Lens packing/carrying advice

[DavidKitchenPhotography]

I’m headed to Disney for several days. Trying to pack/carry light, since I’ll also be carrying around family supplies for two young kids. I am shooting with a Canon EOS Rebel t5i. Haven’t decided if I’m taking the speedlite but probably taking off the extended battery grip for reduced size/weight. I have a Canon 50 mm f/1.8, a Tamron 28-75 mm f/2.8, and a Tamron 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3. Two questions.

1 - Should I take both the 28-75 mm f/2.8 and the 18-270 mm f/3.5-6.3? (I’m taking the 50mm for dark rides.) If not, which should I take?

2 – Since I need a multitasking bag, I’m leaving the camera bag and taking a more traditional backpack. Any suggestions for lens protection (and even camera protection) inside a traditional (non-camera) backpack?

Thanks in advance!
David

 

[KmH]

I would only take the 24-75 mm f/2.8.
For lens protection in a regular backpack, use a small towel.

 

[sandollars]

I would take the 18-270 as your go to lens. This lens will do fine during the day and you will appreciate the versatility. If you didn't have the kid stuff, I would say grab 'em all. It's disneyland (world) for heck's sake. Your photos are for your memories, not to blow up and stick on a wall. Leave the 28-70 at home. As always, JMHO... Did your lenses come with little bags? These should be enough to protect them in a multi-use back pack.

 

[DavidKitchenPhotography]

My initial thought was to use the 50mm on dark rides since it gets down to 1.8. I know its not the best solution, but it's what I have. For the rest of the time, I figured I'd use the 18-270. Not nearly as fast but has a better zoom and for daytime outdoors seems like it would be plenty fast enough. Not being as experienced as most of you, though, I wondered if that was the right approach.

 

[bratkinson]

37 years ago, I and a couple of co-workers were on a long term project in Los Angeles and spent a day at Disneyland in Anaheim. I was 30 years old at that point and while I could have taken 'a ton' of gear with me, I took only my Canon EF camera and FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5 lens mounted.

I found the 35-70 to be 'just right' in terms of size and weight to carry for 12 hours or so while walking and taking rides. Granted, that was a 'full frame' 35mm film camera back then, and you're taking a crop-sensor T5i.

With a 28-75mm lens, the field of view (angle of view) of that lens on your camera is comparable to what a 45mm-120mm produces on a ff camera. In other words, just a 'tad' wide angle and almost too much telephoto for what I suspect you'll be shooting. Most of the time, I suspect you'll be taking either family shots in front of something special or on a ride, or 'attraction' pictures (here's a shot of the xyz ride...). In both instances, I suspect you'll find the FOV of the 28 narrower than you'd like and you'll need to back up maybe 30-40 feet to get a shot of the kids in front of the xyz attraction, for example. Good luck getting a 'clear shot' where someone doesn't walk into the picture between you!

On the other hand, the taking the 18-270 gives you a wide-enough angle FOV (29mm equivalent), but at the 'cost' of f3.5 and slower, making low light work impossible without a flash. And on the telephoto end, far more reach than you'll ever need at Disney. Taking along the 50mm for low light work is a good idea. But the ability to 'quick change' lenses really is the problem, in my estimation. I think I'd rather carry a flash than an extra lens for easy accessibility. With a smaller size flash, I'd even leave it mounted to catch spur of the moment shots. But then, there may be instances where a flash isn't permitted, or, its use will completely wash out the colors of what you are trying to photograph.

In short, I think I'd go with the 18-270 and push up the ISO to 3200 for low light shots to avoid using a flash and still keeping a reasonable shutter speed in the 1/160th - 1/200th range to freeze human movement. If you're comfortable with higher ISO speeds on your camera, then do so. As I was shooting ASA 200 film at the time (ISO 200), I had several shots where I put the camera on a flat-topped trash container for 10 second and longer shots such as the Magic Kingdom Castle at dusk.

In my estimation, the biggest problem is how much weight you will be carrying and for how long. If you have the advantage of a baby stroller to carry things, all the better. If it's going to be over your shoulders in a backpack, for example, the weight will take its toll early on unless you are accustomed to carrying a backpack for hours and hours.

EDIT: Now that I'm older and wiser, I've picked up a fairly high-end point and shoot with full manual capabilities. As I've discovered, the Canon G15 is very capable in low light and takes pictures with a surprisingly good image quality, even in full Auto mode after dark! I'm going on vacation in a month or so and am leaning towards taking just the G15 instead of my full frame body and 2 lenses like I usually do. In short, as I'm likely the only person to ever see the pictures I take while on vacation, I'm willing to sacrifice an almost imperceptible IQ loss (after basic post processing work) to gain several pounds and 'pocket portability'. You may want to go that route as well.

 

[DavidKitchenPhotography]

Thanks!
I will have a stroller and a backpack, so mostly backpack in the stroller, and camera on me with a Black Rapid Sport Sling (shoulder strap, not neck) so carrying the actual camera with attached lens isn't too bad.

 

[bratkinson]

One more thing...be sure to use your lens hood to prevent odd-angle sunlight entering the lens and causing flare. If needed, buy an appropriate hood for the lens(es)...and leave any 'protective filters' you may own at home, permanently.

 

[KmH]

The problem with the superzoom 18-270 is the low quality optical performance and slow apertures.

 

[Designer]

Not being as experienced as most of you, though, I wondered if that was the right approach.

Re-read post #2.

 

[Derrel]

Not being as experienced as most of you, though, I wondered if that was the right approach.

Re-read post #2.

Yes, re-read that one, and then move down to the post that actually makes some sense. A 28-75mm lens on a vacay at Disneyland? OMG...what a bad idea...everything shot at 42mm equivalent and up? ZERO wide-angle whatsoever. No reach. WUT??????

Some people, the poster in #2 being one such individual, have a raging dislike of superzooms, and will suggest anything else, because of their own biases. These people seem to think that all that counts is pixel-peeping image quality...even if the focal lengths are as useless as teats on a boar.

 

[raventepes]

I say take the superzoom. You're after memories...not perfect pro-quality photos. There's a BIG distinction in my mind. I'll be the first to say that I wouldn't use a superzoom on a paid project...but if all I'm doing is vacationing and wanting decent pictures, you bet I'd grab one to bring with me. Heck...that's probably ALL I'd bring with me, depending on where I was going. Disneyland and Disneyworld...yep! Just a superzoom!

 

[dennybeall]

Versatility is the key to capturing personal memories on a family outing.

 

[Dave442]

You need the wide angle end so the 18-270mm is the best option of the bunch and just shoot everything at 18mm except for a few family portraits.

You could put the telephoto end to use by taking a picture of the top of every ride, if your not looking up then probably just looking at the back of someones head at 270mm.

I took my 35mm f/1.8 just because it was my smallest lens. It worked, family in front of the castle, family in front of the riverboat, family on the slow rides, family dancing with the characters, etc, light parade, fireworks.

But that 35mm lens on a crop sensor body was often not wide enough in many places. As soon as you put five paces between you and the family all you will see is a wall of people and then a second to make the shot.

 

[Gary A.]

Firstly, think about this. Photography and family vacations do not mix. Just take a setup that allows you to capture the pleasure and fun of your vacation without ruining the time with "Photography".

The Tamy 28-75 ... for a family vacation it will be easier to keep it out of the way . But, I really think you need something wider ... so the 18-270, solely for the 18mm, the Happiest Place on Earth can get rather tight. Many of the rides have cameras at strategic points that you can purchase after the ride.

 

[TCampbell]

The 28-75 has no wide-angle capability. You might regret that. Thought the 18-270 is obnoxiously aggressive and poor optical quality, it'll offer some wide-angle (and you probably won't want telephoto beyond around 100mm or so. An 18-135mm would be ideal.)

Also, if you're familiar with how to use flash during daytime to act as a "fill" flash, then you want the flash. The flash is going to fix the problems of shooting in mixed sun/shadow when you'll be shooting (presumably in mid-day sun.)

Here's an example:

While it might not look it... this daytime image was shot with flash. Look VERY carefully at the tree just to the right edge of his hat and you'll see the shadow of the flash.

Why?

I happened upon this actor taking a break with the campsite in the background. I wanted the low-isn angle with the background in view. But the background is full mid-day sun ("Sunny 16" exposure... meaning at f/16 the shutter speed needs to be the inverse of the ISO. But the subject here is in shadow which is a little more than 2 stops darker than the background (there's less than 1/4 as much light in my foreground as there is in my background.)

The flash allows me to boost the light in the shadows... not to over-power the sunlight in the background... just enough to allow the shadows to be within a stop of the background. Without flash the correctly exposed foreground would have an over-exposed background... and if I exposed for the background I'd have an under-exposed foreground. We can't change the light output of the sun -- so we expose for that and use the flash to bring up the shadows to bring the foreground and background lighting closer together. He still appears to be in "shadow" ... just not deep shadow.

If you're not familiar with how to use flash as a "fill" light in day-time photography, set the "flash exposure compensation" to "-1" (that's usually a pretty good starting point) and practice some outdoor shooting in bright sun. You should notice that your "strong" shadows are replaced with "mild" shadows.