FL recommendations for general walk-around shooting at Disney?

Started Nov 15, 2012 | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,504
Re: FL recommendations for general walk-around shooting at Disney?

WDW was probably my first big trip after getting my Nex-5.  I was a bit concerned as well what I should take, what would be worth it.  I am trying to recall if I took a long lens w/adapter, but for the most part, I only used the 18-55.  I almost never felt a need for a long lens.  (An exception to that might be Animal Kingdom, but we didn't go to that park.)

So, to keep things simple, I say, just take the 18-55.  It's also great for video, and I have a couple of really nice video clips of funny family moments.  Yeah, there are better lenses than the 18-55, but results are better than with most P&S cameras, you can still print large with good quality, etc.  And, I  really appreciated the light weight.  I still remember dragging a DSLR around, and it's so much nicer to have a light camera.

Dennis wrote:

cjf3rules wrote:

Thanks guys!

I have been reading lots of great reviews on the Sigma 30 (and 19 even), here on this forum. And it's a reasonable price (for me!). I may just have to break down sometime and look into getting that one. (but I won't have enough time before this trip). Although, maybe by that time the Sony 35mm will come out, which *may/may not* be a better lens for me -- we'll see?

Regarding the 16mm, do you think i should use it with the WA attached? or no? I seem to have read some people saying the 16mm has better IQ when the adapter is attached (?), but would it then be too wide????

No, the IQ is about the same either way.  Just use the WA if your really can get creative with the unusual perspective.  I haven't tried these yet for Disney.  I didn't have the 16mm lens when I went to Disney, but this sounds like a good option to keep the camera small enough to fit into the pocket for rides....

I see no reason to consider the Sigma anyway (maybe for some things, but not for a trip like this). You lose IS, gain a stop and gain some sharpness, but the 18-55 is more than sufficient for travel photography.

The 16 is optional for fun. It's only slightly wider than 18mm. I find it most useful when I want my camera to be jacket-pocketable. The adapter is up to you ... wider still, maybe even more fun, a bit bigger.

You might be amused as I stuff my Nex-5 with 18-55 into my shorts pockets.  The 16mm seems very compact.  

I brought the 18-55 and the 16. I missed having a longer lens a little (and particularly, having a longer lens with a fast max aperture for shallow DOF candids of the people I was traveling with). But then a year after the Disney trip, I went back to Orlando to Univeral Islands of Adventure, Sea World and Discovery Cove and I had the 18-200 for that trip. Aside from a few tele shots of the Orca show (which weren't anything to write home about anyway), the vast majority of the shots I took with the 18-200 fell in the 18-55 range, much to my surprise.

I think when I went to Sea World many years ago with a DLSR, I used a 55-200, and a few photos were interesting.  But I think for most parks, I'd rather have the wider angles and 18-55 would be fine.

I have some Disney shots taken with the 18-55 here:


And some taken with the 16mm here:


In all honesty, if I went back, I'd love to carry just the RX100

That camera seems like a good balance between size and quality.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --

Here are the photos I uploaded to the DPR gallery after my Disney trip.  I have more, but this shows how the kit lens can work indoors and out.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow