Top 10 Lenses for Disney Photography
I’ve been getting a lot of questions recently from readers getting started in Disney Parks photography who want to expand beyond their kit lens and want to know what the next “best” option is for their DSLR. This isn’t an easy question to answer, as every photographer’s interests vary, but I always try to give a couple different options. I thought it would be useful to expand upon this a bit with a blog post in which I rank 10 such options.
For starters, I was going to title this post: “Top 10 Lenses for Disney Parks Photography on a Budget,” but then I realized everyone’s idea of budget photography varies. I preface with that because these lenses are not the absolute best options out there, but instead they are the best value for the money. I’ve focused on third party options (with one exception), as I’ve found those always offer the best bang for buck. I think these are the 10 best values for Disney Parks photography.
With the first party options, you’re paying a premium for the name. Now, the reason that “name” can command premium prices is because it usually comes with higher quality and reliability, but the gains are typically disproportionate to the added costs.
Finally, you’ll note that some of these lenses are for “full frame” and some are for “crop sensor” cameras. If you don’t know which type of DSLR you have…there’s a 99.76% chance you have a crop sensor DSLR.
10. Tamron 18-200mm – This makes the list for two simple reasons: price and utility. It beats out a lot of competitors, including its more versatile cousin, the Tamron 16-300mm solely because of price. I’ve tested a lot of these all-in-one lenses, and am really hesitant to recommend any of them because they are a compromise lens. You give up image quality and aperture in exchange for a lot of zoom range. If you want a light camera bag or a decent “backup” lens, this is a good option, but I would not buy one of the more expensive ones. At only $200, this lens represents good value, and allows you to save more money on lenses that will enable more creativity and better quality photos.
9. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 – I expected this lens to be total garbage. At less than half the cost of the (excellent) Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC–which itself is significantly less than the Nikon and Canon alternatives–that would certainly make sense. However, image quality is strong, and the f/2.8 aperture is awesome to have. Still, this is a compromise lens (albeit to a MUCH lesser degree than the Tamron 18-200). What you compromise here is a little at the wide end, image stabilization, and a bit of quality. I would recommend this for full frame shooters on a budget or crop sensor photographers who have an eye on upgrading to full frame in the near future. If you’ll be shooting with a crop sensor camera for a while, that 28mm minimum is going to be really restricting.
8. Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 – This is the budget full frame or “future proofing” crop shooter ultra wide angle option. For a <$350 lens, it delivers shockingly high quality results. The perceived downsides are not much of a big deal: it’s manual focus (super easy on a wide angle) and it doesn’t have any zoom (90% of the time, my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is on 14mm), which probably scares away some newbie photographers, but this is a sleeper favorite of many ultra wide angle fans. Now, I would never trade my beloved Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens for this…but that lens also costs $2,000, so this is a slightly cheaper option. 😉
7. Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 – I love my Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, but if I had to do it all over again, I’d save the money and get the Tamron (a lot of people actually think the Tamron is the better lens–not just the cheaper lens). Either version–with or without VC–is a great lens, but if your budget allows, I’d definitely go for VC as it really comes in handy with telephoto lenses like this. I am finding more and more creative uses of the 70-200mm lens, and as I wrote in my Using Telephoto Lenses in the Disney Parks, it’s not just about the zoom. Plus, this is another full frame lens, so it’s great for “future proofing” if you are thinking about going full frame someday.
6. Sigma 30mm f/1.4 – I can’t speak to the newer, more expensive “Art” version of this lens, but the original flavor is a Disney photography powerhouse. Great for dark rides, fun for environmental shots or creative depth of field ‘detail’ photos, and even good for crisp starbursts in night landscapes. The original did have quality control issues (which I’ve heard the Art version corrects), so I wouldn’t buy used. I also might consider skipping this and getting the Sigma 18-55mm f/1.8 if your budget allows, even if that one isn’t quite as “bokehlicious.” Read my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Review w/ Photo Samples.
5. Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 – This is the fisheye lens I used to develop my iconic style (that might sound really full of myself, but I don’t mean it that way). I loved this fisheye for crop sensor shooting so much that I kept using it when I upgraded to full frame until I preordered the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 last fall when it was announced. This lens is beyond fun, and would be the #1 lens on this list but for the fact that it’s probably wise to do the “responsible” thing and get more versatile lenses first. If you’re irresponsible like me…get this lens early on. Read my full Rokinon 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye Review for more photos and thoughts.
4. “Nifty Fifty” 50mm f/1.8 – Only since moving to full frame have I become a fan of this lens. For crop sensor cameras, it felt like an awkward focal length, especially for Disney photography. I still think that’s true, but…it only costs $100 and is high quality. That price tag is pretty compelling. Personally, unless money were extremely tight, I would not get this. It does enable some really nice looking shallow depth of field shots, but it boxes you in creatively. However, if buying this is the only way you can get an f/1.8 (or faster) lens, definitely get it. You’ll see why once you do some shooting at f/1.8.
3. Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 – A good compromise from the Sigma 18-35mm if you want more zoom and don’t need the f/1.8 aperture. More importantly, it costs a little over half as much as the Sigma. It’s a matter of personal preference (and budget), but I think the Sigma 18-35mm is worth it. It’s effectively multiple prime lenses in one, and really opens some creative doors. Read Our Full Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 Review w/ Photo Samples.
2. Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 – Yes, this lens will set you back $800. It’s worth every penny. While I really liked the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 when I had it, I always also carried the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 because I felt the Tamron was a bit lacking in the depth of field department. This lens does not have that issue, and effectively replaces both of those lenses, plus the “Nifty Fifty.” In my Sigma 18-5mm f/1.8 Review, I discuss why I think this lens is especially well-suited to Disney photography, making it a great pick. There are cheaper “compromise” options, but if you want to get serious about Disney photography, save your money and get this lens. You will not be disappointed. Read Our Full Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Review w/ Photo Samples.
1. Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 – Part of why I made the leap to full frame was for the exceptional Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens, but before it, this was my most used lens. While I have no regrets with the Nikon 14-24mm (have I mentioned that I love this lens?), I think the Tokina comes close to rivaling its quality…for about $1,500 less money. (Unfortunately, camera gear is a game of diminishing returns on the higher end.) With an aperture of f/2.8, the Tokina is fast enough to use hand-held at night or on dark rides, and its image quality is stunningly sharp. If you are into photographing the architecture of the parks, this is the lens for you. Read Our Full Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 Review w/ Photo Samples.
If you do want to purchase anything photography equipment from Amazon, please use the links here (like this one). You can also find equipment at B&H Photography by clicking here. Using the links here help support this blog at no cost to you, and help us continue to provide you with great good okay content.
If you’re looking for other photography equipment recommendations or photography tips in general check out a few of my top photography blog posts. The best place to start is my Ultimate Disney Parks Photography Guide. Some additional posts you might enjoy:
Best Books for Improving Your Photography
5 Indispensable Tips for Better Vacation Photos
Infrared Photography Guide & Tips
Choosing the Best Camera Bag for Travel
If you enjoy these Disney photography posts, please help me out by sharing them with friends or on social media. Thanks!
YOUR THOUGHTS…
Do you have any favorite lenses that are good values? Any lens you’re considering that’s not listed here? Other questions? Any recommendations? Share any thoughts or questions you have in the comments!
Great article and some very solid recommendations. I use a D7100 after a short stint learning with a D3200 and have started collecting a small batch of lenses. I have the Sigma 18-35 and use it most of the time due to the good focal length and fast aperture. I started with an all in one superzoom but hated it and traded it for my 50mm. One sleeper option is the older Nikon 80-200 2.8 I was able to find one in excellent shape for around 600. Yes, it’s not a 70-200VR, but I could also buy 4 of them for the same cost. It’s a good compromise which I can sell later down the line when I’m ready for that VR.
Very good article about photography especially for Disney world… i think Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens would be a gr8 choice for better Clarity & shooting.. isn’t it,..?? thanks for sharing such a informative article..!!
@Tom Bricker
Amazing photos, love your article. I recently buy a Nikon D810 FX. can u give me any ideas about photography?
Regards
Tina
Very informative blogs Tom. I googled “disneyland photography guide” and I came upon -your site and I’m sure glad I did. Anyway, I purchased a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 long ago and I feel like I haven’t used this lens to its full potential. If I had read your blog earlier, I would’ve opted to buy the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.
I am receiving my first DSLR this week right before my trip to Disneyland (a canon t5i 55mm f/1.8) and a few questions about what mode to set my camera on for Shows like Paint the night and what aperture ISO and such do you recommend. Thank you 🙂
Thank you for a great photography article! It still doesn’t completely solidify for me which lens I want to buy next, but at least the list is narrowed.
SInce I got my D750, my D300 has been relegated to the backup of the backup, so I was planning to buy a 50mm 1.8 to stick on it permanently for my husband to use for family photography (and it would go with us to Disney). I used to have this lens before I upgraded to the 50mm 1.4, so I know I like it, but as you mentioned, on a crop sensor it can be a slightly restrictive focal length. I have never heard of the Tamrom 12-200mm before I saw this list. Would it be a better choice (we will not be changing lenses on this camera most of the time). Is the quality similar to the 50mm or more like a kit lens? I use mostly primes, so hadn’t considered an inexpensive zoom as a 50mm alternative. Thanks!
*Tamron 18-200mm
Oh no way. The Tamron 18-200 doesn’t even approach the 50mm in terms of quality. None of the all-in-one lenses are going to compare with a prime.
Thanks. That is what I assumed, but sometimes a cheap lens will be great (just like the 50mm 1.8!), though usually it is less expensive for a reason.
@Tom Bricker
I should seriously think about swearing off that rental totally, contingent on expense, and putting it towards the D750. While the Sigma 18-35mm is an incredible lens, with the two lenses you as of now have, you can do fine, and get a number of the same shots. Simply some something worth mulling over!
Regards
Priyanka
Thanks for the reply. at this point i think rather than renting or acquiring any more DX gear im going to really make a save towards FF. The reason for renting was to avoid spending any more on DX gear. I know my 35mm will work on with FF as it does see the full image circle, but not so much with my 18-140.
I realize you are a Nikon shooter, but do you have any idea how the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lens compares with it’s Canon counterparts? I have the Canon f/4L and I love the quality of the lens, but my daughter is doing gymnastics these days and with the indoor lighting the extra stop is appealing. (Getting a better camera with improved high-iso performance might actually be a cheaper option than the Canon lens!)
You compare the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. From a purely “parks” perspective it is worth noting, not just the cost, but the size and weight of the 18-35 vs. the 30mm – It’s huge in comparison. I did that upgrade and don’t mind carrying it around, but I’m sure others might balk a bit.
The consensus, if there is one, seems to be that the Tamron VC model is better that both Canon f/4 lenses, better than the Canon non-IS 2.8, and very, very close to the Canon 2.8 IS II. Given the price difference, the Tamron would be a no-brainier for me.
Another Great photography centered article Tom! On our last trip i actually rented the Sigma 30mm art and the tamron 17-50 based on your input. Both were great especially the sigma. Im hoping next time around to try out the 18-35 art lens as it appears that the hype is real.
The lure of full frame (D750) is what has caused me to rent vs buy, as im hoping sooner than later to be able to take the plunge. For now i have kept my kit to a nikon 35mm and 18-140mm both of which get the job done well, but don’t lend to well to full frame.
Saving to upgrade is a good move. I don’t think you’ll regret it.
I might consider forgoing that rental completely, depending upon cost, and putting it towards the D750. While the Sigma 18-35mm is a great lens, with the two lenses you already have, you can do quite fine, and get many of the same shots. Just some food for thought! 🙂
Agreed on almost all.
With regards to this: “I can’t speak to the newer, more expensive “Art” version of this lens, but the original flavor is a Disney photography powerhouse.”
The new 30mm Art is great. Absolutely amazing for the price. That said, I’d take the 35mm over it every day.
Well, that 35mm Art is also a *bit* more expensive, too!
Tom,
Great post. On my last trip to WDW this year I had the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non-VC), Sigma 30 1.4 Art, and the original Tamron 18-270 (non-PZD). The 17-50 was on my camera most of the time, except on dark rides when I used the Sigma. Great results with both.
The 18-270 was used primarily at Animal Kingdom, where extra length is helpful for shots of the critters. I understand the problems inherent in these super-zoom lenses, but there are times when a one-lens solution is what works best, at least for me.
I have since purchased the Tamron 16-300 that you mention. It is more expensive than its competition, but is notably better than my first-generation 18-270. Many of its image-quality issues can be easily fixed in software. The biggest drawback is its slow aperture, making it primarily useful in daylight.
The Tokina 11-16 is intriguing. I have used the excellent Canon EF-S 10-22 at Disney. It is not as fast as the Tokina, but only by a fraction of a stop at the wide end. However, we like new toys, and with a Disneyland trip coming up next year…
Oh yeah, there are definitely upsides to those all-in-one zooms, and I have seen them improve as they’ve involved. Until they come up with a tack sharp 11-300mm f/1.8, though, we’ll always need to buy multiple lenses! 😉
This post reminded me that I’ve never owned a fisheye (unless you count the Oloclip.) Sad, I know. Looks like I could have a lot of fun with it. I’m with you on number 7. I brought a 70-200 on our last trip to DLR and I was surprised how much I enjoyed using it in the parks. I love the compressed look it gives.
@Admin
Extraordinary read. Trust you get numerous reactions as I attempt to build up my photography abilities I want to peruse examinations from individuals that I can trust. I appreciate your abilities and you haven’t lead us wrong yet. Much appreciated Tom for this one.
regards
rakhi
Great article thank you for the write up. It really makes you wish that money was no object when it comes to shooting pictures.
The dilemma we all face. Photography is such an expensive hobby…but at least we don’t have to pay to develop film anymore!
I’ll add my 2 cents here. Went to Disney World last fall. I currently own a Nikon D5100. I took my walk around lens, a Nikon 16-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR. I shot 80% of my daylight shots with this lens. All the images I took turned out super. Then I rented the Sigma 18-35 mm f/1.8. All I can say is this lens rocks. Hope to purchase a copy sometime next year. (would have been this year, but a new roof for the house trumps a new lens).
Seriously, this lens was perfect for the Lighted Parade, the Fireworks, all indoor rides, all character meet and greets and all character dining. A co-worker of mine, (who is a semi-pro when it comes photography) even commented on how great this lens was with exposure and clarity. I would reccommend this lens everyday and twice on Sundays.
All the pictures turned out crisp and clear. If you understand exposure this lens IMO, is a must. Once I buy it, I plan on selling my Nikon 35 mm f/1.8. I did take my Nikon 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 but it stayed in the hotel room then entire time. I simply did not need it. Now if I was there by myself with no kids or family, I am sure I can find uses for this lens.
With these 2 lenses I was able to achieve greater than 95% of all the shots I wanted. IMO, it is imperative that you have at least one of your lenses either f/2.8 or f/1.8.
Tom posted and excellent list and article. I will try to upload some of my photos to share later today with a link.
thanks
Glad you liked the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. I haven’t heard of too many dissatisfied customers with that lens, so I can’t say I’m too surprised!
When you get a chance, I’d love to see some photos! (Just a heads up, but it’ll probably flag the comment as spam, so don’t be surprised if it doesn’t show up right away–I just have to approve it.)
I used the Nikon 40mm (2.8) last year in Disneyland.
The 40m is very light-weight and fun for macro, priced at $279.
Fun little lens for the price!
Thanks for the heads up on the Nikon 40mm f/2.8. That’s one that wasn’t even on my radar!
All of my current go to lenses are on here. While I make some tweaks to my bag here in there, but I always use the same 5 lenses for my Disney trips. These lenses are the Tamron 70-200 f2.8, Tamron 17-50 f2.8, Sigma 30 f1.4, Rokinon 8 f3.5 and the Tokina 11-16 f2.8. I truly love all these lenses. Only thing I don’t love is shelling out the money for a locker each day as its too much for me to carry my tripod and the 70-200 lens around all day when not in use. But it’s a small price to pay do that I can have full access to any equipment needed for any creativity that may strike.
How much weight you want to carry is a personal preference, and that is a reasonably heavy camera bag, but I’m wondering what tripod you’re carrying? If it’s a heavier one, consider going for something lighter so you can carry the bag the entire day.
Great read. Hope you get many responses as I try to develop my photography skills I love to read comparisons from people that I can trust. I admire your skills and you haven’t lead us wrong yet. Thanks Tom for this one.
As someone who *did* go the Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC route, I’ll add a couple caveats… I eventually sold off my Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC in favor of the Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRII. The sharpness on the Tamron VC was excellent as advertised – it’s at least as sharp as the Nikon VRII. Autofocus was also comparable to the Nikon in both speed and accuracy – the Nikon VRII AF may be a hair faster but if so it was barely noticeable. So why did I sell the Tamron then?
Two issues that for me were deal-breakers:
1) The Tamron VC autofocus would occasionally just stop working entirely for no apparent reason. Usually this was in the middle of taking action photos in burst mode (i.e.: when you really need the autofocus to work because you don’t want to miss “the perfect moment”). The only way to get the autofocus to work again was to turn off the camera, disconnect the lens, re-attach the lens, and turn the camera back on – not something you want to be bothering with in the middle of shooting live action.
2) This issue was less frequent but arguably even worse because it would result in your shots being completely hosed and you wouldn’t know about it until checking your photos taken after the fact – sometimes, for no apparent reason, while using this lens my camera would produce severely underexposed (to the point of basically just looking black) images in the middle of a burst, despite no changes to camera settings and nothing being on “auto.” My guess is somehow the aperture on the lens would malfunction and temporarily go from f/2.8 to f/22 or something along those lines. This is the only lens that’s ever happened to me with and it happened to me across multiple cameras (my D610, D750, and D810 all exhibited this).
It’s possible I just had a bad unit, however I sent the lens into Tamron three times to have it serviced. Each time I received my lens back quickly and at no charge, and they assured me everything was in proper working order, but each time the same issues would display again. Eventually I just gave up and switched to Nikon, and I’ve had no issues since.
One more thing worth noting – only the VC version of the Tamron 70-200 2.8 lens is supposed to be as sharp or sharper than the Nikon 70-200 2.8. AFAIK, the Tamron 70-200 without VC, while still a great lens (especially for the money) has not been analyzed or reviewed as being at least as sharp as the Nikon 70-200 2.8, though it is the next closest third party lens.
It sounds as though you may have had a bad copy of the lens. It is possible (likely) that they just could not replicate this infrequent problem when they had it. One thing that Tom failed to mention is that in the U.S. Tamron lenses purchased from authorized dealers have a 6-year warranty. I might have called and discussed a replacement, to see how far I could get.
I agree that at that point I would’ve just demanded a replacement. This isn’t an issue I’ve read about elsewhere, and usually if even 5% of a camera product is affected, it’s all over the internet. That leads me to believe it was a one-product QC issue. Just speculation, though.
If it was an otherwise good lens, I probably would’ve pushed as hard as I could for them to replace it.