ok, granted i know my own gear pretty well, and i kind of know my shooting style(all over the place with no clear cut focus) i figured i'd throw this up here for the forum opinions, nikon owners please feel free to chime in, the gear and focal lengths are similar enough to make your opinions valid in my eyes givens: lowepro minitrekker,empty microtrekker in the luggage, i don't like to haul it all every day, i try to anticipate my needs, and we stay at the boardwalk villas, so popping back to the room occasionally is not a problem during mousefest 5d, have to work that full frame to it's max, velbon luxif tripod, goes down in checked bag, has it's own carrying bag, and occasionally my sig/o consents to pack it for me, 24-105 f/4 IS, will rent for mf, i need to check this out as my future walkaround on the 5d 400 f5.6 L, i want this for tim's ak trek/safari meets, long reach, great in daylight, and not that heavy 50mm f1.4, low light in rides, nuff said ok here's where i'm running wild with indecision, choices listed, i already own these, if you pick one out throw me the justification if you would not mind, i like to hear what other photogs are thinking and why tamron 28-75, f2.8, surprised me with iq at rhythm and roots canon 17-40 f/4 L 85mm f/1.8 100mm f/2 200mm f/2.8 L 70-200 f/4 L, non is 300mm f/4 L, non is 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS, another one that surprised me with iq on the 5d, at r&r teleconverters available, 1.4 & 2 maybe bring these and the 300 instead of the 400, a little more versatile and about the same weight thanks in advance for everyone's help, this is a nice forum to learn on, no flaming allowed, i was over on another site, a large one yesterday and one of the responses to someone's first post was" these have absolutely no photographic interest, they are just someone's tourist snapshots", that will really encourage learning
Wow. Lift up that sledge hammer, Gary, the fly is definitely dead! ;D But seriously (I'm here all week, be sure and tip your waiter!), like you said, you know your gear and your shooting style, so you know better than I do whether you actually need all that gear. But it does seem like a little too much. When I'm at WDW, I like to travel relatively light - camera, one good walkaround lens, flash, pocket tripod, an extra battery and CF cards, and a lens cloth. Sometimes I'll include an extra filter or two. By carrying only one lens, I obviously limit my shooting. But extra lenses are heavy, and besides, most of the time I can't take the time to switch lenses before a shot anyway. My current walkaround lens is a Sigma 18-125, but I'm not really pleased with it, so I will most likely pick up a Canon 28-135 IS as a new walkaround sometime in October. In 2005 I used my Canon 18-55 kit lens and came home with some of the best WDW photos I have ever taken; then in 2006 I used the Sigma and was dissapointed in the sharpness of the pics, but the 18-125 zoom range was great. Sure, there were a few times on Kilamanjaro Safari when I wished for a 300mm lens, but aside from that 125mm was mostly as long as I needed to zoom. In theory, if you go with a minimum of gear, you're forced to think more about your composition and exposure rather than relying on the camera or lens to do it all for you. Of course, that hasn't helped me to learn the Rule of Thirds or remember to check my ISO and WB settings, but you know, it's only a theory.
17-40L - great lens. good value. Tim can tell you more about any vignetting with the 5D. 200/2.8: SHARP AS A TACK, light, it's black, if you can find a good "I" model, it has a built in hood. Great lens for low light handheld or a starter Fantasmic lens! And if you are planning on taking pics on Kilimanjaro - maybe instead of the 400/5.6, try the 300/4 IS + 1.4 TC. You'll have a 420mm/5.6 IS. I think IS is great on the safari because of the bumpy motion of the vehicle. Even on the Discovery the van didn't stop too often and I felt the IS kick in myself. Almost wished I had the 100-400 for that trip, although I would have lost a stop. Normally I would say IS doesn't work on a moving vehicle for stopping motion, but with that many bumps...the more stabilization you can get the better. Love my 1.4 TC in white. One of the problems with the 5D is that the 3rd party manufacturers have been building more lenses for a "non-full frame" sensor, so while it'll fit (unlike EF-S, which will send your 5D in for non-warranty repairs to either NJ or Irvine), it won't give you a full image. the 24-105 is probably the best walkaround lens. I love mine with APS-H, and as I've mentioned before, I loved the 28-105 back with film.
Hmm.. I'll offer up my ideas, but I think you should be in a better position to make judgments than I am. I see some conflict between the 17-40 and the 24-105. Basically I don't know if the extra 7mm will make a significant difference. Because I think you'll definitely want to be using the 24-105 most of the time, you won't want to be changing lenses all the time and that's an AWFULLY useful focal range for most of the Disney parks except Animal Kingdom. If it were me, I could see bringing both but then just leaving the 24-105 on and ignoring the 17-40, except perhaps when I was specifically going for ultra wide landscapes. But since the widest I can currently go is 28 (multiplied by 1.6 of course) you'd already be significantly wider than me, I have no experience at that level. Because I don't typically shoot landscapes I don't normally notice the limitation, but it also means I have no idea what kind of a difference the 7mm will make. Of course I love my 70-200F4, but I wonder if the 70-300 might be the better option. It's picked up a reputation as an unofficial L lens, and the extra 100mm of reach combined with IS should be useful for Animal Kingdom. I'd like you to bring the 400 just because I want to see what you get from it, but I wonder if the fixed focal length would be problematic for Animal Kingdom where I think the animals would often be too close for that. Either you'd be constantly swapping it off for one of the zoom telephoto options or else you'd be getting a lot of extreme close ups. Although I just realized I'm not taking the full frame factor into consideration, I'm extrapolating what 400 would be like with the 1.6 form factor. Even taking that into account though I still think it'd be too close. I do think the 400 would potentially be useful for the lion and cheetah on the safari, especially the cheetah.. I'll be the first to applaud if you can bring back a good high quality cheetah shot. For me they're the impossible goal, I just have no way to get adequate shots of them with the gear I currently possess. But it doesn't stop me from shooting them every time I see them. And I'd say take the 1.4 converter and leave the 2x. Perhaps I'm assuming wrong, but I'd think that the image quality penalty of using a 2x converter full frame would be too much. I'm not really considering any particular application for the 1.4, I'm just thinking that it's small enough that you might as well take it in case you come up with a need. I have no idea what to say about the 300. Perhaps it and the 1.4 converter would be a better choice than the 400.
thanking everyone in advance for taking the time to input i would not be even thinking about bringing all these lenses, i'm just trying to decide what additional 1 or 2 to take along i could go with three more besides 24-105 IS and 50mm f 1.4, those are the only 2 for certain, that's why i bring a large bag on the plane and pack the smaller empty bag in luggage for actually walking around the world i'm kind of trying to decide what long lens to bring, dan, i think the 300 plus 1.4 tele will be my final answer, on the 5d, gives 420 at f5.6, and allows more flexibility than the 400 alone, plus i may bring the 70-300IS for the safari ride alone, it's pretty light and i have room in the main transport bag. and i was pretty impressed with how it performed at rhythm and roots on the 5d, especially under stage lighting at iso 640.the 300 prime is the older non IS model, bought used from keh i kind of want some facial closeups of certain of the animals, particularly the tigers, you know, the frame filling, count the whiskers ones if we sign up and do the fantasmic dessert party, then i may have to bring the 200 f2.8, a very stellar performer in it's own right and once again, not that big for the transport down, and for roger, it is the I model with the built in hood, second L lens i ever owned and bought used from keh so here's what i'm thinking, 5d, 24-105 f/4 IS, 50 f1.4, 300 f/4, 1.4 tele, 70-300 f4.5-5.6 IS, and if room and bag weight allow, the 200mm f/2.8 L oh and dan, nobody that i know of has ever gotten a great cheetah shot, the prima donna lady cheetahs just don't leave their shade for anything less than the pm dinner bell, least of all so us slow bipedal prey things can take their pictures
That's why I think of the Cheetahs as the impossible target of the ride. I think I HAVE seen them in sunlight, but still that wasn't much use to me given their range. Believe me I'd like you to get some ultra closeups, I've made no attempt to deny my fixation on extreme fur detail, you give me a picture of the lion that's close and sharp enough that it looks like you should be able to pet the picture and I'll certainly get a kick out of it. I agree that the 300 plus 1.4 should be a good combo, I can tell I'm going to have my work cut out for me in the TMIP animal hunt. I see it as a competition, and animals are my specialty. A friendly competition, but still.. I like the idea of getting a bunch of us together at the same time and seeing what we can produce from more or less the same scene.
I took this of the lion at AK using an 80-200 zoom at 200mm (300mm in 35mm) last December during Mousefest. This will give you some idea of the reach of a 300mm. I was on the left side of the truck. This has been cropped from the original portrait version which had a lot of sky. Here's a link to the original: http://scottwdw.smugmug.com/photos/151430749-M.jpg
