Equipment & Techniques > Beginner's Questions

Understanding Lens Needs

(1/5) > >>

Noonie:
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:
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 8)) 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:
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:
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:
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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page