Which Lens for WDW Trip?

[sdzman]

I am new to DSLRs and recently purchased a Nikon D40 w/ 18-55mm lens & 55-200mm VR, am I really going to need both lens for a WDW trip? Which one would I probably be using the most?

I know personal preference and what I decide to shoot will be a factor, I just wanted your opinions.

 

[Steve's Girl]

I'd take both. You can always leave one in your room.

 

[JimbobJimbo]

I had asked a similar question. I would take both so that there won't be a missed photo op because of having the wrong lens. The 55-200 would come in handy at animal kingdom. And as was suggested to me you might want to look into a fast 50mm prime lens for low light situations such as on dark rides.

 

[Mr._The_King]

I'm fairly new myself but I've been reading on these boards for a few months now and my prediction is that most of the resident experts will say
A. It really depends on what you plan to shoot
B. Take them both because if you don't you will most likely spend some of the time thinking If only I had taken the ____ lens I would be able to get that shot I wanted.
Personally I would take them both. To me that is part of the enjoyment of having a dslr (the ability to change lenses to get a wider range of options and posiblities). In a place like WDW there are so many photo opportunities that you will most likely use both lenses (although perhaps one more than the other). Also as Steve's Girl stated if you find that you are really only using one of them you can always leave the other in the room (or only bring it to certain parks or for certain activities etc.)
Again all of this is just the thoughts of a fellow newbie. Either way, enjoy your trip and your new camera
-MR.TK

 

[Chris and Heidi]

I haven't ever been to Disney but I plan on taking my 50 mm Prime lens and a zoom lens to get close ups at the parade.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I am new to DSLRs and recently purchased a Nikon D40 w/ 18-55mm lens & 55-200mm VR, am I really going to need both lens for a WDW trip? Which one would I probably be using the most?

I know personal preference and what I decide to shoot will be a factor, I just wanted your opinions.

I would bring both. If I had to choose, my choice would depend on what I wanted to shoot. If you want to shoot "scenes" - Cinderella's Castle, Main Street, etc, then you want a wider lens like the 18-55. If you want to shoot people - like your companions, characters, etc, then you want a longer lens like the 55-200.

In a pinch, you can shoot too wide and just deal with the fact that your subject is smaller than you'd like. If you shoot with a lens that is too long, you may not be able to capture your entire subject. I think that most people here tend to shoot more wide shots when they go to WDW. I'm the opposite and like to focus in on details and people, so I shoot more long shots.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

What are people's thoughts about having one lens that incorporates the two usual kit lens focal lengths into one (so you don't have to change lenses as often)? For example, an 18-200mm lens, if other circumstances, like cost, and aperture values, were the same (would they be in the same ballpark?)

In other words, would it make more sense to buy this type of lens instead of the two kit lenses? If not, what's the advantage of having the two lenses? Just wondering.

 

[DizzyV6P]

It depends on the lenses. The problem with the catch-all lenses like an 18-200 is that there IQ usually isn't as good. Even the new Sigma 18-200 OS which has gotten decent reviews has IQ issues at certain lengths.

Since the OP is basicaly using kit lenses, it probably won't matter. But for more advance photographers, we value the quality of the picture more. For example, there is no way an 18-200 lenses no matter what brand can compete w/ the IQ of a Canon 70-200 F/4L or the Nikon equivalent. Here's an interesting comparison of some Nikon zoom lenses.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/versus-55-200mm.htm

And here where Ken talks about his love for the 18-200 VR
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#digital

The Nikon 18-200 VR is a mixed bag though. If you goto the Nikon forums, you'll find people who like it and those who don't. Granted its not a cheap lens @ $700 if you can even find one. I'd read up on more peoples comments about this lense. Some of my Nikon friends like it, others bought it, tried it, then sold it to another friend....and then went after the 70-200 F/2.8 VR which is a great lense. Too bad its priced just like canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS at around $1500 (these lenses are more geared for indoor performances...shows, musicals, ballet, dance, concerts, etc...) For normal sports, the 70-200 F/4L's give you the fastest AF's than any 18-200 lense ever could. Althought Ken says the 18-200 VR is also very fast, some of my Nikon friends beg to differ. Hoepfully a Nikon member here can chime in on this as well

Back to the OP's original question, bring both. They don't really take up that much space. Any normal small DSLR camera bag can hold both w/o any problems.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

The problem with the catch-all lenses like an 18-200 is that there IQ usually isn't as good.

That's what I was wondering about. Thanks for answering.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Hoepfully a Nikon member here can chime in on this as well

I've had the Nikon 18-200 for about a year and a half. It is definitely a convenience lens. I love it for family vacations, etc. But I have also added a few "faster" lenses to my collection for low light situations and for better IQ.

 

[labdogs42]

What does IQ stand for?

 

[Steve's Girl]

What does IQ stand for?

Image Quality - Sorry! Didn't mean to speak in code. I was in a hurry and should have clarified.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

IQ stands for image quality.

There is just about always a trade-off between image quality and everything else - especially convenience. All other things being equal, the more zoom range you cover with one lens the more likely you are to suffer from barrel distortion (lines along the edges of the pictures being curved instead of straight), vignetting (corners being darker than the middle), softness (usually at extreme ends of the zoom range), loss of contrast, and a host of other problems. You are also less like to miss a shot because you couldn't zoom in close enough, zoom out far enough, because you had the wrong lens on the camera at the time, or the worst - because you were changing lenses when the action happened.

Wide range zooms like the 18-200mm lenses that are popular today aren't horrible. You won't recoil in disgust when you see pictures taken from them. Whether the convenience is worth the optical compromises depends on your standards and on how often you shoot at that particular lenses weak spots (typically the zoom extremes and with the aperture wide open). There is no right or wrong answer. It's the same as the old zooms or primes debate, just in a new form.

 

[sdzman]

Thanks for all the input, I definitely will be bringing both lens with me, I'll probably know the first day which lens will be my walk around choice. I may also look into picking up a 50mm too.

 

[MICKEY88]

Too bad its priced just like canon's 70-200 f/2.8 IS at around $1500 (these lenses are more geared for indoor performances...shows, musicals, ballet, dance, concerts, etc...) For normal sports, the 70-200 F/4L's give you the fastest AF's than any 18-200 lense ever could. Althought Ken says the 18-200 VR is also very fast, some of my Nikon friends beg to differ. Hoepfully a Nikon member here can chime in on this as well

.

I respectfully disagree with this thought, I've seen more pros shooting sports with 2.8 lenses, for faster shutter speeds and shallower depth of field..

 

[ukcatfan]

Thanks for all the input, I definitely will be bringing both lens with me, I'll probably know the first day which lens will be my walk around choice. I may also look into picking up a 50mm too.

Hopefully you are already aware, but the standard 50mm f/1.8 will not auto focus on your camera. If your budget can swing it, there is a third party 30mm that many people are very happy with and it will AF on the D40. I believe it is a Sigma and is ~$400.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

IQ stands for image quality.

There is just about always a trade-off between image quality and everything else - especially convenience. All other things being equal, the more zoom range you cover with one lens the more likely you are to suffer from barrel distortion (lines along the edges of the pictures being curved instead of straight), vignetting (corners being darker than the middle), softness (usually at extreme ends of the zoom range), loss of contrast, and a host of other problems. You are also less like to miss a shot because you couldn't zoom in close enough, zoom out far enough, because you had the wrong lens on the camera at the time, or the worst - because you were changing lenses when the action happened.

Wide range zooms like the 18-200mm lenses that are popular today aren't horrible. You won't recoil in disgust when you see pictures taken from them. Whether the convenience is worth the optical compromises depends on your standards and on how often you shoot at that particular lenses weak spots (typically the zoom extremes and with the aperture wide open). There is no right or wrong answer. It's the same as the old zooms or primes debate, just in a new form.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[blackears]

I have a new Nikon D60 and took both lenses from the kit, but my walk around lense was the 18-55 as it gave me the smallest footprint around my neck..I did have the zoom in the bag and used it a little, but most of my pics came out good enough for me. I hope to post some here before long..I took about 800 total pics w/ it in a week....