Wah, can't bring all the lenses I want...

[Twoboysnmygirl]

here's the short...

I have a D40 with
a kit lens (18-55mm NO VR that I don't care for and never use)
a 55-200mm VR lens that I use all the time (b/c it's the only other lens I have, but obviously limiting!)

So, I am renting a 18-200mm for our trip. I think as far as getting all the shots I need and being able to take shots in close range is important...

BUT, I'm dyin' here b/c I don't have enough to get the other lens I really want, which is the 35mm. I have seen the night/dark ride pics that you can get with this lens and I will get it eventually, but if I spend the 200$(yes, I know this is not that expensive for such a great lens) then I won't have enough for the 18-200mm and I think that will limit me even more.

Sooooooooooo, now that I have told you all that (sorry! I'm a rambler) what I would like to know is if I can get pretty decent shots at night, fireworks, dark rides with the 18-200 if I use a low aperture (and my tripod)?? Has anyone used the 18-200 for night shots? I don't need them to be perfect, but if you have any suggestions for my settings, it would help. I have been shooting in A lately.

 

[annnewjerz]

You can definitely get night shots with the 18-200. As long as you are using a tripod, you can get great night shots no matter what lens you use.

For night shots, set up on a tripod and if you don't have one yet---invest in a remote shutter release like the ML-L3 wireless remote for like $15. You will probably stop down your aperture anywhere from f/8 to f/16 anyway, so having a "fast" lens doesn't make any difference.

For fireworks, you can also get great shots using the 18-200. Set up on a tripod, use the remote shutter release again and have fun shooting away!

For indoor rides, you probably won't have much luck with the 18-200. It seems like most people shoot those (even the brighter ones like Small World and Splash) with f/2.8 or lower. The max aperture on the 18-200 is f/3.5 on the wide end---which probably won't be fast enough, unless you really jack up the ISO and maybe even adjust the exposure in PP.

I know you said you wanted to rent the 18-200, is it not possible to rent the 35mm f/1.8? If you can't afford to buy it right now but are really set on trying to get some low-light ride shots, that may be your best bet. It seems like a waste to rent a lens that is so relatively inexpensive, but if it's really the only way you can swing it, it might be the way to go.

Good luck!

 

[WDWFigment]

I would buy the 35mm, and not rent the 18-200 since you already have it between the two lenses (18-55 and 55-200). Honestly, the VR on the 18-55 is not going to matter for most of your shots unless you're taking 1/4 second or longer exposures.

I use the 18-200 for a large portion of my night shots. The image quality will be slightly better if you use the two lenses you already have, but you get the idea.

A link to my shots is in my signature. Any shot between 18 and 200mm (with the exception of the 30mm and 50mm shots) was taken with the 18-200.

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

Ooooh Figment, you HAD to be the voice of dissension!

I have been throwing around the idea of just buying the 35mm and not renting the 18-200, but I'm just concerned that I won't want to switch lenses all the time and I won't get the pics I want with the 18-55. I really don't think it's a very good lens, not sure why, but my pics just aren't as good with it. I assumed it was the VR, but it could be some other reason.

The other reason I don't want to lug around a ton of lenses is b/c this is a BIG family trip. We may or may not go again and we are a family of 8 (IL's and SIL) and my dd and I are the only one's that have been to WDW. I wanted something I could just walk around with, hence the choice to rent the 18-200mm.

annnewjerz- I looked into renting the 35mm too, but it's almost HALF of what I would pay just to rent it for 2 weeks. I have to do 2 weeks b/c I live in a rural area (slower ship) AND we are leaving on a sunday so I have to have it delivered on Thursday or Friday of the previous week. (ah, there I go with TMI again!)

I MAY end up renting it though. I would love to own it, but for a really special trip like this, my DD's 9th bday, my IL's going with us, my teenage boys first trip...I wonder if it's just worth it to rent them even though in the long run I'm losing money by not purchasing the 35mm

 

[WDWFigment]

Ooooh Figment, you HAD to be the voice of dissension!

I have been throwing around the idea of just buying the 35mm and not renting the 18-200, but I'm just concerned that I won't want to switch lenses all the time and I won't get the pics I want with the 18-55. I really don't think it's a very good lens, not sure why, but my pics just aren't as good with it. I assumed it was the VR, but it could be some other reason.

The other reason I don't want to lug around a ton of lenses is b/c this is a BIG family trip. We may or may not go again and we are a family of 8 (IL's and SIL) and my dd and I are the only one's that have been to WDW. I wanted something I could just walk around with, hence the choice to rent the 18-200mm.

annnewjerz- I looked into renting the 35mm too, but it's almost HALF of what I would pay just to rent it for 2 weeks. I have to do 2 weeks b/c I live in a rural area (slower ship) AND we are leaving on a sunday so I have to have it delivered on Thursday or Friday of the previous week. (ah, there I go with TMI again!)

I MAY end up renting it though. I would love to own it, but for a really special trip like this, my DD's 9th bday, my IL's going with us, my teenage boys first trip...I wonder if it's just worth it to rent them even though in the long run I'm losing money by not purchasing the 35mm

That's enough of a justification to get the 18-200, then. I went on my first DSLR trip with only that lens, it'll give you more than enough to do. I wouldn't rent the 35mm given the cost versus renting, but that's just me. If you do things right, you can get some dark ride shots with the 18-200 and the D40. I got some decent shots on Haunted Mansion, its a small world, Pirates, Buzz, etc. About the only thing you won't be able to do is Peter Pan's Flight. Don't expect any groundbreaking dark ride or Spectro shots with it, though, but you'll be fine for everything else.

I like the 18-55 non-VR pretty well. Kit lenses take a lot of flack, but they're usually better than the super zooms as far as IQ goes.

 

[Golf4food]

Two words: credit card Hahaha

I just did four days with ONLY a 35 f/2.8 and had a good time - it was fun forcing myself to recompose with my feet and I already have lots of shots from my usual 18-125 walk around lens. You don't need a lot in the telephoto end for most of WDW, but I did miss that 18-34 range on the prime. The wide end is especially usefull for fireworks. I only did the one lens trip because we have season passes and go multiple times per year, so one trip experimenting wasn't going to hurt anything.

For a long trip the 18-200 will most definitely be more usefull all around: even if you have a 35 f1.4 the chances of getting GOOD dark ride shots are small (less than 10%?). Whereas with the 18-200 you might forfeit those 10% of dark ride shots you will have a lot greater versatility everywhere else.

 

[annnewjerz]

annnewjerz- I looked into renting the 35mm too, but it's almost HALF of what I would pay just to rent it for 2 weeks. I have to do 2 weeks b/c I live in a rural area (slower ship) AND we are leaving on a sunday so I have to have it delivered on Thursday or Friday of the previous week. (ah, there I go with TMI again!)

I don't know what website you were using, but on most the lens rental period doesn't begin until you receive your lens, so shipping time has nothing to do with it. The rental period ends when you drop it back in the mail to send back and shipping is usually a flat rate---so whether you are in NYC or the tiniest town in Alabama, it shouldn't cost you any different.

How long is your trip? A lot of places will rent in 7 day, 10 day, 2 week, etc. periods---so maybe you don't actually need it a full 2 weeks?

 

[ukcatfan]

With the exception of AK, I almost never go longer than 55mm. It might just be my style, but I believe WDW is best shot fairly wide. If it were me, I would not rent the 18-200mm and buy the 35mm b/c it is going to be a fun lens to use.

 

[Groucho]

I would go with the 35mm and use that as your primary lens. You don't have to switch lenses all the time, the 35mm should be pretty flexible.

Even if you do, you should be able to switch lenses very quickly and easily with a little practice. Don't be afraid of multiple lenses.

At the end of the day - when you're all done, the 18-200 will probably give you a bunch of "ok" shots. The 35mm will be much more likely to give you some "great" shots.

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

HA, every time I think I have it figured out, someone suggests something else that makes me think I should do something different!

I know it's crazy to lament over glass, but at least I'm in good company on this issue!

I believe I will need the 200mm but not for the wildlife at AK like you would think, but for my personal wildlife! I have two teenage boys that are virtually too cool for WDW and that zoom is bound to catch me some smiling, laughing, and proof that WDW is cool after all!

but do agree that the 35mm will get me some GREAT shots...I can just imagine the Sci-fi shot right now and ooh, ooh, mainstreet and oh MNSSHP!

I think I might look into getting it for just a week and sending it back. Our trip is 10 days long starting on a Sunday, but if I can mail it back before the trip is over then at least I could use it a little!

believe me, if I had a credit card to use, I would. I should probably just stop putting so much pressure on myself about the pics, but when we went last Sept. I only had an old P&S and my pictures were horrible! I'm glad I have them, but most of them at night are blurry and grainy at best.

Thanks for all the advise, I have 24 days to figure it out!!!

 

[pxlbarrel]

I've used a 17-40 mm lens at WDW and that's mainly all I've used. I switch to a 70-300 when I'm on the safari at AK but I leave that in the hotel when I'm anywhere else. On occasion, I switched to the cheap but amazing 50 mm (the one that costs $100) if I needed to be a little closer without the telephoto zoom. It worked well during shows because of how fast it was.

But like I said, most of the time, I only shoot with the one lens.

 

[WDWFigment]

At the end of the day - when you're all done, the 18-200 will probably give you a bunch of "ok" shots. The 35mm will be much more likely to give you some "great" shots.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I am not saying I am anything close to a great photographer, but I have achieved some results with the 18-200 of which I am pretty proud. All of the shots below were taken with the 18-200:

















I could go on; a good portion of my better (to me at least) shots were taken with this lens.

I love that lens. Maybe other people think these shots are just 'okay', but I like them. Maybe my expectations are low, but I have never been disappointed by the 18-200 lens.

If you are worried about switching lenses detracting from the trip and you think you'll want to use the 18-200 a decent amount, get it, the peace of mind alone is worth it. Before you do that, I might consider walking around one evening after work with your bag, and switching lenses often to see if it becomes a chore or burden. Nothing like a trial run to get you prepped for WDW!

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

Figment, I have admired your photography for quite a few months now and if these were taken with the 18-200mm then I'm good to go! (of course we all know the photographer plays a big part in great pics too)

 

[Groucho]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this. I am not saying I am anything close to a great photographer, but I have achieved some results with the 18-200 of which I am pretty proud. All of the shots below were taken with the 18-200:
...
I could go on; a good portion of my better (to me at least) shots were taken with this lens.

I love that lens. Maybe other people think these shots are just 'okay', but I like them. Maybe my expectations are low, but I have never been disappointed by the 18-200 lens.

I'm not saying that you can't get a good picture out of that lens (I hear some people even get good pics out of plastic-mount kit lenses * ), but if you're willing to crop a little, a 35mm lens can function pretty well in the 35-70 range or so, and a fast prime can things that a relatively slow zoom just can't do - take low light in stride, give you really low depth of field, less optical distortion, usually more pleasing bokeh, etc. With the 18-200, at 35mm you're probably maxed out at, oh, F4.5 or so? Maybe F4? The 35mm prime will be able to gather over 4x as light at that point, which in a place that is as dark inside and at night at Disney, will often mean the difference between getting the shot or not. (I'm guessing that most/all the night photos you posted were done on a tripod with the lens set to a small aperture.) Yes, it's not as flexible, but there are certainly reasons why it still makes a compelling argument for itself.


* relax, kit lens fans, I'm just teasing

 

[Icemann]

I am a newbie to and we have the same camera and lens package.I just got a Tamron 18-270 VC lens for my Nikon SWEET.This is my new walk around lens.I'm still trying to get the hang of using it.So far what I have done I like.Plus they have a 70$ rebate on it now hint hint

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I have the 18-200VR and I used it a lot on my last few trips. On my last trip however, I used the Sigma 18-50 2.8, 30mm 1.4 and 10-20. I think my best shots ever came from that last trip earlier this month. Part of it is the photographer's skills, or lack thereof. (I know all about the lacking part!) What I liked about the lenses I used on this last trip is that it forced me to think about better composition, and lighting became less of an issue because I could use them in near darkness and they worked fine. I think the only thing I used my 18-200 on in my last trip was the Aladdin show in DCA at DLR.
The 18-200 is very convenient. It also works fine with high ISO if you aren't using a tripod. (OTOH, I have a D90 which allows for much higher ISO than the D40 before it gets all noisy and grainy...so keep that in mind.) But there is a big difference in my photos this past trip vs. my previous trips. I think having the larger aperture allowed me to think more creatively and worry less about the lighting, so less noise issues, etc.
I wonder, perhaps, I've missed it, but OP are you bringing a tripod with you for night shots? You will probably need one if you aren't bring any fast lenses for night time use, and I would also get a remote like Anne suggested.

 

[Twoboysnmygirl]

Yes, I plan on bringing my tripod and remote on the nights that we are going to the parks!