Forest photography - recommended lens?

deductress

deductress

Messages
136
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello,

Sorry asking so many questions right now! But this is the best resource I've found when it comes to looking for photography advice~

Anyway, i'm wanting to specialise in forest photography, what lens would be best suited to this? I was looking at wide-angles, specifically a Tokina AT-X 116 PRO DX AF 11-16mm F2.8, as that was previously recommended to me for general landscape images, but would it also be of use for forest imagery? Or can people recommend me other lenses more suited to the subject?

Thanks again for any help people can give, I super appreciate it.

(Also cost doesn't matter too much, I would prefer second-hand, but I'm fairly okay for money at the moment so it's not a massive factor - quality is more important to me.)

EDIT: Sorry, stupid of me - forgot to mention, i own a Nikon D3200.
 
Last edited:
I think the wider the better to create giant trees as well as fitting loads in and creating the atmosphere you're after... but also, if you could get a longer focal length then that may be useful.

In terms of ultra wide, instead of the 11-16 I'd go sigma 8-16.

Otherwise I'd get a sigma 10-20mm or 12-24mm for the FL but of course, many would have the 11-16 as their first choice for the f2.8
 
You don't say what camera you have, if its a Canon and you have the cash either a 17mm or a 24mm TS-E.
 
What exactly is "forest photography?" For me that conjures up all sorts of images, and not all would be suited to an UWA.
Off hand I would say the 14-24 f/2.8 for FF use or 11-16 APS. IME the Sigmas are good, but not quite as good as the OEM/Tokina (fast/sharp/contrast)...They are a bit wider though.

The TS-E (PC) lenses are expensive specialty tools, but some of the images I envision for "forestry photography" are exactly what they specialize in doing well. But I still probably wouldn't buy one.
 
sk66 said:
What exactly is "forest photography?" For me that conjures up all sorts of images, and not all would be suited to an UWA.
Off hand I would say the 14-24 f/2.8 for FF use or 11-16 APS. IME the Sigmas are good, but not quite as good as the OEM/Tokina (fast/sharp/contrast)...They are a bit wider though.

The TS-E (PC) lenses are expensive specialty tools, but some of the images I envision for "forestry photography" are exactly what they specialize in doing well. But I still probably wouldn't buy one.
Click to expand...


Hermitage.jpg


That would be an example of forest photography for me, landscape, but adaptive to the differing lighting and colours of the forest, if that makes sense?

Would you say the Tokina i mentioned above would be any use? Or do you think i could find better?

Thank you~
 
Phil Young said:
I think the wider the better to create giant trees as well as fitting loads in and creating the atmosphere you're after... but also, if you could get a longer focal length then that may be useful.

In terms of ultra wide, instead of the 11-16 I'd go sigma 8-16.

Otherwise I'd get a sigma 10-20mm or 12-24mm for the FL but of course, many would have the 11-16 as their first choice for the f2.8
Click to expand...


As i'm just a beginner, do you think the 11-16 would be best suited for me? Or one of the others?

Thank you~
 
Well, not all photography taken in woodlands is wide angle, there is plenty of opportunity for detail work as well, so why restrict yourself by using an ultra wide angle?
Personally I would have thought 12-24 is wide enough
 
deductress said:
Would you say the Tokina i mentioned above would be any use? Or do you think i could find better?
Click to expand...

"Better" is what's better-for-you and I can't really make that determination. IMHO, for what you want the correct focal length for composition and critical sharpness need to be weighed against cost. The 11-16 is a good choice on a crop sensor as it's ~ 16-24mm effective. Assuming you have another sharp lens that is not UWA I think it's a good choice. Another to possibly consider is the Nikon 10-24 if you don't mind spending more and committing to a DX only lens (pretty big negatives IMO).

IMO, max aperture is not a primary concern for you as you will generally want to be using sharper apertures or hyperfocal settings... A tripod is a bigger concern.
 
I'm not all clued up on landscape/trees etc, But IMO I think a fish eye lens would be pretty cool if used correctly
 
Okay so 12-24mm seems to be the general choice, can anyone recommend a preference in brand? Like would I be best getting a Sigma, or would a Nikon suffice?

Thanks so much for all the advice/help/suggestions guys, I really appreciate this. As a beginner it's really nice to be welcomed into this "community" (as it were) and have experienced photographers be so willing to advise me. =]
 
deductress said:
Okay so 12-24mm seems to be the general choice, can anyone recommend a preference in brand? Like would I be best getting a Sigma, or would a Nikon suffice?
Click to expand...

Lol think you have that the wrong way round ;)

I gave the tokina version. The *only* "problem" is that it vignettes a bit heavy wide open. I don't mind personally because I tend to like a bit of vignette but as an optic it's perhaps a slight fault. Not one I'd pay an extra £150 for the used Nikon version though.
 
Phil Young said:
Lol think you have that the wrong way round ;)

I gave the tokina version. The *only* "problem" is that it vignettes a bit heavy wide open. I don't mind personally because I tend to like a bit of vignette but as an optic it's perhaps a slight fault. Not one I'd pay an extra £150 for the used Nikon version though.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I don't understand - "Not one I'd pay an extra £150 for the used Nikon version though", i'm probably not reading you right. Do you mean the Nikon version would be best, or worse? Sorry, bit slow.

And I don't mind vignette either, but I've never really seen it in use on a landscape image, I don't know how well it would work...

Thank you.
 
I'd suggest the TS-E tilt shift lenses, or PC if you're a Nikonist.

Forests are tall, and tall straight lines are where tilt shift lenses excel. You'll have the option of correcting the converging verticals, or using it to your advantage to bring a sense of scale.

Nothing is going to be moving quickly, so the extra time it takes to use a manual focus lens isn't an issue, and you'll be able to use tilt for creative effects, either really big DoF or very shallow.
 
deductress said:
Sorry, but I don't understand - "Not one I'd pay an extra £150 for the used Nikon version though", i'm probably not reading you right. Do you mean the Nikon version would be best, or worse? Sorry, bit slow.

And I don't mind vignette either, but I've never really seen it in use on a landscape image, I don't know how well it would work...

Thank you.
Click to expand...

I'm saying, you can pay extra for the Nikon and won't get as harsh vignetting but it's not a flaw so much that I'd pay extra for less vignette.

Also, remember that most landscapes are shot stopped down, at f5.6 it's fine and f8 is superb.

There are times when you use it at f4 but I don't think landscapes are a normality for that.
 
Steve-T said:
Well, not all photography taken in woodlands is wide angle, there is plenty of opportunity for detail work as well, so why restrict yourself by using an ultra wide angle?
Personally I would have thought 12-24 is wide enough
Click to expand...

I just came back from my local forest down the road and i used a 70-200 on my 5d3 :)
 
jerry12953 said:
Just a thought -

You may feel that you want to specialise in forest photography now but in a year's time, say, you might want to branch out (:lol:) into other landscapes?

In which case think a little bit more long term about the kit you buy.....
Click to expand...



Yes very good point. Would you recommend a general wide-angle lens then? One that would be suitable for various landscapes?

Thanks~
 
markmullen said:
I'd suggest the TS-E tilt shift lenses, or PC if you're a Nikonist.

Forests are tall, and tall straight lines are where tilt shift lenses excel. You'll have the option of correcting the converging verticals, or using it to your advantage to bring a sense of scale.

Nothing is going to be moving quickly, so the extra time it takes to use a manual focus lens isn't an issue, and you'll be able to use tilt for creative effects, either really big DoF or very shallow.
Click to expand...


Thank you, i'll look into a PC. =]
 
Phil Young said:
I'm saying, you can pay extra for the Nikon and won't get as harsh vignetting but it's not a flaw so much that I'd pay extra for less vignette.

Also, remember that most landscapes are shot stopped down, at f5.6 it's fine and f8 is superb.

There are times when you use it at f4 but I don't think landscapes are a normality for that.
Click to expand...

Alright cool, thank you for your advice. =]
 
danbroad said:
You don't need a new lens. Instead, look at new ways of approaching the subject. In context, this means look at the light. In practice, that means an early start!
Click to expand...

I would prefer to avoid buying a lens specifically for forestry, however the only lenses I have at current are a macro and a kit, and neither are very suitable for landscape... Maybe, as someone mentioned earlier, I should just get a general landscape lens?
 
deductress said:
I would prefer to avoid buying a lens specifically for forestry, however the only lenses I have at current are a macro and a kit, and neither are very suitable for landscape... Maybe, as someone mentioned earlier, I should just get a general landscape lens?
Click to expand...

The kit lens is fine for landscape. who said it wasnt?
 
jonneymendoza said:
The kit lens is fine for landscape. who said it wasnt?
Click to expand...

Me, I personally do not like it for landscape images. It's not too bad for when I take architecture, but I just don't like it for landscape, not enough detail for me. My macro, on the other hand, is my baby. XD
 
deductress said:
Me, I personally do not like it for landscape images. It's not too bad for when I take architecture, but I just don't like it for landscape, not enough detail for me. My macro, on the other hand, is my baby. XD
Click to expand...

Not enough detail?
Usually a wider lens will give less detail because everything is smaller. It might be better to stitch shots taken with a longer lens. The PC-E is great for this. If you use the shift to get 3 images it will be = to ~16mm I believe (only on the one axis). Or you could use your macro with pano techniques/head.

If you mean DOF then the PC-E can also do that quite well. But hyperfocal settings can also do quite well here (using wide angle lenses).

If you mean it's just not sharp enough at the apertures required, then ok.
 
Last edited:
If you want to go forestry as your main style, then don't forget a good tele lens on top. They're great for picking out selective trees or sections of woodland, and giving that tighter compression, and shallower DOF.

I took this only other day with a 300mm:


300mm tester by Cagey75, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top