Suggest a 2 lens nature combo

[robert_thommes]

I'm pretty much thinking that one of those two lenses should probably be a tele

zoom of like 70-300. If you agree, what would be the second, and remaining,

candidate? I'd like to keep it to only two lenses if for no other reason than

weight. I'm not a young man any more. And the thought of treking around with

anymore than two lenses is a turn-off for me.

So what are your suggestions?

Thanks,

Bob

[mwaks]

Nature lenses, by their very nature (excuse the pun) tend to be heavy.

I'm not that young myself, but I find that a backpack or bag on wheels makes a big improvement. The two I carry are the 100-400 mm IS and the 60mm EF-S macro.

[bobatkins]

EF-S 17-85IS and EF70-300IS.

[willhl]

Depends what you want to shoot. My nature (read landscape and macro) combo was EF-S 10-22mm and Sigma 50mm macro, now I've got Sigma 17-70mm instead of the 50mm. But since is sounds like you want the long end then Bob probably has it right. Consider the sigma 17-70 if you want better macro ability.

[colin carron]

I also tend to use two lenses only. The exact choice will depend on your interests and shooting style. I use the following :

 

1) EF 17-40 L (for 1.6 crop factor I used EF 10-22) This is for landscapes and architecture.

 

2) EF 70-300 IS. For tele shots. This is the best compromise that I have found between size / weight / Image quality.

[colin carron]

Sorry that should read 'EF-S 10-22' not 'EF 10-22'

[gdanmitchell]

What camera?

[aziel_epilepsia]

If by nature, you meant scenics, you could get away with a wide zoom such as 17-40mm f/4L and a 100-400mm. This takes care of wildlife shots and medium telephoto (For those distant scenes), and your wide angle scenes where you likely have room to position your shot.

 

If money and weight were no object, my 2 lens nature combo on Canon is a 600mm IS, and 100-400 IS.

[geoffm]

I use Bob Atkins' combo of 17-85IS and 70-300IS. Two lenses is a bit of a compromise, and I have a Tamron 90mm macro as well. There are times when 17mm isn't wide enough, and the 10-22 would be nice. There are often times when 300mm isn't quite long enough, but going much longer has significant weight and cost penalties. I can see why the 100-400 would be a good alternative, though.

 

The 17-85 is a very good lens. It is sharp, but distorts at the wide end. Fix this with PTlens and there are no other major issues. The 17-40 or 17-55 may be better, but don't have such a versatile zoom range.

[rainer_t]

Tamron 17-50/2.8 Dii + Canon EF 70-200/4L (IS)

 

If money isn't a problem, take the IS version of the 70-200, else stay with the non-IS version.

[mars c]

For my 350d/xt ,

 

My ideal 2 lens combo for urban travels are, the efs 10-22 ( very useful ) and the 24-105 L( very sharp lens). For rural areas or nature shoots, Id bring the efs 17-85 IS ( I dont have this , yet) and the ef 70-300 IS.

 

Btw, The 70-300 IS is a very good lens, regardless of price, IMO.

[beaglefur]

My 2 lens combo for canoe trips is a 24-105/4 IS and a 100-400/4-5.6 IS for my 5D. Often I will throw in my 28/1.8 or my 50/1.4 for a fast prime for northern lights as well...

[images_in_light_north_west]

17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4 IS,maybe throw in for low light a 50 f1.4.

[alan_myers]

Hi Bob,

 

I don't think I ever carry only two lenses. However, I am not getting any younger either and can certainly understand why you would want to keep it light and simple.

 

Others have done a good job suggesting and comparing lenses. I think you might also want to consider a 1.4X II Extender (~$300) and/or a set of extension tubes (Kenko set of three, ~$150, Canon 12mm or 25mm, $120 each). These don't take up significant room or add much weight, but can nicely extend the capabilities of the lenses you choose for more reach and/or macro or near-macro close-ups. It sort of depends upon what you like to shoot most of the time.

 

If you do choose to use a 1.4X Extender, that may partially dictate the telephoto you choose. For example, with 1.4X installed a 70-200 might be long enough for most purposes. While it will fit the lens, a 100-400/1.4X combo may not autofocus properly at the long end of things. I've never tried it, so am not sure if the 1.4X can be fitted to or will work well on the various 70-300s.

 

I do strongly recommend I.S. on the telephotos. It can make the difference between carrying a tripod or not. Many monopods double nicely as a walking stick, though.

 

Cheers!

[arie_vandervelden1]

Canon 10-22 (landscape) and Canon 100/2.8 (macro, telephoto)

[lester_wareham]

It does indeed depend on what you want to shoot, how much cash you have as well as weight.

 

Knowing none of this my two fav lenses for nature are :

 

100mm f2.8 Macro USM : All your general macro work, has enough working distance to cover most insects but you don't have to get too far back for flowers compared to with 50, 60 and 180mm options. Relatively light and small, good value for money, doubles as a very sharp short/medium tele.

 

300 mm f4L IS : Very flexible lens as is it is for general wildlife including larger birds or birds from a hide. Useful close focus capability of 0.24X magnification. Add the following to widen usage:

 

EF 1.4X : Makes it very handy for more wildlife including birds.

 

Set of Ext Tubes (I use Canon 12mm and two 25mm) : Adding these gives you a good long reach closeup capability for the larger but difficult to approach insects like dragonfly and damselfly and some of the trickier butterfly like Brimstones.

 

Note the 300mm also works very well with the EF 2X as long as you can cope with manual focus if on a non-pro body.

[robert_thommes]

I'm encouraged by your comments. By the way, the 70-300 lens that I have is the IS USM version. I'm quite pleased with it's performance thus far.

I'm thinking that I could take my question to yet another level, and consider a 2-lens do-it-all combo. Or maybe a 3-lens outfit, with a third being a 50mm f1.8 lens.

One lens not mentioned was the Canon 28-105mm USM. Money is very much an issue with me. So how would you folks feel about that as my 2nd (of 2) nature lens?

I really appreciate all the feedback that this question has generated.

Thank you.

[w_t1]

i use everything from 17mm to 300mm for nature and landscapes. Don't let anyone tell you "X focal length is not a nature lens" . If money is an issue maybe stick with the one lens you have

[robin_sibson1]

Robert, you still haven't told us what format camera body you are using, although you have now told us that you've already answered half of your original question, presumably before asking it, by getting the 70~300IS (again presumably, the non-DO version). Keep it. Assuming that you have a 1.6-factor digital body recent enough to accept EF-S lenses, Bob's suggestion of the 17~85 as your second lens will give you a versatile and reasonably light kit at reasonable cost. The better version of the 28~105 lens (that is, the 3.5~4.5USM) was quite a decent lens for film use - I had one for many years - but its optical limitations are even more apparent when you can pixel-peep than they are if you only make small to medium prints from negatives. Also on 1.6-factor it is only a standard to long zoom, with no coverage at all at the wide end, and for most people that is not very useful.

 

The 50/1.8 as a third lens could certainly be useful, depending on your needs. However, for nature photography you might find it more interesting to look for a s/h 50/2.5 macro - not quite as fast, but optically probably better. It might not be the macro lens you would buy if money was not a significant consideration - the EF-S 60/2.8 and EF 100/2.8USM are for many purposes to be preferred - but the 50/2.5 is in the same league optically, and being able to go to x0.5 on a 1.6-factor body does provide serious close-up capability.

[rainer_t]

-- "... Canon 28-105mm USM"

 

Albeit, this isn't a bad lens, it leaves you without any wideangle.

(Don't forget, that 28mm is about 'normal' for any crop 1.6 camera).

 

BTW ... so far you haven't even mentioned which camera you use ...

some answers above silently assume, that its a digital SLR with a crop 1.6 sensor.

[robert_thommes]

Your assumptions are correct. I shoot with a Canon 300D 1.6X crop factor.

[fourfa]

FF: 17-40 + 70-200/4<p>

1.6: 10-22 + 28-135

<p>

(for my take on nature, which is more landscape than wildlife)

[robert_thommes]

Probably more into animals and wildlife than landscapes. Though a good landscape is hard to beat.

 

Bob