Disney Lens Selection Confusion

I am staring at a pile of gear, brain locked up on which lenses to take to Disney. Going to Magic Kingdom, Epcot and Downtown Disney. Last time I went, I had a Canon A70 and didn't have many choices to make...

Earlier this year we went to DC, and I took the NX100 with 30mm pancake, 20-50 kit and Minolta MD 105mm f/2.5. The pancake stayed on the most, since I could carry it in the pocket of my shorts and it's good indoors. I put on the 20mm when I needed something wide (I could probably get the 16mm pancake and sell this lens, but that's a decision for another day.) and the 105 only a couple times when I wanted to compress perspective a little and put my family closer to some distant monuments. I carried everything in a Crumpler 3 Million Dollar Home bag, nice and tidy.

Trying to figure out if Disney is a comparable situation...? The pancake is going, no question. Part of me thinks this is the only lens I need. No camera bag. Then I think about the tight quarters and big buildings, which could make a wide lens useful. The 20mm end of the 20-50 is my only option right now. If I take the camera bag with pancake and 20-50, I have room for one more big lens.

The NX 50-200 is my only other AF lens. After that, it's Minolta 28 f/2.8 (Redundant), 45 f/2 (Too close to 30mm?), 50mm f/1.4 (Maybe?), 58mm f/1.4 (Also maybe? 85mm equivalent fov might be nice...), the 105 (Starting to get a little long for use in a crowd?), 135mm f/2.8 (Even longer...), 200mm f/4 (Maybe I could use this to search for the kids if they get lost...) and the beastly 300mm f/4.5 (No. Although it does make an interesting 2-lens zoo kit with the NX100/30mm pancake and fits great in the bag!). Oh, and a Holga pinhole.

sixfootzero wrote:

I am staring at a pile of gear, brain locked up on which lenses to take to Disney. Going to Magic Kingdom, Epcot and Downtown Disney. Last time I went, I had a Canon A40 and didn't have many choices to make...

Earlier this year we went to DC, and I took the NX100 with 30mm pancake, 20-50 kit and Minolta MD 105mm f/2.5. The pancake stayed on the most, since I could carry it in the pocket of my shorts and it's good indoors. I put on the 20mm when I needed something wide (I could probably get the 16mm pancake and sell this lens, but that's a decision for another day.) and the 105 only a couple times when I wanted to compress perspective a little and put my family closer to some distant monuments. I carried everything in a Crumpler 3 Million Dollar Home bag, nice and tidy.

Trying to figure out if Disney is a comparable situation...? The pancake is going, no question. Part of me thinks this is the only lens I need. No camera bag. Then I think about the tight quarters and big buildings, which could make a wide lens useful. The 20mm end of the 20-50 is my only option right now. If I take the camera bag with pancake and 20-50, I have room for one more big lens.

The NX 50-200 is my only other AF lens. After that, it's Minolta 28 f/2.8 (Redundant), 45 f/2 (Too close to 30mm?), 50mm f/1.4 (Maybe?), 58mm f/1.4 (Also maybe? 85mm equivalent fov might be nice...), the 105 (Starting to get a little long for use in a crowd?), 135mm f/2.8 (Even longer...), 200mm f/4 (Maybe I could use this to search for the kids if they get lost...) and the beastly 300mm f/4.5 (No. Although it does make an interesting 2-lens zoo kit with the NX100/30mm pancake and fits great in the bag!). Oh, and a Holga pinhole.

In general, wider is better at Disney.  The only place you'll miss your tele is Animal Kingdom.  Probably worth your investment to get the 16-50 PZ.  You could really just take that and be done. Leave the 50-200 at the hotel until AK.  That is what I would do.  YMMV

Interesting idea. That lens is thin too, from what I can remember, so it would be a pocketable combo. I may look into trading the 20-50 for the power zoom... Thanks for the suggestion!

Correction: FWIW, the Minolta lens is a 100mm, not 105. Getting mixed up with Nikon, I think.

I thought I'd sell the 20-50 after getting the 16mm but honestly the 20-50 is very good, seems as sharp as the 16mm to me. The 30 is clearly the top of the three and you're right to not hesitate in taking it. But sometimes I leave the 20-50 on and enjoy it alot.

I think your choice is to get the 16-50pz or the 16mm. The final decision might be the handling - can you tolerate power zooming?

I am not sure how I would feel about a power zoom, and I would want to be sure it is optically up to a similar standard as the 20-50. I actually like the lens a lot, but use it less than the 30mm...

FWIW, I went to bed with the 20-50, 30 and 50 f/1.4 in the bag, but swapped the 50 for the 58, feeling a little extra separation from the 30 would be good...

Thanks for the responses!

Well, the trip was fun.  I used the 20-50 (Outdoors during the day) and 30mm (Indoors and at night) lenses a lot, but the 58 only a couple times.  Even then, it was only because it was in my bag and I had some time to kill.  I just could not get enough distance to make a long lens worthwhile.  I think a wider lens would have been nice but not essential and believe that oft-asked-for fast 24mm prime would have been a great asset.  The 30mm was frequently too tight for indoor shots of more than one person, but the smaller aperture of the 20-50 wouldn't allow me to use it...  (Going above ISO 1600 is not usually a profitable exercise with the NX100.)

Thanks again for the suggestions.