Possible Lens(es) to Take

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

I have a D3200 and 2 kit lenses 18-55 no VR and 55-200 no VR. Definitely would like to replace the 18-55, but I'm not sure with what. Thinking about renting a couple and trying them out before buying. Leaning towards the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Wanting something sharper than the kit and better in low light. Have a trip coming up in December so would like to perhaps rent to test it out.

Also considering just for the trip renting a Tokina 11-16 2.8 to play with. If I have the Tamron by then do I really need the wider angle? Will it make a really noticeable difference? I looked through photos from my last trip and they are a good mix of family shots and then wider shots of the parks.

I have a little 35 1.8 that I hope to use on dark rides.

Thoughts on these lenses?

 

[JediMasterMatt]

Well the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would be basically like using your 18-55; but, gaining a few stops of light. While you can likely put that extra light to good use on your D3200 by using lower ISOs, it will still be really limiting for any sort of dark ride (due to still needing more light) or even some of the show (due to reach) photography. So, the net result with this lens will likely be better ISO or faster shutter speeds for the same type of photography you are getting with your 18-55.

The 11-16 would definitely handle differently and open up a new World (pun intended) of wide angle possibilities for you to explore.

I'm a big, big believer in making slow and smart choices when it comes to lenses. Only buy them once and get the most out of your investment. If you are ever considering moving up to full frame, then start planning now and make sure you can buy equipment you can use down the road.

My vote would be to rent the wide angle and see if it appeals to you. Once I started getting serious about photography, the 14-24 is the one lens I can't live without. I only wish they made a 14mm prime as good on the wide end as the zoom is as I could potentially save some weight.

 

[wdwmagic]

I have never had luck with third party lenses. I've had Tamron, Sigma - that have had slow and/or unreliable AF performance. I learned the lesson after several attempts, and have since stuck to original manufacturer offerings. Worth considering.

When you realize that most of the body makers do not release the AF interface language to third parties, and that the third party manufacturers basically reverse engineer original lenses to make it work - it explains a lot.

 

[CAPTAIN HOOK]

For my last couple of trips I've taken a Nikon 18-135 (no VR) and its coped really well. I am considering an 18-55 with VR for our next trip as I don't really use the zoom elements of the other lens at WDW and am interested in how much the VR will improve the shots

 

[Grumpy-Fan]

I used both the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and the Tokina 11-16 2.8 on a Canon T3i on my last two trips and had excellent results with both. I also tried the 50 1.8 for the dark rides and that was no good. Your 35 1.8 should give you some good results though.

 

[NowInc]

From personal experiences on both a Nikon D3100 and a D7100:

The Tokina 11-16 2.8 is my "Primary" lens. Autofocus is pretty decent (tho usually I leave it manually set to infinity).

The Sigma 10-20 4.5 is tack sharp, but slower. GREAT for the day and long exposures.

The Nikon 35mm 1.8 is a superstar lens in my eyes. Its a must have for any shooter. REALLY sharp, amazing autofocus, and fast! (And CHEAP!). It also forces you to move more and that is actually a good thing.

The Rokinon 8mm Fisheye - Fun to play with, but extremely limiting in variance of the types of shots you'll get.

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is the new star out there. REALLY fast, great build...but a tad heavy. Many replace their prime lenses with this one. I can't say I agree with that.

It all comes down to, as with anything else, what types of shots you want to achieve. Do you want vast landscapes? Do you want on ride shots? There really isn't a 1 trick pony, which is why many of us carry at least 3 lenses (I admire anyone who doesn't...truly). I rarely hear anything good from those who use Tamron, sadly. I have personally avoided them for the above options.

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

Right I love my 35. Just think it will be a little too tight for shots with a large group like I'm traveling with. Sometimes you aren't always able to zoom with your feet at disney, and I think I want some zoom range anyway. But yeah I'm going to have one, possibly two, evenings where I'll be able to go out by myself and just take night shots of the parks, fireworks, etc. I was wanting a faster lens than the kit for lower light capability, but considered the wider one for the cool nighttime shots. I'll probably just pick one. And not tied to a particular brand. But the 18-55 I have just is not sharp enough for me.

Thanks!

 

[NowInc]

Right I love my 35. Just think it will be a little too tight for shots with a large group like I'm traveling with. Sometimes you aren't always able to zoom with your feet at disney, and I think I want some zoom range anyway. But yeah I'm going to have one, possibly two, evenings where I'll be able to go out by myself and just take night shots of the parks, fireworks, etc. I was wanting a faster lens than the kit for lower light capability, but considered the wider one for the cool nighttime shots. I'll probably just pick one. And not tied to a particular brand. But the 18-55 I have just is not sharp enough for me.

Thanks!

One of the things that I did when I was in the market for a new lens is used the exit data on Flickr. I would find images that I liked and noted what they were shot with.

 

[afb28]

I take, because it's all I own and can afford, the Canon 85mm 1.8 ($280) for detail or shallow depth of field shots and my Sigma 10-20 3.5 ($400) for everything else as it is pretty wide. 85mm on a crop is super limiting so I have to back up a lot but that low f stop helps a lot. Idk with Nikon but I'd imagine they have an equivalent to the 85mm 1.8.

I think it's a good idea to have something wide and then something portrait to telephoto so that you can have a variety of shots.

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

Yes I'm gong through Flickr searches and favoriting a ton of images and noting the camera body, lens, and exif. Then I go out and experiment on a college campus with all kinds of interesting architecture and lighting. Learning a lot by doing that.

 

[thomas998]

I have a D3200 and 2 kit lenses 18-55 no VR and 55-200 no VR. Definitely would like to replace the 18-55, but I'm not sure with what. Thinking about renting a couple and trying them out before buying. Leaning towards the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Wanting something sharper than the kit and better in low light. Have a trip coming up in December so would like to perhaps rent to test it out.

Also considering just for the trip renting a Tokina 11-16 2.8 to play with. If I have the Tamron by then do I really need the wider angle? Will it make a really noticeable difference? I looked through photos from my last trip and they are a good mix of family shots and then wider shots of the parks.

I have a little 35 1.8 that I hope to use on dark rides.

Thoughts on these lenses?

Wouldn't even bother taking the 55-200... I used to lug around a telephoto lens until I realized that I pretty much never used it and was just lugging around extra weight. Most of Disney looks better wide or normal. So you can drop the 55-200 and save some space.

To me a 11-16 is over kill on the wide side for Disney unless you really have an idea in mind of what you want to do with the lens your going to be wasting a bit of money to rent something that will have a limited use... If you have money to waste on rentals I would look at a faster lens for your dark rides than the 1.8.

As for the dark rides, which ones do you plan on trying to shoot, because the 1.8 may work on some but it will be pretty worthless on the really dark ones. I've spent a lot of time trying to get shots on ones like Haunted Mansion and 1.7 wasn't really fast enough so your 1.8 will likely also be iffy... your biggest problems with the dark rides will be trying to focus while moving and then using a fast enough shutter that you don't end up with motion blur from your movement. If you are lucky the ride will stop while you are at the spot you want, but that's just pure luck. Getting the great dark ride shot is a little like chasing a white whale... a very frustrating and maddening obsession... if you are wise you'll stop yourself from going down that road... it will become very expensive.

 

[NowInc]

As for the dark rides, which ones do you plan on trying to shoot, because the 1.8 may work on some but it will be pretty worthless on the really dark ones. I've spent a lot of time trying to get shots on ones like Haunted Mansion and 1.7 wasn't really fast enough so your 1.8 will likely also be iffy... your biggest problems with the dark rides will be trying to focus while moving and then using a fast enough shutter that you don't end up with motion blur from your movement. If you are lucky the ride will stop while you are at the spot you want, but that's just pure luck. Getting the great dark ride shot is a little like chasing a white whale... a very frustrating and maddening obsession... if you are wise you'll stop yourself from going down that road... it will become very expensive.

Typically I shoot either Manual or in S mode with the shutter speed around 1/60 to 1/120 depending on the ride. This eliminates the motion blur factor. Doesn't mean you'll get GREAT shots, but thats the slowest I'd safely go while moving. As for focus...manual focus if you can, or keep it set to infinity. The big issue is going to be image noise. You will have to be at an ISO of at LEAST 3200 (6400 more realistically), and on the lower end nikons/canons that is just a noise carnival you won't be happy with.

 

[thomas998]

Typically I shoot either Manual or in S mode with the shutter speed around 1/60 to 1/120 depending on the ride. This eliminates the motion blur factor. Doesn't mean you'll get GREAT shots, but thats the slowest I'd safely go while moving. As for focus...manual focus if you can, or keep it set to infinity. The big issue is going to be image noise. You will have to be at an ISO of at LEAST 3200 (6400 more realistically), and on the lower end nikons/canons that is just a noise carnival you won't be happy with.

I would agree... Not familiar with the Nikon that the OP is talking about, but my best luck on dark rides came after getting a Sony Nex camera and then using a speedbooster with a 1.2 lens... Was still very difficult to get things in focus because the depth of field was so shallow, but it did help get away from having to use the extreme ISO settings that generally look like you smeared vaseline on your lens.

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

Yeah I think I've decided not to rent. I think I'll just use what I've got. I'd really like to, but budget is a concern. Oh well, next time. I've been playing with the lowlight capabilities, and it definetely leaves a lot to be desired, but the shots are at least usable. I'll still make the effort even if only to challenge myself a little. Still new and learning, but I've learned a lot already. But yes in my testing I don't think I'd want to go over 3200. As far as rides, I'm talking some scenes in spaceship earth, pirates, Buzz Lightyear. Things like that. I'm going to use that money to buy a tripod. I really want fireworks and nightshots around magic kingdom this time. Probably going to get a mefoto roadtrip based off of recommendations here.

The 55-200 will likely make the journey, but it won't be taken into the parks except on AK day maybe. It's small and light, no big deal.

 

[Jahona]

A 50mm prime f1.8 is cheap and usually is sharper than any wide angle zoom. On a aps-c sensor your getting closer to a 75mm in useability. If you can spring for an f1.4 that's even better. Since you have to move around to frame the photo it can make taking photos a bit tough at times.

 

[NowInc]

Yeah I think I've decided not to rent. I think I'll just use what I've got. I'd really like to, but budget is a concern. Oh well, next time. I've been playing with the lowlight capabilities, and it definetely leaves a lot to be desired, but the shots are at least usable. I'll still make the effort even if only to challenge myself a little. Still new and learning, but I've learned a lot already. But yes in my testing I don't think I'd want to go over 3200. As far as rides, I'm talking some scenes in spaceship earth, pirates, Buzz Lightyear. Things like that. I'm going to use that money to buy a tripod. I really want fireworks and nightshots around magic kingdom this time. Probably going to get a mefoto roadtrip based off of recommendations here.

The 55-200 will likely make the journey, but it won't be taken into the parks except on AK day maybe. It's small and light, no big deal.

I wouldn't stress too much about shooting EVERYTHING this trip. Get comfy with the gear you have first, learn the limits of it and then base your shots around that. The tripod, honestly, is a great investment..only 2nd to getting good, fast glass.

 

[JediMasterMatt]

Yeah I think I've decided not to rent. I think I'll just use what I've got. I'd really like to, but budget is a concern. Oh well, next time. I've been playing with the lowlight capabilities, and it definetely leaves a lot to be desired, but the shots are at least usable. I'll still make the effort even if only to challenge myself a little. Still new and learning, but I've learned a lot already. But yes in my testing I don't think I'd want to go over 3200. As far as rides, I'm talking some scenes in spaceship earth, pirates, Buzz Lightyear. Things like that. I'm going to use that money to buy a tripod. I really want fireworks and nightshots around magic kingdom this time. Probably going to get a mefoto roadtrip based off of recommendations here.

The 55-200 will likely make the journey, but it won't be taken into the parks except on AK day maybe. It's small and light, no big deal.

I think you are making the smart choice. Extra glass is only of value when you know when to use it and more time learning the current capabilities of your equipment, your eye, and your ability at post processing will yield far more keepers than simply a different lens.

Getting into nighttime photography is going to open a whole new experience to you. The key thing to remember is to take it slow with nighttime work. Take your time to get the composition you want in the viewfinder before you start exposing. You are going to taking long exposures and you want to make sure you've got what you want on the sensor. One trick I do for really challenging setups is to temporarily increase the ISO to get a very noisy image that allows me to see into the shadow that the details will soak in over the long low ISO exposure. Just be sure to turn the ISO back down to your base once you get done.

With WDW's "new" tripod rules, I was worried that my carbon fiber unit that collapses down to 22" may be an issue, so I took a look at the MeFoto's; but, ultimately, I ended up ordering one of these: FEISOL Traveler Tripod CT-3441S Rapid. It can still go really tall if I need to and collapses down at to 16.9".

 

[Gig 'Em Mickey]

Extra glass is only of value when you know when to use it and more time learning the current capabilities of your equipment, your eye, and your ability at post processing will yield far more keepers than simply a different lens.

Yeah, I'm getting good at post processing by watching NowInc's vids.

Thanks y'all. Really appreciate all the patience with newb questions.

 

[bq69]

From personal experiences on both a Nikon D3100 and a D7100:

The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is the new star out there. REALLY fast, great build...but a tad heavy. Many replace their prime lenses with this one. I can't say I agree with that.

It all comes down to, as with anything else, what types of shots you want to achieve. Do you want vast landscapes? Do you want on ride shots? There really isn't a 1 trick pony, which is why many of us carry at least 3 lenses (I admire anyone who doesn't...truly). I rarely hear anything good from those who use Tamron, sadly. I have personally avoided them for the above options.

Agree with everything you say. Went to Disney this past Sept. Rented the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. Loved it! I got some really great shots which I never would have gotten unless I jacked up the ISO really high.
Yeah..agree the lens had a bit of a weight but I really did not mind it all. I paired it with my Nikon 16-85 f/3.5 and got about 90% of all the shots I wanted. The 70-300 f/4.5 stayed in the hotel room. Did not need it all.

Agree it comes down to what type of shots you want to take.

PS I forgot to mention I have a Nikon D5100 body.

 

[bq69]

taken with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8