Topic: Understanding Lens Needs (Read 17995 times)

Noonie · « **on:** November 17, 2014, 01:32:14 pm »

I mainly use my camera (Canon T5) when hiking through the forests here in Ontario, Canada. I've now taken my new camera out on a couple of hikes and I'm trying to determine what lense(s) are best for this situation and what I like to photograph. I'm in no rush to buy anything, but I like to research, plus as I'm taking photographs with my current set-up I can think ahead to how I might use certain types of lenses...to help me evaluate what would work.

[Least photographed for me, at the moment] With respect to wildlife, where I live/hike we get squirrels, chipmunks, birds, racoons (but it's usually dark), deer, and of course smaller creatures (butterflies, all sorts of bugs). I have a 100-300 lens I could use for harder to photograph wildlife (had the lens with a previous film SLR camera), but I don't see myself using this much. Unless I'm missing something...

[Landscapes] I like landscapes but where I live and frequent, I'm not seeing great opportunities for landscape photography. I've taken some, usually where I'm looking over a valley. I will do some landscape photography, maybe 10-20% of my time. I sometimes come across landscape opportunities when hiking (see below).

[What I'm photographin most often] When I hike, I'm stopping to photograph shapes that interest me, or an interesting contrast of colour and tones...these usually involve trees, bushes, plants, flowers, rocks and rivers. I've been using the 18-55 IS lens I got with my camera. It's been fine for me, for now. What I "think" I need to improve these photos, is a lens that has good sharpness across a wide depth of field, and because I'm in a thickly covered forest in the early AM (most often) a lens that lets in enough light because I don't want to carry the tripod when hiking, so I need to avoid camera shake. I can usually move around to compose the shot, so while zooms are great for some things, I could probably use a fixed focal length lens for this type of detail work. That said, I would still want a lens that's good for walking around...though given the day and where I am, I may actually use a fixed lens and swap out if I spot wildlife or the shot isn't suitable for the fixed lens. And I don't know if a fixed lens offers what I need, versus a small zoom range, or large zoom range. Should I consider a macro lens? I've started to look into them but I'm not sure what is best for my needs. I would like to carry only 2 (3 at most) lenses while I'm hiking, and I'm ok with selling what I have to buy new/used lenses. I could use my telephoto lens here when hiking, on a wide apeture to blur a background...and I'll continue to find these shots, but it's secondary to above.

I'm doubthing there is one lens that works well for all of the above...

Thanks

David Anderson · « **Reply #1 on:** November 17, 2014, 07:03:40 pm »

I have to agree about the tripod - they make huge difference in image quality and are worth the lugging IMHO.

For my backpack photography (fishing related

) I've come back to three fixed lenses (28, 60 macro and 85) and a very light & small carbon tripod.
The fixed lenses are a compromise, but I'm happy to make the limited range selection work in order to get the maximum image quality while not breaking my back in the walking.
For more general photography maybe carrying a 70-200 f4 is worth the effort as well ?
The Canon version is a very good lens and still quite light.

A longer macro, like the Canon 100 is also a great lens that will do life size macro and very good portraits.

NancyP · « **Reply #2 on:** November 17, 2014, 07:34:22 pm »

My 60D (APS-C) has had the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens as the one-lens hiking solution. This does ultra-wide to medium telephoto, and goes up to 0.24x magnification as well. It doesn't suit for shy wildlife, you would need a longer lens for birds and shy mammals, but if you tend to shoot mostly plants, rocks, "intimate landscapes", etc, it does brilliantly. If I really want 1:1 macro on a plant or cooperative insect, I take the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 as well, which is lightweight, small (pocket size), and often available at a very good price used, when owners upgrade to full frame. It is a very sharp macro lens. Lightweight tripod always goes along.

luxborealis · « **Reply #3 on:** November 17, 2014, 07:50:37 pm »

If I'm "going light" I take a zoom with me - usually the 24-85 used on a full frame. If the light is more dramatic, I will take the 18-35 hoping for landscapes. But either way, I will still have my 105 Micro. Light is never a problem as even when I "go light" that usually means my Reis wooden tripod is with me as well.

Noonie · « **Reply #4 on:** November 19, 2014, 03:54:44 pm »

Regarding tripods...I have a Manfrotto with ball filter but it's too heavy, for me, for hiking purposes. In the event I drive to a location for the purposes of photography, I'll definately take the tripod. But when I'm hiking, like cycling, I don't want to carry too much weight. I know the tripod would be useful, but for me it would take the enjoyment of photography when 'on the move'. In fact, even if it was light, if it's not ready to go in 20 seconds or less I would be annoyed. I'm just out there to enjoy nature, and while hiking with a camera isn't necessary, I decided to buy one to add a particular aspect of experience that allows me to focus even more on what's around me while I'm hiking, and allows me to look at the images on the computer afterwards...and this I like from both a photography (study the photos and think of how to compose for next time) and nature perspective (recording things of interest to me).

Now, if I could add a lens that improves my photography (IQ and/or versatility), without taking away from the hiking experience, I would be interested.

NancyP · « **Reply #5 on:** November 19, 2014, 05:42:49 pm »

My attitude toward tripod-carrying changed when I got a reasonably stable 3 pound setup: Feisol CT3442 legs (56", no center column, legs fold 180 degrees over tripod head for total folded length of 20") at 2.2 pounds, plus Arca-Swiss p0 "upside-down" ball head at 12 oz including its post-market QR clamp, plus the nylon bag the tripod came in, a wired shutter release, and a few allen wrenches for just-in-case tightening in the field (few oz., haven't weighed it). I now happily carry it for "on spec" hikes when I don't know if there's going to be something I want to photograph. I use the polarizing and/or neutral density filters a lot more now that I don't have to compromise between high ISO plus filter or reasonable ISO without filter. If I feel like leaving it behind, I tell myself that it is "training weight" and that I need to get into better shape

I have a heavier tripod for long telephoto lenses.

NancyP · « **Reply #6 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:00:35 am »

Here's another thought for the tripod-averse. Do you use a hiking pole or poles? If you use just one pole, there are nice commercial poles with a 1/4" bolt on top, covered by a smooth knob. Take off the smooth knob, attach your camera, and you have a good support for those 1/10 second photos you might be taking. There are kickstarter gadgets attaching to conventional aluminum hiking poles. I tend not to use poles unless hiking in very treacherous footing or with significant pack weight, but I do frequently take my monopod, attached to a waist holster that goes on my belt. This monopod has a tilt head and can support a long telephoto (birding) and also can steady me if I need one pole for balance. Finally, for the utmost in simplicity (and I haven't tried this, but it makes sense), you can make an elastic strap with a 1/4" bolt on one end (for the camera base) and a loop at the other end. Put foot in loop, hold camera, there should be some tension on the strap. This might be worthwhile for the itty-bitty cameras with LCD screen only, no viewfinder.

LesPalenik · « **Reply #7 on:** November 20, 2014, 11:06:39 am »

I like Canon 50mm F2.5 macro. It's light and small, with excellent image quality for landscape, and it doubles as a macro for flowers.

Noonie · « **Reply #8 on:** November 27, 2014, 07:23:44 pm »

I decided on the 18-135 STM lens as my primary, kind of do it all lens. I got decent resale value on my older lenses and the 18-55 that came with the camera, so with trade in and the fact it was on sale, I'm happy with the price. At some point I think I'll add a macro...but I'm set for a while.

Good tips noted above, I'll try those - thanks.

Jim Pascoe · « **Reply #9 on:** December 02, 2014, 05:37:21 am »

This may not help you - but for anyone thinking of hiking with a camera now I would recommend saving weight by using a Micro 43 camera and lenses. The tripod then becomes much less of a burden. I would say the tripod and M43 will be a better option than DSLR and no tripod.

Jim

mbaginy · « **Reply #10 on:** December 02, 2014, 06:30:53 am »

Noonie, a serious suggestion - buy a smaller camera (similar to Canon G17) for your outings with a bike. Since you don't want to spend time composing or setting up using a tripod, (over 20 seconds would annoy you), you shouldn't burden yourself with a "large" camera and gear.

Naturally everyone has his/her own technique for landscapes but I don't feel at ease without a strudy tripod, without split neutral density felters, polarizing filter, etc., when shooting landscapes. It often takes me 15 minutes or longer to setup as I wish. Macros often take longer. Also, I seldom shoot landscapes in bright sunshine - hate blue skies. I prefer clouds, which make for more dramatic and interesting (and less contrasty) images. My basic suggestion for (proper?) landscapes: use a sturdy tripod (sturier than you think you'll need), shoot when others would stay indoors. There's a lot more to it than that but I really feel you'll need longer than 20 seconds to take a decent landscape shot.

I really suggest a far more compact camera -and no backpack/rucksack when you're biking.

Noonie · « **Reply #11 on:** December 03, 2014, 05:36:54 am »

I've decided that biking with my DSLR isn't a likely option...unless I'm touring and have panniers on my bike, but even then it's too much. I'll just take my daughter P&S on some rides.

When I'm hiking, I'll not take a tripod...unless I end up getting a more compact one like the Manfrotto Befree. But I will use my existing tripod when going out primarily to take photos (where I know a good shot is to be had, but in need of a tripod).

I think I'm getting this figured out!

Hoag · « **Reply #12 on:** December 30, 2014, 10:26:53 pm »

My first post! I found have found this thread very helpful so far as I have recently purchased a Nikon D3200, and have been using the kit 18-55mm lens and loving it. I have really taken an interest in landscape photography and look forward to the sunrises and sunsets that I'm able to catch. I would like to invest in a secondary lens primarily for landscape shots but am not sure if the quality and sharpness from a fixed lens is worth the inability to frame shots as I have become accustom to.

I appreciate your feedback, I am curious to hear what others may have thought before and after buying their first "landscape" lens. Thanks so much!

Bryan

Noonie · « **Reply #13 on:** December 31, 2014, 06:03:47 am »

Quote from: Hoag on December 30, 2014, 10:26:53 pm

My first post! I found have found this thread very helpful so far as I have recently purchased a Nikon D3200, and have been using the kit 18-55mm lens and loving it. I have really taken an interest in landscape photography and look forward to the sunrises and sunsets that I'm able to catch. I would like to invest in a secondary lens primarily for landscape shots but am not sure if the quality and sharpness from a fixed lens is worth the inability to frame shots as I have become accustom to.

I appreciate your feedback, I am curious to hear what others may have thought before and after buying their first "landscape" lens. Thanks so much!

Bryan

I'm a newb so take this with a grain of salt - the fixed lens may be better value in terms of image quality for the price (e.g., the "nifty fifty" from Canon...perhaps there is similar value with a comparable Nikon lens?), and you could crop the photo as needed on your computer (to a degree). Also, I think there is a lot more to consider when deciding on the 2nd lens (for those with one mediocre kit lens) - for example, I wanted one lens to do everything I wanted, reasonably well. If you're primary interests are with sunrises/sunsets, perhaps there is one lens to compliment your kit lens that gives you better image quality for this particular shot...but I wouldn't forget about what other photography you enjoy...and how your lens needs may be wider than you think?

Good luck!

jferrari · « **Reply #14 on:** December 31, 2014, 09:55:51 am »

Quote from: Hoag on December 30, 2014, 10:26:53 pm

I would like to invest in a secondary lens primarily for landscape shots...

Maybe your next lens shouldn't be a lens at all. If you want to capture nice crisp clear hi-res panoramic landscapes perhaps you should invest in some software. Photoshop, as well as many other software programs, will "stitch" several images together for you. The process has matured greatly in recent years and the output is awesome. To quote Ansel Adams: "You don’t take a photograph, you make it." Food for thought. - Jim

Hoag · « **Reply #15 on:** December 31, 2014, 05:33:08 pm »

Thanks Jim, I hadn't given that much thought but t would be nice for stitching together beach shots like the one below, and a useful tool for other edits in the future as my abilities progress.

And Noonie, I have access to a 70-300mm lens which does provide flexibility for longer shots. Just wondering if the sharpness from a fixed lens would be noticeable, or practical to use on a semi-regular basis.

Thanks so much for your feedback, hearing different perspectives is very helpful!

Noonie · « **Reply #16 on:** January 01, 2015, 07:52:56 am »

Quote from: Hoag on December 31, 2014, 05:33:08 pm

Thanks Jim, I hadn't given that much thought but t would be nice for stitching together beach shots like the one below, and a useful tool for other edits in the future as my abilities progress.

And Noonie, I have access to a 70-300mm lens which does provide flexibility for longer shots. Just wondering if the sharpness from a fixed lens would be noticeable, or practical to use on a semi-regular basis.

Thanks so much for your feedback, hearing different perspectives is very helpful!

There are probably zoom lenses of higher quality ($$$$) with image quality just as good, or better, than a prime lens. I went from a kit lens to a lens that cost more than my camera kit and I instantly noticed improved image quality (and it's still a zoom lens). But I'm guessing for a third-to-half of the price of the new lens I could have got a prime with as good image quality (but I wanted one walk-around lens).

Hoag · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2015, 04:12:05 pm »

Good to know, thank you Noonie.

Hoag · « **Reply #18 on:** January 03, 2015, 06:12:32 pm »

Thanks Isaac, I'll look in to the Image Editor until I pull the trigger on Photoshop. And yes, I have been using a tripod which has helped a great deal.

Isaac · « **Reply #19 on:** January 03, 2015, 07:17:17 pm »

Quote from: Hoag on January 03, 2015, 06:12:32 pm

until ... Photoshop

Check out the Other Raw Converters forum.

After months of using Lightroom and Dx0 Optics Pro and Capture One and other month-long or 3-month-long trials, I've found that RawTherapee matches my needs very well (sometimes with Topaz PhotoFxLab layers).

Author Topic: Understanding Lens Needs (Read 17995 times)

mbaginy