Should I buy a new lens or keep what I have?

[pgowder]

I'm preparing for an upcoming Disney trip (8 days)! And the DW has agreed to let me go on some photo walks alone!!!

So I'm going over my lenses trying to figure out what to carry. And I'm trying to decide what to carry while with DW and DD, then what to carry for doing my shooting later.

Here is my debate. The two lenses I have right now that I'm looking at carrying are the Minolta 24-70 f2.8 and the Sigma 17-24.

I thought about picking up this lens, Sony 18-250 f3.5-6.3 as a walk around lens:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665233511

But will I miss the f2.8? Is that a good trade for only having to carry 1 lens? Hmm, don't know.

Or do I ditch the 17-24 and get the Sony 11-18?

Or just keep what I have?

Help! Talk me down from spending more money--or convince me it is a good buy.

 

[annnewjerz]

You definitely aren't going to find anyone here that is going to talk you out of spending money---in fact, it'll be the exact opposite!!

What do you plan on shooting while you are there? I think the two lenses you have right now are good all-purpose fast lenses---but won't do you much good if you plan to shoot any indoor rides. I don't really know anything about Sony lenses, but I believe they make a 50mm f/1.7, you may want to pick that up if you plan to try any low-light handheld photos.

and---you don't seem to have much reach on the lenses you listed above. That may be fine depending on your shooting style, but I think most people would probably want a longer option in their kit. If you don't want to buy a new lens, consider renting one.

As far as the 18-250, zoom lenses that cover a wide range like the one you listed are very handy and convenient and I know that some people around here use them the majority of their time in WDW. I also know that some have much nicer glass and still keep the 18-200 just for the lazy factor, that you may not want to be constantly switching out lenses. I have a Nikon 18-200 and it's a bit of a love/hate relationship. What it lacks in IQ (which I really don't think is much), it makes up for in weight and convenience.

On our trip in December, I plan to bring the Tokina 11-16 for wide angle shooting, the 18-200 for general/walk-around purposes and the Sigma 30 for the indoor rides or creative shots using a shallow DOF.

So in summary---to make a long response longer---my general opinion is to buy, buy and buy a little more. You can never have too many lenses.

 

[pgowder]

You definitely aren't going to find anyone here that is going to talk you out of spending money---in fact, it'll be the exact opposite!!

What do you plan on shooting while you are there? I think the two lenses you have right now are good all-purpose fast lenses---but won't do you much good if you plan to shoot any indoor rides. I don't really know anything about Sony lenses, but I believe they make a 50mm f/1.7, you may want to pick that up if you plan to try any low-light handheld photos.

and---you don't seem to have much reach on the lenses you listed above. That may be fine depending on your shooting style, but I think most people would probably want a longer option in their kit. If you don't want to buy a new lens, consider renting one.

As far as the 18-250, zoom lenses that cover a wide range like the one you listed are very handy and convenient and I know that some people around here use them the majority of their time in WDW. I also know that some have much nicer glass and still keep the 18-200 just for the lazy factor, that you may not want to be constantly switching out lenses. I have a Nikon 18-200 and it's a bit of a love/hate relationship. What it lacks in IQ (which I really don't think is much), it makes up for in weight and convenience.

On our trip in December, I plan to bring the Tokina 11-16 for wide angle shooting, the 18-200 for general/walk-around purposes and the Sigma 30 for the indoor rides or creative shots using a shallow DOF.

So in summary---to make a long response longer---my general opinion is to buy, buy and buy a little more. You can never have too many lenses.

Most of the photos I take will be of DD of course! She's 5 and this is her 2nd trip.

When alone I want to get some nice landscape shots of the icons, fireworks, rides, etc. Looking for some shots we can frame and hang in the house of classic Disney views.

I do have the 50mm 1.7 and plan to carry that on the rides.

I've wondered about needing longer too! Most of my shooting is of Native American Pow Wows. For that I shoot 95% of the time with a 70-200 f2.8. But I don't won't to lug that beast around the parks!

 

[annnewjerz]

Most of the photos I take will be of DD of course! She's 5 and this is her 2nd trip.

When alone I want to get some nice landscape shots of the icons, fireworks, rides, etc. Looking for some shots we can frame and hang in the house of classic Disney views.

I do have the 50mm 1.7 and plan to carry that on the rides.

I've wondered about needing longer too! Most of my shooting is of Native American Pow Wows. For that I shoot 95% of the time with a 70-200 f2.8. But I don't won't to lug that beast around the parks!

If you keep realistic expectations of what a particular lens can do, I think you'd be happy with the 18-250.

If you are looking for something lighter than your 70-200 f/2.8 to carry around, not overly expensive and still has 150mm+ for when you want to shoot something further away (like animals in Animal Kingdom, details on the upper levels of buildings in the WS, etc.) then I'm sure this would be a great lens.

ZackieDawg (Justin) shoots with a Sony and uses the Tamron 18-250 as his walk-around lens and said that he has probably used it for something like 75% of his Disney shots. If you hop over to the Sony thread, you can probably find a post of his and take a look at his pbase page to see some of the sample shots with that lens.

UWA lenses seem to be popping up more and more on this board also. I just got one yesterday and have a feeling it is going to be really fun to use in WDW.

Tough decision. I don't know which to tell you to buy---but I can safely say you most definitely should buy something

 

[ukcatfan]

Since most of the long focal length shots at WDW are in daytime settings, I think you should pick up an inexpensive lens in the 50-200mm range. I am not really sure what your brand offers, but there are probably tons of used Minolta options.

 

[ukcatfan]

Tough decision. I don't know which to tell you to buy---but I can safely say you most definitely should buy something

Oh, I still remember when you stumbled upon this board. We have seriously warped you!!!

 

[annnewjerz]

Oh, I still remember when you stumbled upon this board. We have seriously warped you!!!

It's been a full year now---it's been a slow and steady process, but I think it's safe to say I'm about as warped as they get now. Job well done!!

 

[boBQuincy]

Theoretically speaking, we should only consider more equipment when it becomes apparent that our current equipment is holding us back from getting the photos we want. To back this up we can use something like Wega 2 to analyze our photography and decide if we use certain focal lengths and apertures more than others. For example, if we tend to use the short end of one of our lenses a lot it would indicate that we might want a shorter lens.
Theoretically...

Practically, we go out and buy whatever suits our fancy! We analyze the data to see we never use anything shorter than 35 then we go out and buy a wide angle, because we want it! Works for me...

 

[pgowder]

Looking through my lenses I do have a Minolta 28-135. With the Crop factor that's a nice length. Not very wide though.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

If your wish is to have one nice walk around lense the 18-250 is about as good as you'll get. I have the Sony 18-250 and it is a very nice, versatile lens that I take when I want to have a wide range available without switching lenses. The Tamron version is also very good and less expensive. I'd recommend the Sony to anyone and I'd also have no hesitation buying the Tamron.

The Minolta 28-135 is a great lens and is faster than the 18-250 but it is a beast! Not a 70-200 2.8 but stilll heavy. I'd have fun with that lens but I would miss having something wider. With your 17-35 you'd have a pretty nice combo for Disney IMO.

Other than dark ride shots that you already have covered by the 50mm you can get by pretty welll with a slower lens at WDW. So if you feel like having the convenience of single lens and have the money to spend get the 18-250, but if you're willing to use two lenses I'd just go ahead with the 17-35 and the 28-135.

Ultra wides give a different perspective so it's all on what direction you want to go. Maybe I'll have to trade you a Sony 11-18 I acquired for the Minolta and Sigma.

 

[pgowder]

Looking through my lenses I do have a Minolta 28-135. With the Crop factor that's a nice length. Not very wide though.

 

[handicap18]

Generally speaking, f/2.8 lenses will be sharper and have better IQ than a do-it-all-extra-long-focal-length zoom.

For Magic Kingdom and EPCOT you really don't need a long focal length unless that is your style. If it were your style you would already have the long focal length.

Even at DHS, unless you plan on doing all the shows, you don't really need a long focal length. Even at that your 28-135mm should do well for most of those.

The only time you'll miss having a long focal length is at Animal Kingdom.

Personally, I use the wider focal lengths more than the long ones so for me something like the 24-70mm f/2.8 would do fine (though I would prefer to have a bit wider). What is the aperture on the 17-24mm? I'm guessing its an older lens since you don't see that zoom range much these days.

 

[Master Mason]

I shoot 95% of my Disney photos with a 24-70 f/2.8 and the rest with a 70-200 f/2.8. Once in a very great while I wish I had something wider, but it hasn't been enough to justify buying one yet. I've been perfectly happy with the shots I get at f/2.8 on the dark rides, and have relegated the 50mm f/1.8 to live with my old XT incase someone using that needs a fast lens.

I'd save the money and use the lenses you have.

 

[pgowder]

I shoot 95% of my Disney photos with a 24-70 f/2.8 and the rest with a 70-200 f/2.8. Once in a very great while I wish I had something wider, but it hasn't been enough to justify buying one yet. I've been perfectly happy with the shots I get at f/2.8 on the dark rides, and have relegated the 50mm f/1.8 to live with my old XT incase someone using that needs a fast lens.

I'd save the money and use the lenses you have.

Your post will make the wife happy!

 

[pgowder]

Generally speaking, f/2.8 lenses will be sharper and have better IQ than a do-it-all-extra-long-focal-length zoom.

For Magic Kingdom and EPCOT you really don't need a long focal length unless that is your style. If it were your style you would already have the long focal length.

Even at DHS, unless you plan on doing all the shows, you don't really need a long focal length. Even at that your 28-135mm should do well for most of those.

The only time you'll miss having a long focal length is at Animal Kingdom.

Personally, I use the wider focal lengths more than the long ones so for me something like the 24-70mm f/2.8 would do fine (though I would prefer to have a bit wider). What is the aperture on the 17-24mm? I'm guessing its an older lens since you don't see that zoom range much these days.

My 17-35 is 2.8-4 I believe.

That is what I was worried about on the longer lens. I don't think I want to give up the f2.8.

 

[dmccarty]

Most of the photos I take will be of DD of course! She's 5 and this is her 2nd trip.

When alone I want to get some nice landscape shots of the icons, fireworks, rides, etc. Looking for some shots we can frame and hang in the house of classic Disney views.

I do have the 50mm 1.7 and plan to carry that on the rides.

I've wondered about needing longer too! Most of my shooting is of Native American Pow Wows. For that I shoot 95% of the time with a 70-200 f2.8. But I don't won't to lug that beast around the parks!

For use the DD the 50/f1.7 or the 17-24/F2.8 When I go to the parks with the family I take either a 24/F2.8 or a 50/F1.4. I have a 35-70/F2.8 but I don't take it as much. The primes focus closer and I have been getting photos of the family on the rides like Thunder Mountain and Test Track. For the family fun day park trips the camera goes in a small holster bag that protect the camera. I am going to look for a slightly large holster bag that could hold the camera+lens and another lens.

My 180mm/F2.8 has been used to take photos of fireworks, animals at AK, and Kodo drummers. But I only tank that lens when I take everything to the park where I would expect to use the lenses. Mainly AK. Most of the photos are done with below 70mm.

Since you have a 70-200/F2.8 I would keep what you have.

If weight is an issue then maybe a back pack camera bag would work when you are on a photo tour just by yourself. You can not have too many camera bags. I have 5-6 and I am thinking of getting two more.

Later,
Dan

 

[pgowder]

For use the DD the 50/f1.7 or the 17-24/F2.8 When I go to the parks with the family I take either a 24/F2.8 or a 50/F1.4. I have a 35-70/F2.8 but I don't take it as much. The primes focus closer and I have been getting photos of the family on the rides like Thunder Mountain and Test Track. For the family fun day park trips the camera goes in a small holster bag that protect the camera. I am going to look for a slightly large holster bag that could hold the camera+lens and another lens.

My 180mm/F2.8 has been used to take photos of fireworks, animals at AK, and Kodo drummers. But I only tank that lens when I take everything to the park where I would expect to use the lenses. Mainly AK. Most of the photos are done with below 70mm.

Since you have a 70-200/F2.8 I would keep what you have.

If weight is an issue then maybe a back pack camera bag would work when you are on a photo tour just by yourself. You can not have too many camera bags. I have 5-6 and I am thinking of getting two more.

Later,
Dan

Thanks!

 

[handicap18]

My 17-35 is 2.8-4 I believe.

That is what I was worried about on the longer lens. I don't think I want to give up the f2.8.

I wouldn't want to give up the f/2.8 either.

A lot of times what happens to people who really get into photography is that over time they will tend to start going towards the sharper lenses like the f/2.8 zooms. Many would rather give up the extra focal length for the sharpness and better image quality.

Also as long as you have a big enough camera (MP wise), which most dSLR's are, you can crop the image and still get a real good image out of it.

I'm in the process of saving up for some f/2.8's zooms. I don't think I'll miss the longer focal range as much as long as the f/2.8 zooms I'm getting have great IQ and sharpness.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Generally speaking, f/2.8 lenses will be sharper and have better IQ than a do-it-all-extra-long-focal-length zoom.

Assuming that the OP has the Minolta 28-135 F4-4.5 that lens is very highly regarded for sharpness, colors and contrast. If the copy is a good one reports are that it is very sharp - even wide open and is even capable of holding up to the resolution requirements of the 24mp A900. I was a bit sceptical of all the hype but I tried a copy and was very pleased with it although the general condition of the lens did not equate to the price the seller wanted so I passed on that copy. I'm not certain if the OP has the Minolta 28-70G or the 28-75 2.8 (I am not aware of a Minolta 24-70, only a Sony and if that's the lens never mind about IQ - little tops that! ). I have the 28-75 which on my copy is best stopped down at least to F4 and that doesn't seem to be too unusual for either of the 2.8's I mentioned so though you can gain on the faster lens you lose out a bit on sharpness.

Maybe you should bring them all down OP and use different ones on different days. You have a nice collection to choose from!

 

[pgowder]

I wouldn't want to give up the f/2.8 either.

A lot of times what happens to people who really get into photography is that over time they will tend to start going towards the sharper lenses like the f/2.8 zooms. Many would rather give up the extra focal length for the sharpness and better image quality.

Also as long as you have a big enough camera (MP wise), which most dSLR's are, you can crop the image and still get a real good image out of it.

I'm in the process of saving up for some f/2.8's zooms. I don't think I'll miss the longer focal range as much as long as the f/2.8 zooms I'm getting have great IQ and sharpness.

Yes, that's what I thought too. And I've decided not to get the 18-250 because the f stops.