What kind of lenses and equipment do I need for nature photography?

I'm relatively new to digital photography and could use some advice as to the

type of equipment I'll need in order to take decent nature photographs. Any help

and advice offered would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Can you be more specific about 'nature' Michael? Landscapes, or wildlife type such as birds or large mammals.

The best thing to do is to get books on the subject, John Shaw, Art Wolf and there are others as well. Thumb trough and read a bit. I choose John shaw becuase the way he discussed a topic, it made sense to me. I have a lot of books from John and I have two from George Lepp (Beyond the basics and Beyond the basics II). They well help you decide where you want to go and the type of lenses. They will also give you techniques on how to do it. Most of the stuff is filmed bases, but that technique is technique. Also, with these books you can do things in sections. If you want just landscape, then wide angles and some shot telies and then do some of the things recomended. Then you can do macro if you want. But with these books, you can do it all in stages.

You can start off very inexpensively with a normal 50mm lens, and perhaps a couple of close-up diopter screw-in adapters. just remember to fill the frame with your subject.

 

If you have a point and shoot digital, you've already got what you need for a start.

 

The photo below was taken with a digital SRL and a 50mm lens. It happened to be a macro lens, but that wasn't the way I was using it for that shot. Any 50mm lens would have done it.<div></div>

The same camera and lens, an hour later. While my lens was a macro, a 50mm lens with close-up attachments would have done pretty much the same job. After all, it was hand-held.<div></div>

Michael, it sure helps to know what kind of camera you now have and how much you want to budget for new equipment. My 'nature' gear includes lenses of 12-400mm (digital). The wide lenses are better for landscapes, the longer ones for wildlife.

 

One thing I would strongly recommend, a good tripod.

Suggestion: Mention a budget (current + annual), a list of subjects you are interested in and your remaining payload when you are enjoying nature. Also what's your desired maximum print size? I guess if it's really big, you'd be better off shooting film in a LF camera.

 

Speaking in general: I'd suggest going with a half decent DSLR, light but sharp wides to short tele (the last preferably as macro primes not zooms for the rather stable subjects and a better one with fastest available AF + really fast long lenses with build in image stabilization for birding. Having a tripod and tight fitting lenshoods is also a good idea.

 

The first could be a Pentax K10D or EOS 5D maybe even a Leica M8 for R8+DMR for higher needs, any imaginable beginner consumer DSLR for slightly lower needs, like no big prints and web hosting. You can get started with a kit lens. You can also mount something long on everything I mentioned; You'll only miss some shots and might not gain the same quality as if you were using the very best.

 

For landscapes a medium format camera with digital back might also be interesting.

As the others have said, you need to tell us what you mean by "nature" before we can offer

specific suggestions. That said, if in your mind, "nature" means "animals", then a lens of 300

mm or more is practically a must. For birds, the standard lenses are 500 and 600 mm,

usually with extenders/converters. And yes, a solid tripod and head are invaluable.

What is insufficient in your present gear???

Assuming you are talking 1.5x, an 18-55 kit lens for landscapes, a mid range macro for flowers and bugs, and a high quality 300mm f4 for wildlife.

Well, for landscapes, you'll want to start with a wideangle zoom and a short-to-medium

telephoto.

 

For wideangle, something that covers 20-40mm worth of focal length (in 35mm terms) is

a good starting point for long-term shooting. At minimum, you'll want to go to atleast

24mm on the wideangle side, in order to get more dramatic perspectives. More than

24mm actually becomes quite hard to use, but it is nice to have the option when needed.

On a crop DSLR, a 12-24/4, such as the Tokina, is ideal. Otherwise, if you are starting

out, something like a 17-70 or 17-85 is a good, all-purpose lens - you'll probably use it a

lot more than a 12-24 as well.

 

For tele, 70-200 or 75-300 (in 35mm terms) works really well. It pairs up really well with

the 17-70. If you get a 12-24/4, then consider a 50-150 type of zoom. There's a few of

them out in the market now.

 

For wildlife - you'll want the longest lens you can afford - a 70-300 or 100-300 or

thereabouts is the minimum; a 50-500 or 100-400 is better.

 

For macro, you'll want a macro lens - 90-105mm seems to be the best all-purpose lens.

 

So, short answer:

On the cheap: 17-70 + 70-300

Serious kit: 12-24, 50-150, 100-400 (or 50-500) - and possibly a 17-70 to cover the

gap between the 12-24 and 50-150.

 

HTH,

Vandit

Hi, everyone.

 

Sorry for the lack of information in my initial post. Here's what I currently use:

 

- Nikon D80

- Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lens

- Manfrotto 300Pro Tripod

- Manfrotto 322RC2 pistol-grip head

 

I've been considering purchasing the Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 DX lens, but think it would be smarter just to get the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8, because, really, all I would be paying for with the former is the 12-16mm range. At this point, the 5mm are not worth $900 USD.

 

In addition, I would like to purchasing the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens. Most everything I've heard about it with respect to speed, sharpness, and the effectiveness/usefulness of the vibration reduction feature has been positive, so the purchase seems like a no-brainer.

 

I guess all that leaves is a lens to cover the 200-400mm range. I'm guessing it be heavy and certainly not cheap. Could someone offer some suggestions as to what would be a quality lenses for, say, no more than $1,500 USD?

 

Am I on the right track here?

Oh, hey, I failed to mention that I DO INTEND to shoot boy landscape and animal photography. Here's a link to an image I shot with the D80 and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 lens: http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=719986572&size=l

 

I'm sure it is rife with a gazillion imperfections, but I really like it. I like it cold and eerie it feels, when that morning was anything but. Actually, it had rained and rained the night before, but the climate was humid, thus the mist clouding the bluffs. I performed a curves adjustment in Photoshop to lighten it up, increase contrast, and flesh out the details a bit more in the dark areas.

 

I know this is a bit off topic, but how does it look to you guys?

boy = both*

"all I would be paying for with the former is the 12-16mm range." I think you meant latter. If so, the 12-24mm is a great landscape lens. It also happens to be much wider than the 17-55mm which is another good lens for landscape shots.

 

I prefer the 12mm but many don't. The 17-55 is definitely faster but this is not usually an issue with landscape shots because most are stopped down with a tripod. Really a personal preference thing here.

 

As for the $1500 budget and something in the 200-40mm range, think about the Nikon 80-400mm VR. Biggest downside to the lens, it is not very fast. In fact, even a 1.4x t/c might not be worth it. However, it does have VR and good reach, though IMO it is better to use the lens with a tripod except maybe in really good daylight.

 

BTW, nice photo. Obviously a little light on color contrast but still a great effect with teriffic composition.

Nice shot. To your original question - I prefer prime lenses for specific work (telephoto animal shots, or landscape work), zooms for snapshot type stuff. On the wide side, Nikon has several candidates at or below 20mm...you need to check them out and see if you are comfortable with distortions which increase as you get wider. On Nikon DSLRs I like the 20mm...I tried a Sigma 15-30mm a couple of years ago in Macedonia while hiking in the Vikos Gorge & it was too heavy although it took sharp picures. On the long side, I typically use a manual focus 300mm f2.8 Nikkor in low light situations, or a 400mm f6.3 Leitz Telyt with a Nikon adapter for bright shots. Although I have used 500 and 560mm lenses, I find the mirror jobs aren't for me, and the ultra longs are too cumbersome. If you're shooting birds, many people suggest 600mm is about right, although Doug Herr, a member of this forum and excellent wildlife photog., typically uses a 400mm lens.

I use primes: Tokina 17mm, Nikkors AF 24mm, 50mm, 180mm and 400mm f5.6 ED-IF older manual. I have two zooms for event use. 18-70 and 70-210 f5.6 Nikkors. For serious wildlife I think you will want more than 400mm. I could probably do fine with the Nikkor 17-35 f2.8 and the 500mm f4 but its more than I want to spend or carry.

Well, the 17-55 is definitely a lens you'll be using a lot more. Extreme wide angles are

hard to use properly - but the flip side is, when you do use them, oh baby.

 

Overall, your idea of starting with a high quality 17-55 is sound. However, as you will be

using these lenses for landscapes, you will presumably stop then down. Given that, I'd

suggest perhaps a 3rd party alternative, so as to save yourself some shekels - any

differences that might exist (and these days, a Sigma EX or Tamron f2.8 lens doesnt give

up much in IQ to Canon/Nikon) is going to be pretty much wiped out when you stop down.

 

The money you save can go for a Tokina 12-24/4, or a Sigma 10-20. I have the latter and

it is a gem of a lens.

 

A quality wildlife lens for $1500 or so is the Canon 100-400IS if you shoot handheld or a

Bigma 50-500 if you shoot off beanbags or monopods. If you know you are going to be

shooting subjects that are far away - ie, you're going to be maxing out your zoom - then

you might as well consider a 400/5.6 or a 300/4IS and a TC. That'll give you slightly

better IQ. Personally the convenience of zooms outweights the marginal improvement in

image quality. And I've never had any editor reject a photo taken with the 100-400 for

quality reasons.

 

Vandit

wide angle (12-24 or 10-20), standard zoom (28-70) and a tele lens (70-200) should work best (IMO)