lens for trees
I am thinking about doing a series of photos of old trees here in the southwest and want to spend time taking their portraits using just one lens, sort of wandering about like. I was wondering just what lens anyone might suggest. I am tempted to do this with a kit 18-55 but am not sure that would be sufficiant. Perhaps the 70-200 would be a better choice? Or a wide lens? I want the tree to be the center of attention. Any thoughts?
thank you,
mariakruse
I think it depends on how you want to show the trees. I can have a wide angle shot of a tree and still have it the center of attention. I can also use a 500mm to have a tree the center of attention in a photograph, so can I with a macro lens. What do you mean by center of attention? To be center of attention, I don't think it necessarily means the tree has to be situated right in the center of the photograph if that's what you're thinking. Even portraits of human being can be something like that for a driver license or any other identity card; or it could be a portrait that includes the surroundings of the person, that could tell us more about the person or, in your case, the tree or one particular trees. Bottomline, imo, to determine what focal length is best, I'd say you should consider what you want to show and then how to want to show trees.Originally Posted by mariakruse
Thank you, you are right. I don't mean I want the tree in the center, I just want to walk around in the desert and get some portraits of the old trees that stand there. I suppose it was a foolish question because any lens would do, they would all just give me a different look. I know what kind of shots I want, I just can't seem to clearly describe it. I want to give a sense of the tree, it's presence and age. I shall try some different lenses and see what I get. Thank you,
mariakruse
Maria,
You need to define the trees first. For example, to photograph Pine Tree Arch in Arches National Park, one generally needs a wide angle lens (I remember 90 mm on 4x5). If you had chosen 70-200 it would be tough (unless you are OK with mosaics to get wider angle). I would choose my 28-135 on a full frame body, or 24-105 for the range of trees I am remembering. But why limit to just one lens?
Roger
lens for trees
Thanks Roger, you're right I was thinking of mostly old, maybe bare dead trees with interesting bark and limb patterns. At least for now. It would be better to carry a couple of lenses at least I suppose. I was just wanting to wander about without too much baggage. I could use my little Pani P/S but I want to be able to enlarge these to maybe 18x20 or so. For now I would be doing one tree per shot. I need to experiment more. Thanks again,
mariakruse
I have the idea that if I'm out hiking, to carry as much as I can, and then some. That way I get more exercise:)
When hiking around the SW US, I'll usually carry 28-135, 70-200, and 300 f/4 (or 300 f/2.8) plus TCs. If I need wider, I do a mosaic. (Sometimes add 20mm lens to the list.)
Roger
That sounds like a good idea Roger. I have a 1.4TC a 70-200mm a 70-300mm and a 8mm fisheye that is a lot of fun. Played last night with trying to catch the lightning from a huge thunderstorm on the other side of the mountains with the 18-55mm kit lens and learned about making sure my tripod was stable. I didn't realize that even in no wind 30 sec exposures pick up every vibration from the nearby highway. Tonight I will attatch a heavy weight to the center hook and see if that helps. Thank you for your help.
mariakruse
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote