a limit of 3200 or 6400 to having useable 25600 and the ability to go even higher if needed. It also means that the 3200 or 6400 is going to be a lot cleaner. That kind of range isn't necessary for dark ride shooting with a fast prime but it sure is nice to have. I'm not saying "go rent a camera" with this, just not to dismiss what a greater useable ISO range is worth.

I'm not sure I understand the earlier comment about f/1.8 not being enough. In practical use there's not giant difference in terms of the shutter speed you'll get between an f/1.8 and an f/1.4 lens. f/1.4 is a little faster but it's not even a whole stop. (whole stops being f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8....) FWIW I got plenty of great dark ride shots with Canon 50D @ISO 3200 using a 50mm f/1.8 on my last trip. But a lot of successfully working with the entry level 50mm's is learning their AF quirks.

 

[Animagic!]

I would go with the 1.4. 1.8 is fast, but it's still not fast enough, IMO. It's still super hard to get a good pic with it. (I just got back from a trip using the Nikon 35mm 1.8.)

To play Devil's Advocate...

I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and use it at f/1.8 on dark rides. It loses a lot of sharpness at f/1.4. Plus, although small, the greater DOF helps a little. Also, I've had just as much success (if not better) with a 50mm f/1.8 on dark rides. The 50mm f/1.8 actually gave me much, much sharper images than my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8 aperture was enough to get those sharp images.

 

[rmattman]

Another option for lens rental in the Orlando area is TheLensPal. They do not deliver but are only about 30 minutes from WDW and are located in Winter Garden. Website is thelenspal.com. Their lens selection is much greater than Kingdom Camera Rentals and prices tend to be better. The only caveat when dealing with TheLensPal is that their rental period is calculated differently from most lens rental companies. They count both the pickup and drop-off day as one day in the rental period. For example, pickup on Monday and drop-off on Thursday would count as four days whereas most companies would calculate that rental as three days as long as the pickup and drop-off times were approximately the same. To offset this difference, most of the time the rental costs less with the extra day from TheLensPal than most companies charge for the shorter period. I have used both companies and have been happy with both.

 

[Silock]

Did you like the prime vs zoom?

I never used a zoom lens on a ride, so I can't say.

I've also got the Nikon 35mm 1.8 and found that for most dark rides, it just wasn't "wide" enough.

I didn't find that to be true, but then, I don't like wide lenses as much as a lot of people do.

To play Devil's Advocate...

I own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and use it at f/1.8 on dark rides. It loses a lot of sharpness at f/1.4. Plus, although small, the greater DOF helps a little. Also, I've had just as much success (if not better) with a 50mm f/1.8 on dark rides. The 50mm f/1.8 actually gave me much, much sharper images than my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the f/1.8 aperture was enough to get those sharp images.

I'm actually less concerned about the sharpness than the significant noise when you shoot at ISO 6400. That might just be a personal preference, though. I'd rather have my image a little less sharp than have a lot of noise in the picture.

 

[firemanchip]

Neither Kingdom or Lenspal rent Sigma lenses. Any idea where to rent third party?

 

[photo_chick]

I'm actually less concerned about the sharpness than the significant noise when you shoot at ISO 6400. That might just be a personal preference, though. I'd rather have my image a little less sharp than have a lot of noise in the picture.

I've found that the sharper the original image the more aggressive you can be with noise reduction in editing. But that also goes hand in hand with other practices like ETTR and selective sharpening to get the most noise reduction with the least amount of detail loss.

 

[mouselovenfamily]

Having higher useable ISO instantly adds stops to your lens. Imagine going from a limit of 3200 or 6400 to having useable 25600 and the ability to go even higher if needed. It also means that the 3200 or 6400 is going to be a lot cleaner. That kind of range isn't necessary for dark ride shooting with a fast prime but it sure is nice to have. I'm not saying "go rent a camera" with this, just not to dismiss what a greater useable ISO range is worth.

I'm not sure I understand the earlier comment about f/1.8 not being enough. In practical use there's not giant difference in terms of the shutter speed you'll get between an f/1.8 and an f/1.4 lens. f/1.4 is a little faster but it's not even a whole stop. (whole stops being f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8....) FWIW I got plenty of great dark ride shots with Canon 50D @ISO 3200 using a 50mm f/1.8 on my last trip. But a lot of successfully working with the entry level 50mm's is learning their AF quirks.

I've never really had a "nice" dark ride lens before, so either is probably going to be great for me.

 

[DVC Mike]

I hope to try my Canon 50mm f/1.4 with my Canon EOS 5D Mark III on my next trip, to see if I can do any better than I was able to do with my 35mm f/1.8 on my Nikon D7000.

I think the equipment will only get me so far, and I'll just need to learn the skill of dark ride photography.

 

[photo_chick]

I hope to try my Canon 50mm f/1.4 with my Canon EOS 5D Mark III on my next trip, to see if I can do any better than I was able to do with my 35mm f/1.8 on my Nikon D7000.

I think the equipment will only get me so far, and I'll just need to learn the skill of dark ride photography.

You hit the nail on the head. You can get dark ride shots with an entry level DSLR and cheap prime if you know how. While it will be a little easier with your 5DmkIII because you do have a little broader ISO range you still have to know what you're doing.

 

[photo_chick]

I've never really had a "nice" dark ride lens before, so either is probably going to be great for me.

Didn't you say you had a 50mm before?

 

[DDuck4Life]

I used the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on our last trip and thought it was a great lens. I have not used the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 so I can't really compare but I feel like I was able to get some great shots with the 18-35mm. The lens is large and heavy but the versality is worth it on the dark rides at Disney. Having the ability to zoom out and still adjust to get the shot where otherwise you might have missed it is great. While at Disney it almost never left my camera.

 

[firemanchip]

I used the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 on our last trip and thought it was a great lens. I have not used the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 so I can't really compare but I feel like I was able to get some great shots with the 18-35mm. The lens is large and heavy but the versality is worth it on the dark rides at Disney. Having the ability to zoom out and still adjust to get the shot where otherwise you might have missed it is great. While at Disney it almost never left my camera.

I was thinking that if I used the 18-35 it would be a great carry around lens as well but then I got to thinking about the weight and thought that might be a bit much after 10-12 hours around my neck.

 

[DDuck4Life]

I was thinking that if I used the 18-35 it would be a great carry around lens as well but then I got to thinking about the weight and thought that might be a bit much after 10-12 hours around my neck.

If you have a good strap, not the one that comes with the camera, it helps a lot and you will hardly notice it's there. I had upgraded my strap to a sling style and I hardly noticed the weight of the camera. While slightly bigger than the 17-50mm f/2.8 I had used as my walk around on previous trips it was not enough of a difference to affect me. Not sure what your used to carrying but just having the weight off your neck and better distributed is a huge help regardless of which lens you go with.

 

[Silock]

I've found that the sharper the original image the more aggressive you can be with noise reduction in editing. But that also goes hand in hand with other practices like ETTR and selective sharpening to get the most noise reduction with the least amount of detail loss.

I think it might just be the way I process photos (personal preference). By all accounts, the Sigma is really quite sharp at 1.4 (much sharper wide open than the 1.8) for the best of both worlds.

EDIT: I also think of the darkest of dark rides, like Haunted Mansion when thinking about this. The difference probably isn't as pronounced on some lighter rides when you don't have to go wide open to get a good image.

 

[photo_chick]

I think it might just be the way I process photos (personal preference). By all accounts, the Sigma is really quite sharp at 1.4 (much sharper wide open than the 1.8) for the best of both worlds.

EDIT: I also think of the darkest of dark rides, like Haunted Mansion when thinking about this. The difference probably isn't as pronounced on some lighter rides when you don't have to go wide open to get a good image.

HM does have some tough spots to shoot, as does Peter Pan. But half a stop still shouldn't make or break a shot even in those situations.

 

[Silock]

HM does have some tough spots to shoot, as does Peter Pan. But half a stop still shouldn't make or break a shot even in those situations.

I didn't meant to imply that it would be THAT bad, though I can see that my initial wording was perhaps a bit too strong. I simply mean that given the choice, I'd always take the 1.4 over the 1.8. It's sharper wide open, and even that 2/3rd of a stop can really help. Even if you end up using it at 1.8, it will be sharper than a 1.8 that's wide open.

That isn't to say that you can't get good shots with a 1.8. I got some good ones, so if even I can do it, I'm sure anyone else can. But if I were renting a lens, I'd take the 1.4 without any hesitation. If I didn't own a 1.8, I would have rented a 1.4. I will probably buy the 1.4 before I go back next year, because I think I'll be much happier with the results. I know for sure I would have appreciated the difference.