Renting lens for T3i for upcoming trip (help!)

[Turk February]

Hi all,

So I'm in the process of figuring out which lens I want to rent to bring to WDW for our trip next month and I could really use the help of some people who know more than I do.

Background - We have a T3i with the standard 18-55 and my wife and I are both novice users. I took some photography classes in high school and college 10+ years ago and I've dealt with apertures and ISOs but I'm sadly very out of practice.

We have a 3 1/2 year old daughter, and we're staying at AKL Kidani with a Savannah view. I had not considered renting a lens until that view was booked and I started thinking maybe I'd need something with more zoom to capture animals and also something with a wider angle to capture the landscapes.

I have an rental order in for a Canon 70-200 f/4L IS and a Canon 17-40 f/4L, but I can cancel or modify it before my trip, which is why I'm asking for your advice.

In a perfect world, I'd like to use just 1 lens and get the most out of it given my situation. I'm considering a Canon 24-105 f/4L IS, a Tokina 12-24 f/4 as well.

My worry is that I'll be renting a lens that I'm not qualified to get the most out of since my experience is lacking. I'll have about a day or 2 to play around with it before our trip but we all know that's not enough time to really get a hold of things.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

 

[havoc315]

No "all in one" lens will be as good as the ability to change lenses. And I wouldn't worry too much about lack of experience. Yes, more experience and more practice will make better photographs. That said, just having enough telephoto reach will help you get certain pictures too.
And since you're planning on using the lenses largely around your own resort... You can always just bring your kit lens into the parks, and leave the other lenses in the room when not in use.

As long as it's rental and not purchase, for Animal Kingdom.... I'd upgrade lenses a bit further. Either get more reach -- a lens up to 300mm. For get the 70-200 f2/8... the extra stop on the aperture will give you benefits at being able to use a faster shutter speed. The 70-200 2.8 will be a HEAVY lens though. You certainly wouldn't want to carry it all the time.

Ultimately, remember the only way to get experience.. is by having the experience. Renting a lens is a great way to practice improving your photos without big investment.

 

[mom2rtk]

An all in one is great for convenience. But you do give up some quality and some speed for that convenience. All you have to decide is what is most important to you.

The one thing I see missing is something fast for dark rides. But maybe you don't have an interest in shooting dark rides. f/4 won't do the trick. f/2.8 really isn't fast enough, but you can get away with it if you bump your ISO to 3200 on some rides. I have the T2i and am quite happy with 3200 if I use noise reduction software in post processing. And if I'm not mistaken, the T3i has the same sensor as my T2i.

 

[photo_chick]

My honest advice... you're all over the place here. Stop obsessing and don't get so tied up in making photographs that you miss making memories. Honestly the 18-55 is a solid walk around lens that can do very well for you in many situations. And while there is no qualification necessary to use a lens you seem to already get the idea that you're still the one who has to make it work.

All that said.... The Canon 24-105 f/4 is an awesome walk around lens. I use an older 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and I find the focal length to be good for most situations I encounter at WDW. The only places it's not is the safari at Animal Kingdom (not long enough), dark rides (not fast enough), and once in a while it's not quite wide enough for getting my family when I can't move back much (like when in line).

 

[MikeandReneePlus5]

I wouldn't go to crazy with L glass etc.

I have no idea what rental prices are but you could roll with your kit and add (either buy or rent) the Canon 55-250.

that gets you everything except fast (for dark rides) and super wide (tons of fun at WDW).

If fast and super wide are on your list add a 10-22 or the Tokina 12-24 and a fast prime (30mm, Sigma for example).

Have fun!

PS don't underestimate what Havoc said about that 70-200mm f/2.8. it's a heavy beast lol....it's 3.4 lbs. If you stick with that approach I really think f/4 stabilized you reserved is going to be fine...and it's half the weight...1.7 lbs.

 

[mom2rtk]

PS don't underestimate what Havoc said about that 70-200mm f/2.8. it's a heavy beast lol....it's 3.4 lbs. If you stick with that approach I really think f/4 stabilized you reserved is going to be fine...and it's half the weight...1.7 lbs.

I rented a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens for my first son's high school graduation. And that was enough to cure me from wanting to ever take one to Disney. I'll just rent it again when my second graduates in a couple months, and even that will be bad enough.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

The 70-200 2.8 will be a HEAVY lens though. You certainly wouldn't want to carry it all the time.

PS don't underestimate what Havoc said about that 70-200mm f/2.8. it's a heavy beast lol....it's 3.4 lbs. If you stick with that approach I really think f/4 stabilized you reserved is going to be fine...and it's half the weight...1.7 lbs.

I rented a 70-200 f/2.8 IS lens for my first son's high school graduation. And that was enough to cure me from wanting to ever take one to Disney. I'll just rent it again when my second graduates in a couple months, and even that will be bad enough.

I know the 70-200 is heavier than an 18-55 "kit" lens, but it isn't that heavy. I have it in my bag (at WDW) all the time and it is on my camera (again at WDW) about 20-25% of the time. The key to carrying any heavier (hence better quality) lens is your strap. It should really be carried with a cross body strap (of your choice). When I'm working at the racetrack, I normally carry carry two cameras with vertical/battery grips, one with the 70-200 and the other a 100-300 f4. Sometimes I will go a little lighter and one camera will have my 28-70 f2.8, which is still considerably heavier than the "kit" lens. The point I'm trying to make is that it is less than the weight of a 1/2 gal of ice cream!!

 

[mom2rtk]

I know the 70-200 is heavier than an 18-55 "kit" lens, but it isn't that heavy. I have it in my bag (at WDW) all the time and it is on my camera (again at WDW) about 20-25% of the time. The key to carrying any heavier (hence better quality) lens is your strap. It should really be carried with a cross body strap (of your choice). When I'm working at the racetrack, I normally carry carry two cameras with vertical/battery grips, one with the 70-200 and the other a 100-300 f4. Sometimes I will go a little lighter and one camera will have my 28-70 f2.8, which is still considerably heavier than the "kit" lens. The point I'm trying to make is that it is less than the weight of a 1/2 gal of ice cream!!

Well, your arms are probably just more muscular than mine from all that experience carrying your camera and huge lens around the racetrack! Mine? Not so much.

I do use a Black Rapid strap and think it wouldn't be so bad carrying it, but hoisting it up and down all day would probably not be something I'd choose to do.

I'm not shy about carrying stuff with me in the parks. But I'm not the sort to choose one lens to use for the entire day. And if I did it wouldn't be a big zoom. So on top of that lens, I'd have at least a couple others.

My only 2.8 zoom right now is the Sigma 50-150. It's a nice compact fast zoom. But I'd like IS. I figured I'd spring for that version when it came out. Well it did. But just the addition of OS added 1.3 pounds to the final product. So I passed on the upgrade.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I'm not shy about carrying stuff with me in the parks. But I'm not the sort to choose one lens to use for the entire day. And if I did it wouldn't be a big zoom. So on top of that lens, I'd have at least a couple others.

Exactly, I carry four:

18-55
30
28-70 (walkaround)
70-200

 

[mom2rtk]

Exactly, I carry four:

18-55
30
28-70 (walkaround)
70-200

But do you also carry a hoop skirt and several princess gowns? Because I often do. The choices we all make!

 

[boBQuincy]

Having stayed in a savanna view room at Kidani Village I can assure you that you will want a longer lens than 18-55. The animals sometimes come close but not that close, a 200 is nice to get some good photos that are not all scenery with a few tiny animals in the distance.

The 70-200 f/4 is surprisingly low cost to rent, the non IS version even less. From the balcony you can use the railing for "IS" or even leave a tripod set up out there. Beware though, once you have tried L series it is difficult to go back!

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

But do you also carry a hoop skirt and several princess gowns? Because I often do. The choices we all make!

Been there, done that!! BTW I love your costume work! Its fabulous.


Halloween 05 195 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr

 

[Turk February]

I appreciate everyone's feedback! For the record, I would not be carrying the 70-200 (or 300) to the parks. The main reason I want that is to capture animals from our room, and it was great to hear from boBQuincy that it's something I would need.

I think I'm gonna stick with what I have and maybe replace the 17-40 with some thing a bit more wide just to have some fun and experiment at the parks . The ultra wide angle thread really makes it tough not to want to try one out!

I was actually surprised at how cheap it is to rent some real quality lenses (a photog friend pointed me to lensrentals.com). The 70-200 IS is only $69 for 6 days and the 17-40 is $49 (both include a $9 damage waiver).

 

[mom2rtk]

Been there, done that!! BTW I love your costume work! Its fabulous.


Halloween 05 195 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr

Thanks! You guys look awesome.

And if you carry the camera gear AND the costumes..... you're officially invited on my next trip!

 

[jpfiff]

I'm taking a 17-55 2.8 with me next month for walk around and will crank up the iso for the dark rides.

 

[traylorc]

I'm taking a 17-55 2.8 with me next month for walk around and will crank up the iso for the dark rides.

During our recent trip to Disneyland I elected to use a number of my f/2.8 lens on dark rides...and I was fairly pleased with the performance. That being said, I did have the ISO cranked up big time...some of the shots were shot at ISOs of 6,400 - 10,000. I feel fortunate to have a camera that is a great low light performer.

 

[photo_chick]

During our recent trip to Disneyland I elected to use a number of my f/2.8 lens on dark rides...and I was fairly pleased with the performance. That being said, I did have the ISO cranked up big time...some of the shots were shot at ISOs of 6,400 - 10,000. I feel fortunate to have a camera that is a great low light performer.

I think with cameras that CAN perform at ISO settings that have surpassed film we're going to be seeing more and more people with f/4 lenses rather than f/2.8, or f/2.8 zooms rather than fast primes. But there will always be people like me who love crazy low light shots and put the fastest lens at the highest ISO and go nuts shooting in the dark.

 

[traylorc]

I think with cameras that CAN perform at ISO settings that have surpassed film we're going to be seeing more and more people with f/4 lenses rather than f/2.8, or f/2.8 zooms rather than fast primes. But there will always be people like me who love crazy low light shots and put the fastest lens at the highest ISO and go nuts shooting in the dark.

Oh yeah!