What DSLR lens do you prefer?

[extreme8]

I'll guess most of my Disney shots are longer ranges on my walk-around lens which is a 28-135 (Canon, no multiplier factor).

Reading that statement can I assume you lug a 5D around WDW with you? That's a big expensive piece of gear for vacation photos.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - my D200 W/grip isn't too far behind.

 

[Cap'n Keel]

Reading that statement can I assume you lug a 5D around WDW with you? That's a big expensive piece of gear for vacation photos.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - my D200 W/grip isn't too far behind.

Yep - I use the 5D. Weight never bothered me as I've always used an SLR. My first digital (Canon D30 3mp) weighed about the same. Agree - the 5D has a pretty steep price tag, but I love the camera. Funny - the D30 cost just $500 less back in the late 90s than the 5D does now. At first I did buy the 30D (about the same price as the D200), but wasn't happy with it (actually liked my 3mp better) and returned it for the 5D. Nice to use real wide angle 35mm lenses again.

On the weight - interesting enough, according to the Canon and Nikon websites, the D200 weighs 830g while the 5D weighs 810g. So I agree that's a big hunk of equipment ya haul. I agree, these cameras are over kill for the average person at the park. Add grips, heavy glass, flash, and a bag and most people think we're crazy I'm sure. And it's true. But the results...

BTW - congradulations on placing in Epcot. Loved the rich gold color in that shot.

 

[WillCAD]

Reading that statement can I assume you lug a 5D around WDW with you? That's a big expensive piece of gear for vacation photos.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - my D200 W/grip isn't too far behind.

You'd be surprised at the amount of money you see hanging from camera straps in the Disney and Universal parks.The most common are the less expensive DSLRs like the Digital Rebel series and the Nikon D50 and D70, but I have also seen lots of 20Ds and a few 5Ds, not to mention some Nikons that I couldn't identify (which I assume means they were the more expensive DSLRs).

Then there are lenses - lenses, lenses, everywhere you look are lenses ranging from cheap kit lenses to Canon L-glass (they're rare in the parks, but I have seen them once in a while).

 

[extreme8]

"the D30 cost just $500 less..."
You know you got the bug really bad when you can use the word "just" while discussing $500 differences in camera body prices.

I looked at the 30D before I bought the D200 but it just didn't feel right in my hands. I prefer Canons low noise at high ISO, and their colors seem richer right out of the camera, but it just didn't feel as solid as the Nikon. Plus I've always wanted a Nikon even while I was trapped in the Minolta world (been shooting Minoltas since highschool).

Most of the cameras & glass I've seen in the parks have been of the Digital Rebel/kit lens variety. I expect they will become even more popular as prices get closer to decent P&S models.
I purchased the 18-200 VR with places like Disney in mind - I couldn't imagine myself riding Rockin' Rollercoaster while trying to protect an 8lb, 10" long, $1500 70-200 2.8 VR lens. That would be a very long nerve-wracking day.

 

[Cap'n Keel]

"You know you got the bug..."
Yes-sireee!

"it just didn't feel as solid as the Nikon."
Nikon - Canon. To-ma-toes To-mah-toes.
We all know it's the operator that makes the difference.
Of course - good glass helps.

"Most of the cameras & glass I've seen in the parks have been of the Digital Rebel/kit lens variety."
Agree. No argument that's a good DSLR for the $. Until the bug bites and they feel a need for speed. Sort of like switching from Elements to CS2.

"I purchased the 18-200 VR with places like Disney in mind"
Good choice. That gives you a 27-300mm. Canon doesn't have such a digital lens (zoom span/speed/VR). Of course Canon does sell a straight up 28-300L IS in that speed range, but it cost $2200! I'll stick with my 28-135 IS thank you very much.

"I couldn't imagine myself riding Rockin' Rollercoaster while trying to protect an 8lb, 10" long, $1500 70-200 2.8 VR lens. That would be a very long nerve-wracking day."
Uh - on R&R my DSLR is in the bag squished on the floor. That's where the pocket P&S comes out if I'm adventurous. You're shooting the DSLR riding?

I do lug around that 70-200 ya mention, plus a multiplier, plus a 50mm 1.4 in case I feel a need for speed. BTW - Both Nikon & Canon weigh the same on that 70-200 at 3.2 lb. I've given serious thought to the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 (4.1 lbs, $1k) monster for walking around and leave the other stuff - but then...ahhhhhh...it's so frustrating! Why can't they make a darn 17-500mm 1.4-4 IS/VR (3 lbs, $1500) and just call it quits? All that technology in the cameras yet the glass is still glass. Shouldn't we have electron lenses by now to go with our jet packs? I know - I know - no jet packs either just $5k Segways. Life was sure simplier in pirate days.

 

[Deedee]

Another vote here for the nikon 18mm-200mm i have the D50 and thats the only lens i used on my recent trip and came back with some awesome photos.

 

[donaldduck1967]

Just got back from wdw with my Olympus E-500 and the 14-45 and 40-150 lens'(Olympus 4/3rds cameras have a 2x factor. So the 14-45 is really 28-90 and the 40-150 is really 80-300). The only time I used the 40-150 was @ Sea World and Epcot (but only to take pics of Futrue world from World Showcase and vice versa) otherwise the 14-45 was on at all other times. I did wish the i had a 14-54 for a little longer reach.

 

[handicap18]

You'd be surprised at the amount of money you see hanging from camera straps in the Disney and Universal parks.The most common are the less expensive DSLRs like the Digital Rebel series and the Nikon D50 and D70, but I have also seen lots of 20Ds and a few 5Ds, not to mention some Nikons that I couldn't identify (which I assume means they were the more expensive DSLRs).

Then there are lenses - lenses, lenses, everywhere you look are lenses ranging from cheap kit lenses to Canon L-glass (they're rare in the parks, but I have seen them once in a while).

The funny thing I noticed about this is that if you really pay attention, a lot of people with these dSLRs and lenses don't really know how to use them. A few times on my last trip I saw people with their dSLRs and knew immediately that they were using AUTO. Not that there's anything wrong with that at all. But it was funny because they'd be taking a picture of the castle late in the day, maybe a bit before dusk and they'd point their camera at the castle while standing around Casey's (with the 70-300mm lens on the camera) and the flash would pop up and go off when they released the shutter.

But, yeah, there were a lot of dSLR's. When I was there I noticed more Canon XT's than any others. Saw a few D200's as well, more than I though I would. Don't remember seeing any of the big glass. Most everything I saw seemed to be kit stuff.

 

[donaldduck1967]

But, yeah, there were a lot of dSLR's. When I was there I noticed more Canon XT's than any others. Saw a few D200's as well, more than I though I would. Don't remember seeing any of the big glass. Most everything I saw seemed to be kit stuff.

When I was there last week there was definately more Nikon's then anything else. Then I saw about the same # of Canon's and Olympus.

 

[WillCAD]

When I was there last week there was definately more Nikon's then anything else. Then I saw about the same # of Canon's and Olympus.

That must ebb and flow a bit, depending on where you are and when. On my last WDW trip I saw about an even mix of Canon and Nikon DSLRs (and more than a few 35mm SLRs - film ain't dead yet!), but then I spent a day at the National Zoo in DC last spring (fantastic animal photo ops) and saw more Nikons than Canons. And I saw more upper-end Canons and better glass at the zoo than at WDW, too. Then I went to the National Air and Space Museum's annex out by Dulles in September, and I saw way more Canons than Nikons, but mostly Rebel XTs and inexpensive (under $500) glass.

Mixed bag, I guess.

 

[Ratpack]

I carried a Sigma 18-200 on my Minolta 5D almost 100% of the time at WDW.
Now that I've changed to Nikon I've purchased their 18-200 VR. A lens with that range has some compromises but the convenience outweighs them for a walk-around lens.
Just as an FYI, here is the analysis of the EXIF data from my last trip.

How did you pull this data? I am too looking at adifferent lens for the next trip to WDW and this may help me decide which one. I had the D50 on our last trip so I should have this data somewhere, just need to know how to retrieve it.

Sorry, Just saw this question was answered!

 

[boBQuincy]

I'm one of the ones you see with the red stripe around the front of the lenses (Canon "L" glass). When I bought my first "L", a 70-200 f/4, I decided if it wasn't dramatically better than my Canon 55-200 that I would send it back and be happy with the inexpensive lens.
It was better, *much* better, too much better!
But 5x better? Hmm...

It's easy to get spoiled by the premium lenses, they are sharp wide open, corner to corner, especially so on 1.6 crop cameras. Canon and Nikon have at least three tiers of kenses; the $100 kit ones; the $300 mid-range; and the $900 premium (these figures are *very*
approximate). There is certainly diminishing returns as the price goes up, and some of the mid-range lenses are as good as the 1.6 sensor can use. But there's no mistaking the feel of the premium lens, they seem to be made out of a billet.

Btw, if you don't use some sort of camera support you may not be getting much advantage from the good lenses.

I don't use "auto", but now if I see someone looking at my lens I'm going to pop up the flash at night, just to mess with them!

The best combo I ever saw at WDW? A Canon 1D with a f/1.8 50 mm! C'mon cheapskate, spring for the f/1.4!

 

[extreme8]

Lets see some results of the lens graphs you folks are running.
I really am curious to see how my usage compares. It might help some others make decisions on what focal lengths they might need as well.

...the flash would pop up and go off when they released the shutter.

Doncha just love watching a big sporting event or concert on TV and seeing the blizzard of little P&S flashes going off from the upper deck 200 yards away from the action?
Clueless or just wishful thinking?

 

[We-Luv-Disney]

I use my wide angle lens (17-40 f4) the most while @ WDW. I have taken my 70-200 f4 and 300mm f4 to Animal Kingdom and MGM (for fantasmic) before. But for me the 17-40 covers landscapes and shots of my kids just fine. But if you have a lens that covers the wide to telephoto range in one lens that would be the one that definitely goes with me.

 

[Groucho]

Good grief, listen to you people! You're going to make us all self-conscious when we're shooting at WDW! I want to concentrate on taking the picture, not on whether or not other photographers are checking out my equipment. Sometimes a kit lens is just the focal length you want! It's not fair to make any assumptions based on that. I guess a vest would come in handy at that point, so you can show off that yes, there are other lenses and some support systems in the collection. You wouldn't want to look like a rube who just walked into Best Buy and bought one of "dem fancy cameras with the big lens on dah front"!

Since I haven't had my DSLR to WDW yet, I can't answer the original question, but I am guessing that I'll primarily go between the Pentax 50-200mm for most outdoor photos, the Zenitar 16mm for wide-angle indoor or out, and the Sigma 28mm 2.8 for indoor photos. (Unless I pick up a 50mm 1.4 before then!) I may end up using the kit 18-55mm a lot, too, if I find the 50-200mm to have a bit too much reach.

In other words - there's so many different things to photograph that I don't think that one lens could do it all, no matter how many tricks it had up its sleeve.

 

[Master Mason]

When I was there last time, I was unprepared. I only had the 18-55 kit lens, and the 75-300. I also had a crappy case that I didn't want to carry around. So most of my pictures were taken with the kit lens. It worked out ok, but there were many times I wished I had a little more reach.

this time I have upgrade a bit. Most of the time I will have my sigma 18-125 on the camera. There will be times I have the other lenses with me. And I will be there for 10 days, So I can go back and get pictures of those things I wanted and didn't have the proper lens for.

 

[Cap'n Keel]

<clip & Snip> I'd be interested in seeing how everyone else uses their equipment.

Used BR's EXIF Extractor. Didn't care for the program that much. Results did suprise me as I thought I shot longer focal lenghts at Disney. Not so the case it appears. A 4 day trip synopsis -

541 pictures (keepers - I usually discard maybe 25%, no count kept)
25% shot at widest focal lenght
10% at longest focal lenght
75% of all pictures were under 80mm

Sorry - can't post a chart as I can't get Excel to "easily" produce one chart that makes sense considering multiple lenses.

 

[Scottl]

Hi All,
I just returned from our vacation today. Here is my focal length chart. I used a 28-80 and 70-300 kit lenses on my Nikon D50. I found the 28 not wide enough in several instances including character meals. I am going to get the 18-200 VR for my next trip.
Scott

 

[extreme8]

Many people find that 28 is a bit long for a lot of indoor stuff when you account for the 1.5 crop factor.
It looks like you were hitting the 80 end pretty hard as well.
I'm assuming you didn't take the time to change lenses when you needed that little bit of extra reach. I don't blame you, I wouldn't change it for a quick shot where I needed just a little extra either.
The 18-200 looks like it would be an ideal lens for your usage. Sigma and Tamron make 18-200's as well, if you don't need the VR (not quite as sharp though)
Thanks for posting your results.
Anyone else?

 

[Cap'n Keel]

Scott, It appears you left the 70-300 in the bag and took it out maybe once. True? Doubtful you shot all those 80s (near min focal lenght) with the 70-300. This is one the the problems I saw with my data - mixed lens use alters the informations appearance / relevance. For example, shots taken with primes will skew the data related to zooms. Oh well - does support Extremes' assumption that wide zooms are the way to go at Disney.

BTW -good choice on the 18-200 VR. That's really a good choice in a digital walking around lens. Just ordered a Canon 17-40 today myself. Can't wait to see shots taken with a real wide 17mm and a full size sensor. I'd gotten so used to the digital multiplication factors with my other cameras. Hope it doesn't do a fish-eye.