I’ve been going out on morning hikes for a couple of months now, mostly as a way to practice taking pictures of things that don’t move very fast, like mountains and rocks and trees. Children, I’ve learned, move very fast. Strangers move even faster when you run at them with a camera and yell “YOU LOOK VERY INTERESTING CAN I TAKE YOUR PICTURE PLEASE STOP I’M CARRYING ALL THIS CAMERA EQUIPMENT AND IT’S VERY HEAVY I CAN’T RUN AS FAST AS YOU!”
I like taking pictures. I need things to stand still so I can take a picture of it.
For instance, here’s a tree. I liked this tree, because it looked weird.
And here’s another tree. I liked this tree, because I looked weirdly up at it.
Here’s a small brook. I slowed my shutter speed down a lot to make the water look all smokey. (Photography!)
Here’s a rock, on a mountain, overlooking a valley. The rock was very orange. That’s certainly worth a picture!
Here is a lookout. You’re supposed to stand on it and look out at the valley and at a waterfall that is usually falling away just beside it. But there’s a drought on, so how about a picture OF the lookout? You won’t get these kinds of shots from your run-of-the-mill nature and landscape photographer.
This picture proves that I was outside at some point in the past. I’m an adventurous photographer. I’m not like these other guys, who sit around in their offices all day, photoshopping pictures to make it look like they went outside. No way. I’m the real deal.
I brought a Canon T5i, cropped-sensor camera on our Disney World trip last month. In addition to my zooming kit lens (Canon EF-S 18-135mm, f/3.5-5.6, IS STM), I brought two others with me: a wide-angle zoom (Canon EF-S 10-18mm, f/4.5-5.6 IS STM) and a fixed focal length (or prime) (Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM). I thought about this a lot before the trip: Should I bring the extra lenses? Wouldn’t the kit lens be good enough to get all the shots I would ever really want on a trip like this? It’s not like I was going out into the mountains somewhere to shoot large vistas, or walking around a city street looking at people. Why bring the other lenses?
Eventually, I decided to bring them because of the challenge. I’m not good at photography, but I love taking pictures. I love it when they look good (mostly by accident), and I want to make them look good on purpose. Bringing the other lenses with me would, I hoped, force me to think more about how I wanted the pictures to look before I took them. And not only right before I took them: I also told myself I’d only bring one lens per day, leaving the others behind at the hotel, so I’d have to think carefully about the locations themselves, and the most likely conditions, before leaving the room. Actively thinking about these things would help me improve as a photographer, especially if I made the wrong choice. I would have to live with that choice all day, and work harder to make the most of it, which would, again, help me improve as a photographer. Having more than one lens available on the trip would also provide me with a bigger variety pictures I could potentially have: I looked forward, minimally, to my pictures not all looking the same as each other, and possibly not the same as the pictures everyone else takes at Disney World.
Let me save you a little time: If I could have only brought one lens with me, the one I would have packed would have been the wide-angle, 10-18mm, lens. It’s not great for ordinary portrait-style pictures, but overall my photo collection would not have missed those very much, since I’m not good at conveying location with a tight shot (as in a portrait), and making the location of Disney World obvious would be important if most of the pictures were to evoke the trip. I would not have missed my 18-135mm zoom lens much, though I did take some nice pictures with it, because many of the shots I liked happened to be at its widest angle (18mm), which you will notice the wide-angle lens also covers. I would have missed it for its long reach, especially at shows or at the Animal Kingdom, where photo subjects are often in the distance, but if I had to choose either pictures of my family nearby with a lot of background, or pictures of a rhino in the distance with no background, I’ll take the pictures of my family. So if I could only choose one, it would be the wide-angle lens. It took my favourite pictures, for the most part.
Disclaimer: I don’t know how to use PhotoShop or Gimp or Lightroom to process photos, so these are all straight out of the camera (with the exception of one picture that I leveled, because I’m not a good photographer, and sometimes I take crooked pictures).
The Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM Goes to the Magic Kingdom
When we arrived in Orlando, we had a few hours left in the day, time to enjoy some part of one park, and we chose the Magic Kingdom. Since I knew it would be dark, with not much to see in the distance (because of the nature of the park itself, and because of the time of day), I decided I didn’t need the reach of my zoom lens, and the wide-angle lens is too slow (dark) for night time shots of people. We were meeting up with family and friends, and I knew I’d want pictures with them as soon as possible, and as soon as possible meant at night. So, I brought my 40mm lens, which offers a wider aperture than my other lenses, to make it easier to take pictures at night. On a Canon T5i body, that 40mm is around 64mm on a full-frame camera, which is slightly zoomed on subjects, but not like a real portrait lens. I have also enjoyed just walking around with it on my camera and taking the occasional extra step back when I needed it, rather than using the heavier 18-135mm as a daily lens.
I also brought the 40mm with me on another day we spent at the Magic Kingdom. Again, even in daylight, that park didn’t seem to require a really long reach, so I didn’t miss the 18-135mm there. I think you could have a lot of fun walking around the Magic Kingdom all day with a 40mm lens, and you wouldn’t miss out on much except for really nice, wide shots (which I did take later with my wide-angle lens).
The Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Goes Everywhere Except the Magic Kingdom
As I said, I didn’t really think I’d ever need the long zoom at the Magic Kingdom: you can get pretty close to just about everything there just by walking up to it. Considering that it’s the heaviest of the three lenses, any chance to not bring it was worth taking. However, I did bring it to more of the parks than any other lens, because it has such a versatile range. If you are going to a park with lots of shows where you have to sit far away (Hollywood Studios) or a park with lots of things you shouldn’t get close to (Animal Kingdom), you want the zoom lens. Neither of those situations really hold for Epcot or the Magic Kingdom. I brought it to Epcot, but I didn’t end up taking advantage of its reach there, and the pictures I like are either at the wide end, or portrait-style pictures that could have been taken almost anywhere. The zoom didn’t add anything special at Epcot.
The Canon EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM Goes to Epcot, the Magic Kingdom, and Environs
If I could have only brought one lens (of the three I have, not of any of all time anywhere), it would have been this wide-angle lens. On our first full day at Disney World, we went to Epcot. Knowing what Epcot generally looks like, I knew the architectural design and the layout of the park lent itself to wide angles, because you could get right up close to things and there was always something on the periphery to look at too. I could live with the distortion in pictures of people (I know and love these people and I have hundreds, if not thousands, of pictures of them already), but if my primary goal was to take accurate or flattering pictures of faces, I would have used the 40mm. This lens is not great in the dark (though with Image Stabilization, you get a little help), but Epcot is not much of an evening park anyway. There is a fireworks show on the lake at night, but it’s not like the Magic Kingdom, with its late night parades.
I had the wide-angle lens with me after Epcot closed for the night. We went to dinner at the Wilderness Lodge, so I took a couple of pictures there, then some on a ferry across the lake, and then some at the Magic Kingdom at night before it closed.
On our last day at Disney World, we had some time before our flight to go to one park for a couple of hours. We chose the Magic Kingdom again (because it has the most rides). Since I knew it would be nice and bright out, and that I’d already used the 40mm there, and that I didn’t need the reach of the 18-135mm, I decided to use the wide-angle lens for these last pictures. I was not disappointed, since some of my very favourite pictures from the trip are in that batch (the tea cups and King Arthur’s Carousel in particular).
I had a lot of fun playing with these lenses at Disney World, and I don’t regret bringing all three. Each one has its strengths, and they can all be taken advantage of at a place like Disney World, with its endless variety of subjects and locations and lighting conditions. If I were to recommend only one of the three to bring for the entire trip, it would be the EF-S 10-18mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM, the wide-angle lens. It was the most fun to use. If I were to recommend on lens per park, it would be: Animal Kingdom and Hollywood Studios, the 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM, the zoom lens; Epcot, the 10-18mm wide-angle zoom; and for the Magic Kingdom, the 40mm f/2.8 STM. I’d recommend the zoom at the Animal Kingdom and Hollywood studios because of the shows and animals. I’d recommend the 40mm at the Magic Kingdom because of the proximity of everything, and the opportunities to take pictures of things at night, or on dark rides. I’d use the wide-angle at Epcot, where you don’t need a long reach, and there isn’t much to see in the dark anyway.
I’m still not good at photography, and I likely won’t ever be really good. But I think I’m a little better now, and I love the pictures I have, even if some, or most, of them are only good by accident.