PDA

View Full Version : Can you help me make a lens decison for our Disney trip?



jojo
04-02-2011, 10:58 AM
Im thinking of getting the canon 7d or maybe the 60d but I want something that will last me for the disney holidays. Thing is I've no idea on the lenses other than I know that the kit lens will be rubbish :(

Someone on another forum recommended the 70-200mm canon lens but then someone else said it would be much better quality buying 50, 85, 100,300 as separate ones.

Britchick
04-02-2011, 05:09 PM
The big question is how much do you have to spend?

jojo
04-02-2011, 05:23 PM
whatever it takes really, I dont want to end up getting something rubbish and then upgrading it, it's just throwing money away. The 7d is on offer here for about $1500 and the 70-200 is about $2300 so if thats going to do me for years then I'll do that but if theres something better you'd recommend?

keith
08-02-2011, 01:04 PM
I think you're making everyone jealous :lol:

The 7d and 70-200 2.8L IS are just superb! great combo and you wont be needing to upgrade either for a while! :yes:

The only thing about the lens is its heavy but it's the best lens I've ever used on any SLR/DSLR

Britchick
08-02-2011, 07:59 PM
I have been toying with 2 lenses for a year and I still can't decide which one I want! Lol

JStrickPhoto
16-02-2011, 09:59 PM
I just came back from a recent trip to both Vero Beach and the Disney area near Orlando.

I brought 3 lenses: 24-70L f/2.8, 70-200L IS f/2.8 and a Sigma 15-30 f/3.5.

Sigma never came out of the bag. Only used the 70-200 down at Vero and really only brought it for use there. Our 1 day at the Universal parks and our 2 days of Disney parks, I simply carried my 1D Mark IV and 24-70 on my shoulder everywhere!

It was awesome having it at-the-ready. And every time we stopped by a PhotoPass photographer, I handed them my gear. We got pictures on both the PhotoPass and my camera. nearly everyone if them commented on the full-size body and loved it. One guy even turned and started walking away laughing. Such great folks!

If you are only going to the parks, I'd feel the 70-200 is just too long. You really never need the zoom at the parks. Instead, I'd go with something intermediate - 24-70, 24-105 or slightly cheaper with Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (awesome lens too).

If you plan on shooting after the sun goes down, I'd recommend bringing an external flash. The internal-flashes blow. With an external flash you can control flash output power as well as the bounce angle.

Jamie

goofygal
16-02-2011, 10:10 PM
wow brilliant Jamie thanks, I cant believe the photopass people will take photos using your own gear thats a brilliant tip

JStrickPhoto
16-02-2011, 10:12 PM
wow brilliant Jamie thanks, I cant believe the photopass people will take photos using your own gear thats a brilliant tip

In all my previous trips, I never considered that either. But, the first photog we encountered saw the body hanging on my shoulder and just wanted to hold a 1D body :-)

Then he started snapping away. Directing us in a few poses. It was pretty funny, really.

So, I would DEFINITELY hand over your camera - regardless of how big or small. You may get a couple surprise pics!

Britchick
17-02-2011, 07:49 AM
The 2 lenses I can't decide between are the 24-70 and the 24-105, I really like the low stop on the first but it's heavier and the other has IS, in this country the main problem is lack of light I find and I want to shoot indoors too so I'm swinging towards the 24-70, I'm running out of time to make up my mind! Lol

keith
17-02-2011, 08:41 AM
The 2 lenses I can't decide between are the 24-70 and the 24-105, I really like the low stop on the first but it's heavier and the other has IS, in this country the main problem is lack of light I find and I want to shoot indoors too so I'm swinging towards the 24-70, I'm running out of time to make up my mind! Lol

I've got both and I rarely use the 24-70L which I know will go against what many (most?) people would say. With the much better high iso of the more recent cameras, the smaller apertures arent such a problem. Now I'm a fan of really tiny selective DoF so the 24-70 is better at that but still, I find the 24-105 is the more useful. The only thing is, the distortion is quite severe at the wide end of the range but it's autocorrected nowadays in lightroom/photoshop.

The 24-70 probably does deliver slightly better quality but I find the versatility of the 24-105 just outweighs it.

JStrickPhoto
17-02-2011, 01:16 PM
Keith does offer up a good argument on 24-70 vs 24-105.

For me, I shoot a lot of weddings as a second shooter and the 24-70 NEVER comes off my camera. It is incredibly sharp at ALL apertures.

That being said, I would love to have the 24-105L IS f/4 simply due to the additional 35mm of zoom. The f/2.8 on the 24-70 is really moot with the IS on the 24-105. The 2-stop IS more than makes up for the 2-stop loss of the 24-105.

Britchick
17-02-2011, 06:13 PM
You're not helping guys lol:tongue:

All joking aside I would like to do weddings in the future, I guess if I did I could buy the other if I wanted anyway....LOL

Now to debate the full frame issue! I 'need' a new camera also:tongue:

JStrickPhoto
17-02-2011, 06:17 PM
If you want to go full-frame, a 5D Mark II would be a perfect entry point.

If crop is ok, the 7D is a pretty sharp body.

I have friends who shoot both and post impressive work.

Full-frame is also ideal for landscape and architectural photography.

Jamie

Britchick
17-02-2011, 07:14 PM
I'm more interested in people and macro, thinking the 7d at the moment

keith
17-02-2011, 07:55 PM
I've got them both as you know. In terms of function and use, the 7d make the 5dmkII feel very old and cranky. The 7d is the closest I've had on a non-1D body to just getting out of the way and letting me take great shots. It's worth remembering that there's nothing amazingly special about 35mm full frame :) There's medium format and large format as well out there all with different "negative" sizes and associated properties.

Now that said, the 5dMKII mixed with a great lens is superb in terms of image quality. For portraits I love it to bits. I can get my narrow DoF at a great resolution. I'll tell you what though, it's unforgiving of even slightly poor lenses

JStrickPhoto
18-02-2011, 12:03 AM
The other options is to buy a use 1D Mark III. You get a bit of both. First, you get an incredibly fast-shooting camera. Decent high ISO performance. Full-size body with built-in grip. 1.3x crop factor.

You can find them used about the same price or less than a 7D.

7D has a slightly better improved AF system, but there's nothing like shooting the big bodies!

Jamie

keith
18-02-2011, 10:00 AM
hehe that's so true. The 1d MKIII was brill although early models had AF problems which needed a service to fix. Fixed ones should have a white dot inside the battery compartment (although in my experience they didnt always do that). The MKIV is in another league again but a bit more pricey ;-)