How is my trinity?

AurumPunzel

DIS Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
So my planned loadout for WDW is going to consist of a Sigma 28-70mm AF f/2.8D EX DF for wide and normal shots, a Nikon 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor for dark rides, a Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX DG for those landscapes and fireworks, and the legendary Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor for parades and distant shooting. Seeing as it's the first time I'll be bringing a camera into Disney, will my loadout give me a lot of mileage there?

EDIT: For the benefit of those wondering about whether or not my body is either full-frame or APS crop, it's a Nikon D600, so a full-frame.
 
Last edited:
It will give you great mileage, and it will also give you a great workout. But you'll bring home some great images, no doubt.
Indeed. I'm also planning on upgrading my rucksack from my current Manfrotto Advanced Active to the Manhattan Mover 50 to accommodate my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor, and getting a BeFree One tripod which I hope will be Disney-safe seeing as I know tripods have to fit inside and not outside, plus it's compact and should easily accommodate the 80-200mm and my trusty D600 alright.
 
Indeed. I'm also planning on upgrading my rucksack from my current Manfrotto Advanced Active to the Manhattan Mover 50 to accommodate my Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor, and getting a BeFree One tripod which I hope will be Disney-safe seeing as I know tripods have to fit inside and not outside, plus it's compact and should easily accommodate the 80-200mm and my trusty D600 alright.

that's a lot of camera gear to lug around, an exercise "workout"!
I've gone mirrorless with "pancake" lens - small, light, and fits in a waist pack (minus the tripod)
.
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless
 


I agree with the thoughts of others here. The Sigma and the 50/1.4 are just fine. But you will not want to carry the 80-200/2.8 much, unless a heavy bag really doesn't bother you.
 
I agree with the thoughts of others here. The Sigma and the 50/1.4 are just fine. But you will not want to carry the 80-200/2.8 much, unless a heavy bag really doesn't bother you.
I've lugged around a lot before in NYC, so it's no problem for me. I'll just have to make sure the rucksack is supportive enough.
 
Another option is to compromise with an 18-200 (or 300) lens and not have to switch lenses for different shots. That does leave you struggling with the low-light on-ride shots though.
 


Wuf. That is some weight. Anyway. It wasn't stated whether the body was FF or not. If not, my first thought was - not wide enough. I would even say 28 isn't wide enough on FF when in the parks. Being close but having the wider FOV in crowded areas provides more context and easier framing many times.
 
Wuf. That is some weight. Anyway. It wasn't stated whether the body was FF or not. If not, my first thought was - not wide enough. I would even say 28 isn't wide enough on FF when in the parks. Being close but having the wider FOV in crowded areas provides more context and easier framing many times.
It's a D600, so a FF.
Another option is to compromise with an 18-200 (or 300) lens and not have to switch lenses for different shots. That does leave you struggling with the low-light on-ride shots though.
That's the trouble with superzooms. They always seem to have lower apertures, and some have too much barrel distortion, which is why I tend to shy away from such lenses.
 
I’m not a huge fan of superzooms, either, from an image quality perspective (pardon the pun), but I could see the appeal in this situation. I guess the question is, is your purpose to take serious photos that you will frame and hang or use for commercial purposes, or are you trying to have some great snapshots while you enjoy your Disney vacation? If it’s the former, your setup is good, but mind that all that glass on your back all day in the heat takes its toll and trying to ride anything with a full camera back can vary from awkward to impossible.

Not knowing your shooting style, I can’t speak for you, but like everyone else, the first thing I’d ditch is that 80-200. There aren’t many places where you can get a good parade shot without being right up front anyway. My rig is Canon and my walking around lens is a 24-105 f4, which gets me 90+% of what I have the urge to shoot. Yes, once in awhile I wish I had a 70-200, but not at the expense of lugging around my camera bag and all the extra weight.
 
I’m not a huge fan of superzooms, either, from an image quality perspective (pardon the pun), but I could see the appeal in this situation. I guess the question is, is your purpose to take serious photos that you will frame and hang or use for commercial purposes, or are you trying to have some great snapshots while you enjoy your Disney vacation? If it’s the former, your setup is good, but mind that all that glass on your back all day in the heat takes its toll and trying to ride anything with a full camera back can vary from awkward to impossible.

Not knowing your shooting style, I can’t speak for you, but like everyone else, the first thing I’d ditch is that 80-200. There aren’t many places where you can get a good parade shot without being right up front anyway. My rig is Canon and my walking around lens is a 24-105 f4, which gets me 90+% of what I have the urge to shoot. Yes, once in awhile I wish I had a 70-200, but not at the expense of lugging around my camera bag and all the extra weight.
I consider myself to be a prosumer, so it's mainly to capture great shots (partially the former) while also having lenses that can capture a lot of a light, but it's definitely not for commercial purposes, since we all know that it's verboten in Disney.
 
Personally, I prefer to work in the 18-24 range when inside a park. But, if you work it right, 28 on an FF should be good. Just don't forget that dang 80-200 weighs 3 pounds . . .
 
I opted for the f/4 70-200 for my Canon based solely on size and weight. I still don't carry it very often, but I use it a whole lot more than I ever would if I was dealing with the weight and size of the 2.8. On our recent DL trip, I only carried it on days we were seeing stage shows.

One thing to keep in mind is that with a high quality full frame, you can make pretty severe crops and still have a nice image.

But if the OP wants to carry the heavier lens, that's great. I sat next to someone shooting the Christmas parade with a 5DIV and a 70-200 f/2.8. And I might have had a little camera envy. ;)
 
I opted for the f/4 70-200 for my Canon based solely on size and weight. I still don't carry it very often, but I use it a whole lot more than I ever would if I was dealing with the weight and size of the 2.8. On our recent DL trip, I only carried it on days we were seeing stage shows.

One thing to keep in mind is that with a high quality full frame, you can make pretty severe crops and still have a nice image.

But if the OP wants to carry the heavier lens, that's great. I sat next to someone shooting the Christmas parade with a 5DIV and a 70-200 f/2.8. And I might have had a little camera envy. ;)
I've managed to carry the lens around alright yesterday as I needed to take it into a camera store to seek advice about an issue with the focusing, though my rucksack can only just about accommodate it. I'll need a bigger one before I go as the tripod needs to fit inside as per Disney regulations.
 
I used to carry multiple lens. Now I just take my 28-70 2.8 and call it a day. If I know I want a certain shot with a wide angle or a prime I carry that and don’t even take my 28-70 2.8. Especially in the summer. It’s just hard I think.

But ya deff s great loadout for shots!
 
I've managed to carry the lens around alright yesterday as I needed to take it into a camera store to seek advice about an issue with the focusing, though my rucksack can only just about accommodate it. I'll need a bigger one before I go as the tripod needs to fit inside as per Disney regulations.

Here's another thought having struggled with the issue above - what's cheaper, a new bag or a new travel tripod?
 
Here's another thought having struggled with the issue above - what's cheaper, a new bag or a new travel tripod?
Either way, I'd have to get a new bag and a new tripod because my current bag is too small for a tripod, and my current tripod was only meant for lighter crop DSLRs and lightweight kit lenses, and I'd need a new compact one that can safely accommodate my D600 and 80-200mm f/2.8, yet fit inside the bag with no problems.
 
I love having the problem of having to buy new camera stuff. If I didn't have to justify that kind of stuff to my wife, it would be a perfect world . . .
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!










Top