Which lens would you want for WDW?

[DisneydaveCT]

Which lens would you think is best for a walk-around lens at WDW? I am already using a Pentax K100D with the DA 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 AL.

SMC Pentax-F 35-135mm F3.5-4.5

or a

SIGMA 28-105 F2.8-4 ASPHERICAL

I have a chance to purchase both from a respectable used photo equipment dealer.

Many thanks for your input.

 

[ukcatfan]

IMO, neither are wide enough. You might get away with something that starts at 24mm, but 28mm might make you miss out on some shots. I believe that 35mm would be out of the question. If you are going to have your kit lens with you for those situations, then I would go with the 35-135mm for the extra range at the long end and the SMC. If you are going to AK, you might even want something even longer. I sometimes put on my DA 50-200mm at AK and leave it on the whole time I am at the park.

 

[gokenin]

just got back and found myself using the sigma 17-70 for most of my shots didnt do AK so didnt need the 50-200 that I brought.

 

[Suburbanmom]

I agree that 28mm is not wide enough. My walk-around is a Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. I kept it at 24mm most of the time. A little wider would have been nice, but I loved the f/2.8.

 

[YesDear]

My favorite walk around lens is the 18-200. I will usually have a 50mm 1.8 with me just in case I want something inside.

 

[boBQuincy]

I agree, 28 is not wide enough. Some of us use a program that shows what focal length we used for our photos and it shows most of us use the widest end quite a lot.
Look for a lens that goes to 24 or even wider for a walkaround.

 

[rutgers1]

I just bought a 1.8 lens and, now that I have it, I couldn't imagine going anywhere special without having it. It is fixed at 50mm, I think, which is a bit annoying at first, but ok in the end. It was $130, which was a great deal considering the 1.4 was over $300.

Here is why I think it is a necessity ----- It allows you to shoot without a flash in a much wider variety of situations. The more I take photos, the more I dislike using a flash. This is particularly true in Disney, where I want to maintain the natural (or man-made) lighting as much as possible. There are times when the family is in a place where a nasty shadow is breaking up the scene, and in that case a flash is great. But for the most part, I want it to look as natural as possible. A 1.8 lens has finally allowed me to take home the picture that I actually saw. No red eye. No faces that look like they just got zapped by the flash. No harsh shadows on the wall behind them.

 

[ukcatfan]

I just bought a 1.8 lens and, now that I have it, I couldn't imagine going anywhere special without having it. It is fixed at 50mm, I think, which is a bit annoying at first, but ok in the end. It was $130, which was a great deal considering the 1.4 was over $300.

Here is why I think it is a necessity ----- It allows you to shoot without a flash in a much wider variety of situations. The more I take photos, the more I dislike using a flash. This is particularly true in Disney, where I want to maintain the natural (or man-made) lighting as much as possible. There are times when the family is in a place where a nasty shadow is breaking up the scene, and in that case a flash is great. But for the most part, I want it to look as natural as possible. A 1.8 lens has finally allowed me to take home the picture that I actually saw. No red eye. No faces that look like they just got zapped by the flash. No harsh shadows on the wall behind them.

For Pentax, there is no new f/1.8. There is only a f/1.4. The good news is that it goes for ~$175-200 instead of $300+.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

Thanks for your feedback. I agree that 28 is not wide enough, but I do have my 18-55 for when I need a wider lens. So I was really wondering what would be the best choice to supplement my 18-55 for traveling to WDW. And my two choices right now are the two lenses that I mentioned in my opening post. The shop I am looking at does offer a 28-200, but I was previously led to believe that zooms are best at a 3-4x length. Hence my film combo was a 28-80, and 70-210.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

How is the image quality on the longer zooms like an 18-250, or a 28-200. Again, I am hoping to supplement my 18-55 while visiting WDW. I will also have a Pentax-M 50mm, F2. I will eventually add a faster prime or two.

 

[ukcatfan]

How is the image quality on the longer zooms like an 18-250, or a 28-200. Again, I am hoping to supplement my 18-55 while visiting WDW. I will also have a Pentax-M 50mm, F2. I will eventually add a faster prime or two.

The IQ will be better on the long end only zooms. (i.e. 50-200mm, 70-210mm, etc) The ones that cover the entire range do suffer from degraded IQ and smaller apertures at a particular focal length. The 50mm f/2 is a decent lens. I used one before upgrading to the FA 50mm f/1.4.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

The IQ will be better on the long end only zooms. (i.e. 50-200mm, 70-210mm, etc) The ones that cover the entire range do suffer from degraded IQ and smaller apertures at a particular focal length. The 50mm f/2 is a decent lens. I used one before upgrading to the FA 50mm f/1.4.

This is what I thought. I have an old 70-210 from my K1000 days, but it is heavy. At some point, I will replace it, but that is low on the priority list.

Right now I am looking for a mid-range zoom that would supplement my 18-55 for trips to WDW. Hence my original thoughts on th 28-105, or the 35-135.

I agree about the 50mm. It was my favorite of the three lenses that I used with my K1000. But like so many here, a faster 50mm for me is on the horizon...when I can find a good deal.

 

[ukcatfan]

This is what I thought. I have an old 70-210 from my K1000 days, but it is heavy. At some point, I will replace it, but that is low on the priority list.

Right now I am looking for a mid-range zoom that would supplement my 18-55 for trips to WDW. Hence my original thoughts on th 28-105, or the 35-135.

I agree about the 50mm. It was my favorite of the three lenses that I used with my K1000. But like so many here, a faster 50mm for me is on the horizon...when I can find a good deal.

It you find the 50mm f/1.4 for $175, jump on it. I have never seen it lower than that. It usually hovers somewhere between that and $200. Even used on that lens will not likely save you much.

 

[DisneydaveCT]

UKCATFAN--Didn't I read somewhere that you have the DA 50-200? If so, how do you like its IQ? I have been reading some mixed reviews, which have left me hesitant to add it as the supplement to my 18-55.

I noticed in your profile that you golf. Have you ever taken landscape shots while out on a golf course? I started taking landscape photos while golfing when I got my first DPnS. And that is part of the reason I upgraded to DSLR. I wanted to get a better lens for taking those types of shots, and also have better control on DOF.

 

[ukcatfan]

The 50-200mm is good for the price. It needs to be stopped down some for the best performance, so that means good lighting. I have heard that the new 50-300mm is a better lens, but it is also more expensive.

I am too bad at golf lately to be distracted by picture taking I played on my high school team and probably never did less than 36 holes a week then. Now I am lucky to get 18 every three months! I wish I could play more as I am even more addicted to that than photography, but as I am sure you can agree, it is even more expensive than photography. One of my friends is a CM and can get me on the WDW courses for ~$45 though

If you bring your camera on the course, just be very careful to watch for dirt, dust, and sand as they are VERY bad for your camera. I did take some golf pics for my company's UW golf tournament last year. http://s22.photobucket.com/albums/b309/kmhobs/UW%20Golf%202007/ I played in it this year.