• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Lens to pack

nngrendel

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Been looking for months now on what lens I wanted to carry for my Sept trip.
I been lucky to know a well know photography studio locally that I have been doing some side work for and they let me borrow a 16-35mm 2.8 today! So excited about using it.

So now I have my 28-135 kit lens and my 50mm 1.4 and the 16-35mm. Don't think I will use the 70-200 much so going to leave that one behind. Quite happy with what I will be carrying.

What lenses are you looking at taking or cant even think of heading to the parks without?
 

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
Been looking for months now on what lens I wanted to carry for my Sept trip.
I been lucky to know a well know photography studio locally that I have been doing some side work for and they let me borrow a 16-35mm 2.8 today! So excited about using it.

So now I have my 28-135 kit lens and my 50mm 1.4 and the 16-35mm. Don't think I will use the 70-200 much so going to leave that one behind. Quite happy with what I will be carrying.

What lenses are you looking at taking or cant even think of heading to the parks without?

anything wide angle that I feel is decently sharp... as amazing as my 70-200 is, no way it finds its way into my bag. It's simply too heavy, cumbersome, and valuable ($ wise) to risk hitting the lens on any facet of an attraction or ride vehicle
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
17-55mm 2.8 and 10-22mm for me. Cant beat the versatility of the first, and the field of view of the second is great for park use.

The 70-200 is great at Animal Kingdom though, just not an everyday lens.
 

nngrendel

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
17-55mm 2.8 and 10-22mm for me. Cant beat the versatility of the first, and the field of view of the second is great for park use.

The 70-200 is great at Animal Kingdom though, just not an everyday lens.

I have looked at both the lenses you are talking about. Have read lots of great reviews about the 10-22mm. I may invest in one of those soon.
 

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
I have looked at both the lenses you are talking about. Have read lots of great reviews about the 10-22mm. I may invest in one of those soon.

if you're on a crop body I think the 50 is too much... I just don't like the reach and find that for dark rides it's too hard to compose nice shots. I wish they made a wider angle lens with a nice open aperture. Tired of 2.8 being the standard, let's see an 11mm at 1.4!
 

CP_alum08

Well-Known Member
I'm a "local" (about 2 hours away) so I probably get to the parks more often than most, but lately I have been just going light with my Tamron 17-35 2.8. I used to carry around a backpack full of lenses, and I still do occasionally, but it's just not worth it for me anymore at least not in the summer. The 17-35 is a great focal range for me because it lets me get wide enough but still gives me the normal length of a 35mm. Plus it's an aspherical lens so at 17mm if you put a straight object (like a lamp post) at the far edge of the frame it distorts just slightly, if you're into that sort of thing.
 

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
I'm a "local" (about 2 hours away) so I probably get to the parks more often than most, but lately I have been just going light with my Tamron 17-35 2.8. I used to carry around a backpack full of lenses, and I still do occasionally, but it's just not worth it for me anymore at least not in the summer. The 17-35 is a great focal range for me because it lets me get wide enough but still gives me the normal length of a 35mm. Plus it's an aspherical lens so at 17mm if you put a straight object (like a lamp post) at the far edge of the frame it distorts just slightly, if you're into that sort of thing.

jealous man, jealous
 

NowInc

Well-Known Member
LoL..I'm a local too..about the same distance. It makes it hard to chime in on these topics when I can easily use my mindset of "well if I don't get it this time..I'll bring the better lens next time"...
 

everestnut

Active Member
LoL..I'm a local too..about the same distance. It makes it hard to chime in on these topics when I can easily use my mindset of "well if I don't get it this time..I'll bring the better lens next time"...
That's a great point and probably the reason I tend to overpack my photo gear. On this last trip. I had my ape case backpack with 2 bodies and 7 lenses in the room. I would just transfer the gear I wanted to use into my Slingshot (usually 1 body and 3 lenses). Since we were at the World for 6 days, If I missed it one day, I just added to my list and switched lenses for the next day we were at that park.
 

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
I had an 8LB Mamiya RB67.... that is heavy by the way

That's a great point and probably the reason I tend to overpack my photo gear. On this last trip. I had my ape case backpack with 2 bodies and 7 lenses in the room. I would just transfer the gear I wanted to use into my Slingshot (usually 1 body and 3 lenses). Since we were at the World for 6 days, If I missed it one day, I just added to my list and switched lenses for the next day we were at that park.
 

PirateFrank

Well-Known Member
17-55mm 2.8 and 10-22mm for me.....


Curious....You don't find that there's too much overlap in the 17-22 range?

I hope to get the 10-22mm before my next trip. I already have the 17-55mm....my biggest frustration with it is that I wish it were a bit longer I miss grabbing head/torso shots at parades...I might sell it in favor of the 24-105mm....coupled with the 10-22mm, I would have ultra-wide to tele pretty much covered....

I'm just trying todetermine if I'll ever miss that extra stop in aperture. I generally use primes when I go dark ride/parades...as even 2.8 can be challenging in those circumstances....
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Curious....You don't find that there's too much overlap in the 17-22 range?

I hope to get the 10-22mm before my next trip. I already have the 17-55mm....my biggest frustration with it is that I wish it were a bit longer I miss grabbing head/torso shots at parades...I might sell it in favor of the 24-105mm....coupled with the 10-22mm, I would have ultra-wide to tele pretty much covered....

I'm just trying todetermine if I'll ever miss that extra stop in aperture. I generally use primes when I go dark ride/parades...as even 2.8 can be challenging in those circumstances....
I use the 10-22 primarily around the 10 to 12mm range, very rarely above that, so I almost don't even consider the lens as anything other than the ultra-wide. So overlap doesn't really come into effect for me. I like the extra stop provided by the 17-55, so that one is an essential for me. I feel the 17-55 2.8 is an extremely versatile lens. Just wish the build quality was a bit higher to match its performance.
 

PirateFrank

Well-Known Member
I use the 10-22 primarily around the 10 to 12mm range, very rarely above that, so I almost don't even consider the lens as anything other than the ultra-wide. So overlap doesn't really come into effect for me. I like the extra stop provided by the 17-55, so that one is an essential for me. I feel the 17-55 2.8 is an extremely versatile lens. Just wish the build quality was a bit higher to match its performance.

You just struck a nerve. The build quality of the 17-55mm drives me *nuts*. I generally *hate* using a UV filter as a 'protective element'. DSLRs dont need UV protection....so the only real purpose for the filter is to physically protect the front element, sometimes at the expense of sharpness, color saturation or vignetting.

However, with the 17-55mm, I'm dreadfully paranoid about sucking dust into the lens body (a very common problem with this lens). The general consensus out there is that the 17-55mm sucks dust in through the rings surrounding the front element like a vacuum....and that a filter will mostly prevent the dust issue. So, despite my general non-use of UV filters (I will use CPL or ND filters however) on all of my lenses, I absolutely will not go out shooting with the 17-55mm without a UV filter on the front element....and I have yet to find a UV filter for my 17-55mm that doesn't decrease color saturation or sharpness or increase vignetting. (Admittedly, I haven't tried the B&W, but I haven't been successful with the Hoya or Canon filters)

....you'd figure at that price, they would at least provide minimal weather sealing to protect the interior of the lens body from foreign objects.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom