Would this be a good lens to take to Disney World?
203142
Yes. Since most of the time Disney World is a crowded place this allows you to get close up tight shots even from far away.
203143
No question about it. as it has a 55mm setting you can still get some close up shots, but the 300 mm would be great for attractions i.e. water rides most times if you want to take a picture from the ground of your family a 300 mm would help you take the picture and you can zoom it manually from there. Just set you iso higher to capture the event. also invest in a 59 polarize circular lense cover. hoya or tiffen. so where you are at a greater distance from the action and taking a photo in the sun and the UV is high you wont have the glare to disrupt the shot.
203144
I would. The ability to get faces at distance is great in a theme park. If you don't want close ups of groups it will work. I have used it on trips and trails.
203145
No. I took it to Alaska and never even used it. Of course, I have the 55-200, which is a much better lens. If you don't have any other zoom, and someone gives you a 55-300, then sure!
203146
Its not very compact. In fact it is a bit cumbersome. Tame on has a comparable one that is more compact.
2281139
Yes because it is, but it is a telescope lens which means if you plan on taking pictures from far away it is a good size, if not, you may wanna try something with a smaller mm
855771
The lens you have would be perfect for the family portrait. I use my 35mm for most of my work.
967416
With reasonable care I think it should be fine. I used the lens on a 3 week safari in Tanzania in dusty, sometimes wet conditions and had no problems. I kept it covered in a lightweight stuff sack when not in use.
1845680
I think that it's a great lens, but more well suited for a full frame camera. If you goal is wide angle photography I would suggest that you go with something wider, such as the Nikon 12-24... http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-12-24mm-AF-S-Nikkor-Zoom/dp/B000092M1T/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1390416530&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+10+24 ... Good luck, I hope that helps! Don't forget to also grab a slim Polarizer which will help you get dramatic blue skies.
1693089
Yes. The good news is that it will take stunning images. The downside is that it is very tricky to focus on the small view finder of the rebel camera. If you are prepared to focus using live view in most situations it's fine but otherwise if I were you I would get canon 50 1.4 to save myself the aggravation. I love this lens on my 5d mk ii but I found it a bit frustrating on my t2i.
1379524
I'm using it on my D7100 and it's a great lens. It is heavy but it's solid ~ I've taken it on a few trips now and I love it.
1051041
yes! I used this lens for a graduate school project. I had to take pictures of various items at different distances and this lens worked the best. It is a workhorse and would be my choice!
849561
Yes I think this is the perfect traveling camera because of its small size and light weight. The lens that you selected would be perfect for a safari.
986588
I think it would be a good choice. I use it on a D-700 (full frame), and it's a nice sharp lens with minimal perspective distortion.
2058088
It is a lovely lens, but I cannot see it (or any lens) doing really well with low light and fast action. I use it for landscape photography, where things kindly hold still.
62786
I've mainly used it for wildlife. Used it extensively on a safari. Autofocus isn't perfect. But if your target isn't moving manual focus works very well with focus assist on my GH2. I've made very nice pictures at the long end holding the camera, but you'll need to be in good sunlight. Any kind of longer exposure will absolutely need a tripod. But in this price range it is a pretty capable long telephoto lens.
1356282
It doesn't get super close, but it's really damn sharp. If you want to get closer, I'd suggest Sigma's 28mm f1.8 macro (they also have a 24, a 50, etc.)The macros are reviewed well enough, may not be as optimal in the corners, but for center-frame macro shots, everything else will be bokeh-d out anyway. This is more of a perfect travel lens- sharp as anything corner to corner for the landscape shots, and wide f1.8 for the people shots, while still being practical and relatively distortion-free.
927465
This is not a bad lens at all. It is certainly not the fastest or sharpest, but a very sharp and fast zoom with this range would be very expensive and bulky. I use it for bird photography with decent results. I would not get same results with any available point and shoot camera.
759740
Ana, I've had this lens for about a year now I think. I use it with my D3100 as an everyday-walk-in-the-park lens. I like just about everything about it-- the color is perfect, pictures are perfectly clear, the VR works perfectly. The only reason I might warn folks off it is the lens distortion at either end of its telephoto range. For that reason, I mostly stick to the center of that range and just use other lenses for wide angle or long range shots.
1476726
This will capture it from afar, but it may be very blurry. This lens isn't particularly good for any fast moving objects. Hope this helps.
84381
For a travel lens, the 16-35mm f/4 might be a better lens. It is lighter and sharper. For travel photography, rarely are you at 2.8. Most times you are stopping down to f/11 to get more things in focus. If I had to buy this lens again, I may have gone for the 14-24mm f/2.8. The only time I had to go down to 2.8 was when I was doing night time star photography.