70-200 f/4L and fireworks

[prime80]

OK, I'm headed to Disney (again) in 3 weeks, and I think I might be able to swing this lens. I know it would be a killer lens during the day, but I also like to take fireworks shots at night. Would this lens do well for that?

Also, does anyone have some tips or a link to some good settings/techniques to use for shooting fireworks displays?

Thanks

[ducdubbq]

i have the 70-200L and am a disney photo enthusiast.

first. the 70-200 is my best lens. it is the first L lens I got and worth every penny.
the photos it takes are fantastic.

second. that said. it is a great lens for disney world (i've not been to disneyland) especially when linked with a high sat. film or high sat settings (on my 20d for instance). the primary colors of disney world are fantastic through this lens.

third. that said it is fairly big and long day heavy; which means it starts out in the morning fairly light but by 2 or 3 in the afternoon it weighs a ton. because its long its hard to get the right bag to fit it and disney is all about having the right shoulder bag for your camera, lenses and all the other stuff you inevitably need.

fourth. everything in disney is close and tight, especially in the parks. the 70 - 200 becomes something like a 115 - 320 on the XT. when I use it its the only lens I carry and I go intent on taking telephoto shots.

but the 70-200 is far too close for fireworks and the fact it doesn't have a tripod mount means you'll need a good (and heavy) tripod to keep the very light XT from falling over. the cheapy walmart ones might not do.

for fireworks or the attraction buildings, hotels, ambiance, you're going to want something wide. my advice is pick up the 24 or 28/2.8 lenses. they don't have USM but they are light, cheap, small and translate to 38 / 42 repectively. Their optics are very good, especially for the price (but they are not sexy white lenses) if you want wide + sharp + USM I picked up the 20/2.8 which fits really well (it feels perfect actually) on my T2, which is, body wise, similar (i think) to the XT.

(sorry for that sentence.)

but if you are set on a telephoto....you can't go wrong with the 70-200L it big, white and sexy. the cast members always are impressed when i open my bag and whip that bad boy out.
but for 150$ or so pick up the 28/2.8 at bhphoto.com (cheaper at keh.com)

[ducdubbq]

for fireworks. if i can add. i found the 50 to be fine in Epcot and the magic kingdom (i like to shoot the MK fireworks from in front of the crystal palace resturante, its late to fill up and get a good perspecive. set up a short (not tabletop) tripod so it stands taller than the short fence and shoot away.

disney is beautiful at night and well worht bringing a tripod for. take a look at scott domins stuff at pbase.com

[tim]

I took fireworks photos (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/PhotoGallery/2005/ChineseNewYearFireworks/index.html) from a hill quite close to a display not so long ago. A quick look thru the pics tells me I mostly used 28-48mm. I think to do fireworks justice you need a tripod and a cable release too - I was doing exposures from 1 sec to 5 sec. I started a thread on it a few months back, if you do a search there are good tips in there.

[raylks]

Fireworks is one of the most difficult topics in photography. You never know the composition before it explodes!

Perhaps you may think of how to add a foreground or background in your fireworks shots. A longer exposure, say 8 sec with f 8-11 can add in a background to the fireworks (but you need to take care of "overexposure" when the fires are too intensive) . A firework shot without Disney castle or logo cannot tell it is taken in Disneyland, right?

[prime80]

Thanks for all the replies! I guess I can just use my 50/1.8 for the fireworks, then. Hmmm...Now I've got to decide if I really want to part with the bucks for the 70-200...

Tim...Those pictures are Georgeous!!! Thanks for sharing! I hope I can come back with some pictures that good.

[tim]

Cheers Prime, that was my first effort, and I was a bit drunk at the time! You'll notice I used ISO 400 and F32 for some of the photos, whereas I should have used ISO 100 and F12 or so.

Where you stand compared with the fireworks really makes a big difference, you might need the 50 or the 70-200 depending on where you and they are. I'd personally go wider rather than longer, like for most things, my Tamron 28-75 is about ideal :)

[prime80]

Ya'll think I should get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a good walk-around lens at Disney? Or stick to the 70-200. I've got the 50/1.8 & Kit lens right now, and the next lens I buy will probably be the only lens I'm able to add to my collection for quite some time.

[tim]

It depends what you want to take photos of really. A lens in that sort of range is usually considered a good walkaround range, and the Tamron is sharp, fast, and cheap. I want a longer reach lens for wedding candids, but apart from that I rarely have a need for one. If I want something to fill more of the frame I zoom with my feet ;)

[ducdubbq]

you might also want to consider the canon 28-135 IS which is a pretty good lens, gives you very fast focusing and gives you the extra range, it is 30$ more though. the extra stop doesn't really matter on dslr since you can up the ISO.

i bought mine several years ago along with the 70-200 and it is a nice all around travel lens. I'm, more of a prime guy though. i have a 20mm, 50mm, 85 and 105 macro.

1. you still can't go wrong with the 70-200, real good on the safari and out on the water.
2. disney needs a wide lens for the castle, the mountains, the architecture and various other stuff
3. there's also lots of macro stuff there, disney really is in the details and from the flowers to the intricate designs, a 50 or 105 macro would be very good as well.

a. i imagine you have the 18-55 + 50/1.8. do you hate the kit lens? keep it, bring it and
buy the 70-200 so you have a monster range. you need not carry all three all the time.
and then you could save up money for option b.

b. if you want to replace the 18-55 and are willing to spend 600$ why not go with the 17-40L, you get the wide angle plus the L glass. and now theres a rebate.

(i have no experience with that tamron lens, i have a 19-35 zoom by them which is very nice but not terribly sexy)

[condyk]

third. that said it is fairly big and long day heavy; which means it starts out in the morning fairly light but by 2 or 3 in the afternoon it weighs a ton. because its long its hard to get the right bag to fit it and disney is all about having the right shoulder bag for your camera, lenses and all the other stuff you inevitably need.


The Crumbler Cucumbarumba top loader bag fits the 300D and 70-200 F4 perfectly, so will be very nice as a carry around all day bag for the 350D.

[prime80]

I think I'm going to go for the Canon 200D backpack for my bag. I don't like having to take it on/off every time I have to get something out/put somthing in, but the freedom of the backpack is worth it. There are a lot of times I need both hands free and can't worry about a shoulder bag falling. On our last couple of trips, having a backpack camera bag has worked out well.

[prime80]

I've been looking at the Manfroto 714B as a tripod to take. I really like how it collapses to such a short length. However, if ya'll know of a cheaper alternative that folds up as compact I'd be very interested.

[prime80]

I've been looking at the 28-135. The extra reach would be nice, but the sample pics I've seen just don't seem nearly as sharp as the Tamron pics I've seen. Those are still my two top contenders for a walk around lens.

17-40L would be great, but I've got to fill my longer focal length gap before I start replacing ranges I already have. Funds are going to be quite limited on this stuff since my wife doesn't quite share my enthusiasm for this hobby...


you might also want to consider the canon 28-135 IS which is a pretty good lens, gives you very fast focusing and gives you the extra range, it is 30$ more though. the extra stop doesn't really matter on dslr since you can up the ISO.

i bought mine several years ago along with the 70-200 and it is a nice all around travel lens. I'm, more of a prime guy though. i have a 20mm, 50mm, 85 and 105 macro.

1. you still can't go wrong with the 70-200, real good on the safari and out on the water.
2. disney needs a wide lens for the castle, the mountains, the architecture and various other stuff
3. there's also lots of macro stuff there, disney really is in the details and from the flowers to the intricate designs, a 50 or 105 macro would be very good as well.

a. i imagine you have the 18-55 + 50/1.8. do you hate the kit lens? keep it, bring it and
buy the 70-200 so you have a monster range. you need not carry all three all the time.
and then you could save up money for option b.

b. if you want to replace the 18-55 and are willing to spend 600$ why not go with the 17-40L, you get the wide angle plus the L glass. and now theres a rebate.

(i have no experience with that tamron lens, i have a 19-35 zoom by them which is very nice but not terribly sexy)

[ducdubbq]

well you won't be disappointed with the 70-200 image quality. and since you already have a 18-55, and you think you'll have the cash, go with that. its the best choice IMHO.