# Lens for Disney Land?



## azwizzard (Oct 5, 2010)

We are taking our 4 daughters to Disney Land for Christmas. I just bought a Canon T1i this last week and it came with the 18-55mm and 50-250mm kit lens. I have been reading A LOT the last month or so (started before I bought my camera) and since getting the camera, I have been playing and learning a lot with it.

So far I am happy with the 2 kit lenses. Even though they are lower end, they are taking WAY better photos than my old point and shoot digital.

What I am looking for is a lens that will serve me well at Disney Land for the evening times / lower light situations (and also for general lower light situations at home.)

After reading a lot, it looks like I want a prime lens with a low f# (for more light)

I will not have a tripod when I am there.

Right now I am looking at the -

Canon 50mm F1.8 - $100

Canon 50mm F1.4 - $350

or Canon 35mm F2 - $315


Truthfully, I am leaning towards the 50mm f1.8 as it is less than 1/3rd the price of the f1.4. I figure once I master this lens and learn a lot more, I will upgrade to something else.

Everything I've read about this lens is very positive for a $100 lens. I figured with my VERY limited experience, I won't / can't tell the difference between the 2 at this point.


My question(s) are - 

Is the 50mm f1.8 a decent choice for evening shots at Disneyland (outside and inside)?

Will the f1.4 make that much difference to me to justify the 3x+ price tag?

Is the 50mm the best choice, or would the 35mm be a better choice?

Should I be looking at something else completely? (There is a 28mm Canon lens too)

Or will my 2 current lens be ok and I shouldn't worry about a new lens right now.

Keep in mind, I am VERY new to DLSR's so I don't want to drop $500+ on a lens at this point (I know I will in the future though). That said, if the 50mm f1.4 or 35mm f2 are that much of a better choice, I would consider them.

Others have suggested that with the crop factor, a 50mm might not be a good choice at Disney Land.


----------



## sobolik (Oct 5, 2010)

"Keep in mind, I am VERY new to DLSR's so I don't want to drop $500+ on a lens at this point"

Then don't.  
I have 30 years of SLR's under my belt and find no NEED at all for a fast lens. Flash, high ISO, and sensible expectations have served me well instead.  Wait and find out if you really need such a lens. Time will tell.  My slow lens might take a 4 second exposure of the moon for example. Would a fast lenses 2 second exposure really make a difference to me? No.    Substitute a dark theater. Same answer, no. At some point it is just splitting hairs as to what I should expect anyway from the undertaking.  Besides last time I went Disney Land was lit up quite a bit. Probably much brighter than a moon shot to be sure.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 5, 2010)

Disneyland is basically snapshot city.  There's really almost nothing you can do that's artistic there without it screaming "OHMIGODDISNEY!".  With that in mind, the 18-55 or whatever may be the way to go.  Just be prepared to be up close and personal.   Honestly a range more like 28-100 would be ideal.

A 50mm is going to be fine but you may have issues getting the stereotypical castle and main street picture that has been taking 80 billion times. 

The 50mm 1.4 is a hell of a lens but most people pass it up for the 1.8 since it's so much cheaper and nearly as epic.

BTW, an awesome lens for disney is the 18-200 VRish lens.  It's not amazing, but it's insanely versatile.  It's the only lens I bring to Disney.  Might be worth a rental.


----------



## DerekSalem (Oct 5, 2010)

sobolik said:


> "Keep in mind, I am VERY new to DLSR's so I don't want to drop $500+ on a lens at this point"
> 
> Then don't.
> I have 30 years of SLR's under my belt and find no NEED at all for a fast lens. Flash, high ISO, and sensible expectations have served me well instead.  Wait and find out if you really need such a lens. Time will tell.  My slow lens might take a 4 second exposure of the moon for example. Would a fast lenses 2 second exposure really make a difference to me? No.    Substitute a dark theater. Same answer, no. At some point it is just splitting hairs as to what I should expect anyway from the undertaking.  Besides last time I went Disney Land was lit up quite a bit. Probably much brighter than a moon shot to be sure.



4 second shot of the moon? Unless you're at f/22 and ISO50 a 4 second exposure would yield nothing but a bright blur...and a fast lens would have no use looking at the moon anyway because no way you'd want to be using anything less than f/8 looking at a the moon...which completely negates the larger aperture of a fast lens.


----------



## peanut170 (Oct 5, 2010)

I would say buy the 50 1.8, cuz it seems almost everyone eventually buys it anyways, cause its fast, sharp, cheap, and is small and weighs nothing. That way you have something if your kit lenses are too dark come evening time. Or buy a flash, or rent something nice like already posted.


----------



## Live_free (Oct 6, 2010)

sobolik said:


> "Keep in mind, I am VERY new to DLSR's so I don't want to drop $500+ on a lens at this point"
> 
> Then don't.
> I have 30 years of SLR's under my belt and find no NEED at all for a fast lens. Flash, high ISO, and sensible expectations have served me well instead.  Wait and find out if you really need such a lens. Time will tell.  My slow lens might take a 4 second exposure of the moon for example. Would a fast lenses 2 second exposure really make a difference to me? No.    Substitute a dark theater. Same answer, no. At some point it is just splitting hairs as to what I should expect anyway from the undertaking.  Besides last time I went Disney Land was lit up quite a bit. Probably much brighter than a moon shot to be sure.




Oh the irony...


----------



## mrmacedonian (Oct 6, 2010)

Personally I'd bring the 18-270mm for Disney, versatility is the way to go. I understand what you're asking for here, so out of those you've asked us to consider, I'd go with the 35mm.

I own the 50/1.4 and its excellent, I love it, but if you're taking ANY indoor shots you will be in tighter than you want. You're working with a t1i which likely means Canon' 1.6x crop factor; the 35mm is ~56mm equivalent (30x1.6) so using the 50mm on that body indoors will be pretty tight (~80mm).

You can, of course, put on on your 18-55mm and zoom it to 35mm and 50mm, comparing the focal length and the limitation it will place on you indoors. I suggest getting at least the 50/1.8 for your photography in general, its a lot of fun 

above all have a great time!


----------



## manaheim (Oct 6, 2010)

sobolik said:


> "Keep in mind, I am VERY new to DLSR's so I don't want to drop $500+ on a lens at this point"
> 
> Then don't.
> I have 30 years of SLR's under my belt and find no NEED at all for a fast lens. Flash, high ISO, and sensible expectations have served me well instead. Wait and find out if you really need such a lens. Time will tell. My slow lens might take a 4 second exposure of the moon for example. Would a fast lenses 2 second exposure really make a difference to me? No. Substitute a dark theater. Same answer, no. At some point it is just splitting hairs as to what I should expect anyway from the undertaking. Besides last time I went Disney Land was lit up quite a bit. Probably much brighter than a moon shot to be sure.


 
So you don't have a need for options? 

In truth, thats quite possible... like if all you ever do is shoot outdoors in bright sunlight, then you wouldn't need the speed so much.

However, keep in mind that fast glass typically is also far better optical quality, so you're also saying you don't need sharpness... lack of visual defects... etc.

However (and getting back to the point), your somewhat amusing post really kinda hit on something that I think most of us here glazed over, which is that a couple f-stops isn't really going to do a whole heck of a lot for you in Disneyworld... so to OP... if that's what you're worried about, I'd say don't fret over it too much.  Odds are this guy is actually right in one indirect respect... you'd be better served in a lot of cases by using a flash (a GOOD flash, please... not the one on the camera... and I can't stress this enough*) or cranking up the ISO.

Most of us have been focusing more on the focal length issue, which actually really CAN be a pretty key decision (one that, if you make the wrong call, you can get around by using your legs MOST of the time) but probably isn't really what you were getting at.

* Seriously--- do NOT use the on-camera flash.  It will WRECK your pictures.  Pro bodies don't have them on-camera for a reason.  I have used mine for illumination (D300) maybe 3x, and deleted every one.


----------



## sam_justice (Oct 6, 2010)

Yess another Disney enthusiast!
From experience in the parks a 50mm is a bad choice because you really don't want a fixed focal length when taking photos there, things happen so fast and you have to be so quick you need the different zooms.
If I were you I'd rent a lens as opposed to buying one, that's what I'm doing this trip. Instead of dropping £1250 on a wide angle lens I'm renting it for my trip for £100.


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 6, 2010)

I wouldnt shoot wide open with the 1.4 or 1.8 in most cases. yes its faster but sacrifices DOF. I would get one of the versatile tamrons with the really wide zoom range if its for vacation type stuff. Less crap to carry. ISO will help you on speed as will having vibration compensation.


----------



## Geaux (Oct 6, 2010)

manaheim said:


> *Disneyland is basically snapshot city.  There's really almost nothing you can do that's artistic there without it screaming "OHMIGODDISNEY!".*  With that in mind, the 18-55 or whatever may be the way to go.  Just be prepared to be up close and personal.   Honestly a range more like 28-100 would be ideal.
> 
> A 50mm is going to be fine but you may have issues getting the stereotypical castle and main street picture that has been taking 80 billion times.
> 
> ...



I beg to differ about your 'nothing you can do artistic there' statement.  Check out Tom Bricker's photostream on flickr.  Flickr: Tom Bricker (WDWFigment)'s Photostream


----------



## rpm (Oct 6, 2010)

some of them have great style and class (T. Bricker's) but others do feel more like well composed snap shots (make sense? lol)...i think one thing about disney is that there is an orgasm of colors all round, some make the shot, others dont, most of the pictures i liked from his stream were the ones with a limited number of colors available. like the one of the rabbit with the clock. then you have some of his sunsets which look really pp-ed...

must say the best shot that really is awesome, is of him (assuming its him) reaching out to the fire works with what i assume is a mickey mouse statue he is pretending to hold hands with...that is something you'd see from a disney ad on a mag. that was brilliant...


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 6, 2010)

Composed snapshot would be considered by many to be an oxymoron.


----------



## Mugen80 (Oct 6, 2010)

I shoot at Disneyland at least once a month. Its a great place to practice all types of shooting. 

*Is the 50mm f1.8 a decent choice for evening shots at Disneyland (outside and inside)?*

Yes and no, this is gonna be a long response. It mostly depends on what you are going to be shooting. I found that the 50mm 1.8 is not flexible enough to be a universal lens when shooting there, mainly because of the crop factor. I switched back to the 18-55 at least 6-9 times over the course of the night (7pm to midnight). Perfect example was when trying to take a shot of Sleeping Beauty's castle. I had to move back to the statue of Walt and Mickey, I still couldn't get the whole castle along with the area below and a little around in. Also if your going to be with your family then I can assume that your going to be taking family shots with this lens. Since your at Disneyland and you want people to know where you went on vacation then I cant see to many times that you would use a real shallow depth of field, which is the main reason people get the 1.8 lens. At night time, unless your going to use the built in flash then, this lens isn't going to overly forgiving with hand held camera shake, however it may just be me and my unsteady hands that are my problem.  Even though the picture looks find in the preview window I often find camera shake when cleaning up the photo post. If your going alone to Disneyland with a tripod and have a lot of time to shoot then yeah, this lens is awesome.

*Will the f1.4 make that much difference to me to justify the 3x+ price tag?*

Im not really sure. The worker at my local photo store told me that what usually happens to the 1.8 lenses is that the plastic clips that attach to the body will break if you are not careful when switching lenses. So I treat the lens like a baby made of glass when I switch it out. The 1.4 is a better build quality and the clips are aluminum? and not plastic.

*Is the 50mm the best choice, or would the 35mm be a better choice?*

If I wasnt going to use the 50mm then I would honestly just take both kit lenses. The 18-55 is gong to be used most of the day and the 55 to 250 is going to be used when shooting something like parades. 

*Should I be looking at something else completely? (There is a 28mm Canon lens too)*

If your willing to make an investment into a lens then I would say the "EF 28-135mm" would be the perfect family vacation/universal lens to take with you. The canon site lists the lens @ $479.99. This falls right under the $500+ price you said...  

Your going to have a great time at the parks with your family. Remember to take a lot of shots and post some when you get back! :thumbup:


----------



## Taylor510ce (Oct 6, 2010)

Here ya go....$529 after rebate. Replace both of your kit lenses with one lens. 

Tamron AF18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di-II VC LD Asph. AF AFB003C-700 -


----------



## Gaerek (Oct 6, 2010)

My family goes to Disney (either Disneyland or Disney World) at least once a year. We actually went three times last year..heh. :blushing:

I got a really good deal ($75) on a Tamron 28-300mm that I bring there. IQ isn't great, but the focal range is so verstile. Not only that, they lens, even new is pretty cheap. The great part is, you don't have to worry about bringing a bunch of lenses and gear in the park, so you can keep it light weight (very important for 10+ hour days in the park) and you have the same focal range as 2 or 3 lenses will typically give. If I had cared, I would actually have gotten the 18-270, because the wide end is more important (for Disney, anyway) than the long end.

As has been said, Disney is snapshot city. It's very difficult to shoot anything that doesn't scream "Disney" (though, it's a fun challenge to take shots that don't look like Disney). Image Quality is secondary to weight, versatility, and convenience, at least for Disneyland, in my book.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Oct 6, 2010)

some good info i was looking at the same type of lenses. thought it would be good for disney but maybe i'll just wait and stay with my kit lenses. just not sure when i'll get back there, this will be my first time. i head there in 17 days, pretty excited.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 6, 2010)

azwizzard said:


> We are taking our 4 daughters to Disney Land for Christmas. I just bought a Canon T1i this last week and it came with the 18-55mm and 50-250mm kit lens. I have been reading A LOT the last month or so (started before I bought my camera) and since getting the camera, I have been playing and learning a lot with it.
> 
> So far I am happy with the 2 kit lenses. Even though they are lower end, they are taking WAY better photos than my old point and shoot digital.
> 
> ...


 Take the two lenses you have. Canon includes those focal lengths in the kit for a reason, it's because they are very useful. If you are taking 4 kids with you there will without doubt be a need for quick focal length changes that cannot be facilitated with primes.  Bear in mind too that the faster lenses have a much shallower depth of field so you keeper rate will drop, not something you want to worry about on a family vacation.  Let the IS in you kit lens do it's thing. 
 Right now you have everything from 18-200 covered.  Just keep track of which focal lengths you use most often and that will tell you which way to go with lenses. My personal recommendation would be the 17-55Is2.8 for a crop body as it is the crop sister to the 24-70f2.8L.  I personally feel like you'd be better served by purchasing a tripod and head than a lens at this stage. 
  This video might be helpful as well......



To the poster who thinks fast glass is a waste, I and just about every event photog would disagree.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 6, 2010)

manaheim said:


> Disneyland is basically snapshot city.  There's really almost nothing you can do that's artistic there without it screaming "OHMIGODDISNEY!".  With that in mind, the 18-55 or whatever may be the way to go.  Just be prepared to be up close and personal.   Honestly a range more like 28-100 would be ideal.
> 
> ........


I have plenty of shots that don't scream "OMGWTFBBQDISNEY!"


----------



## sobolik (Oct 6, 2010)

Scatterbrained said:


> azwizzard said:
> 
> 
> > We are taking our 4 daughters to Disney Land for Christmas. I just bought a Canon T1i this last week and it came with the 18-55mm .......
> ...


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 6, 2010)

sobolik said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > azwizzard said:
> ...


----------



## Geaux (Oct 7, 2010)

rpm said:


> some of them have great style and class (T. Bricker's) but others do feel more like well composed snap shots (make sense? lol)...i think one thing about disney is that there is an orgasm of colors all round, some make the shot, others dont, most of the pictures i liked from his stream were the ones with a limited number of colors available. like the one of the rabbit with the clock. then you have some of his sunsets which look really pp-ed...
> 
> *must say the best shot that really is awesome, is of him (assuming its him) reaching out to the fire works with what i assume is a mickey mouse statue he is pretending to hold hands with...that is something you'd see from a disney ad on a mag. that was brilliant*...




lol, that's an actual statue of Walt and Mickey.  Not Tom


----------



## rpm (Oct 7, 2010)

Geaux said:


> rpm said:
> 
> 
> > some of them have great style and class (T. Bricker's) but others do feel more like well composed snap shots (make sense? lol)...i think one thing about disney is that there is an orgasm of colors all round, some make the shot, others dont, most of the pictures i liked from his stream were the ones with a limited number of colors available. like the one of the rabbit with the clock. then you have some of his sunsets which look really pp-ed...
> ...




errrr hehe never been >_< *embarrassed* well...let me retract my statement and amend it....that is a very well composed image and that def has artistic merit


----------



## manaheim (Oct 9, 2010)

Geaux said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > *Disneyland is basically snapshot city.  There's really almost nothing you can do that's artistic there without it screaming "OHMIGODDISNEY!".*  With that in mind, the 18-55 or whatever may be the way to go.  Just be prepared to be up close and personal.   Honestly a range more like 28-100 would be ideal.
> ...



mmmm...I guess.  The problem is that Disney is SO iconic that you can't get away from the "oh its a shot at disney".  To me, that makes the shots mostly uninteresting.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 9, 2010)

manaheim said:


> Geaux said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...


You have to get creative with your angles and work the close ups.


----------



## mostly sunny (Oct 10, 2010)

Whatever you decide I just want to add this..

I got to Disneyland often.  Take only what you plan on using.  I should REALLY follow my own advice. I take EVERYTHING I have and carry my camera bag around with my until around 3 pm when I put it in a locker cause my back is killing me.

I am going to Disneyland tomorrow. I will be there when they open the gates. My kids LOVE that = )


----------

