Getting "the right lens" is an impossible task. There's no such thing! If you're a serious photographer, you'll probably wind up with at least three or four lenses, each perfectly suited for its own task. The so called "super zooms" are not what the manufacturers promise. Sure, they make great snapshots and they are very handy on a short holiday, but even though the quality has improved over the last years, they just cannot deliver the same quality as a prime lens that costs six times as much. The technology is just not there yet! So if you go shopping, don't go for a 28-300mm zoomlens, you will be disappointed! During my short business trip to Suriname, I had no choice. I had to carry my normal luggage plus a heavy laptop computer plus books and software and so on. So I took all my photographs with only one lens: a Nikon 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6. They're not bad, but I know for a fact that they would have been absolutely stunning with some of the other lenses I own. Normal zoomlenses of the major brands are a whole different story. I'm not talking about a cheap 70-210mm, I'm talking about a nearly 2,000 Euro 17-35mm or 70-200mm. These lenses don't come cheap, but you get what you paid for ... supreme quality! If you buy a professional camera for let's say 5,500 Euro and a cheapo zoomlens for 500 Euro you have no money left to eat for three whole months and the images will be very reasonable. If you buy a (semi) professional camera for 2,000 Euro and a top notch 70-200mm lens for 2,000 Euro as well, you save a third of your money (or you can buy a second lens ...) and your pictures can be absolutely stunning! Just my two cents worth, it's up to you.

So what lenses would you need for the different kinds of nature photography? A lot depends on the kind of image you want to make. If you like landscapes you can start with a wideangle lens. The wider the lens, the more you get in the frame. Set the aperture at f/22 and everything will be sharp from front to back. But there is also a thing called perspective. With wideangle lenses this effect causes objects in the background to appear much further away from objects in the foreground than with a telephoto lens. So if you have a nice scenery with beautiful mountains in the background, the mountains won't look the same on the image as you are seeing them with your own eyes. They will appear very small and very far away. If those flowers in the foreground are the main subject for you, that's perfectly alright. But if the mountains are what you had in mind, it will be better to use a telephoto lens. With a 200mm lens for instance the mountains will stand out and appear much closer to you. In that case you might consider using a larger aperture of f/4 or so to minimize depth of field, focus on the mountains and deliberately blur the foreground.

For macro photography up to live size there are special macro lenses. These are lenses with special characteristics and are made for extreme sharpness at close distance. If you want more than a reproduction ratio of 1:1, you'll need extra equipment like extension rings or a bellows focusing attachment.

On to the animals ... Would you believe that taking a picture of a giraffe in the zoo is somewhat different than taking a picture of a bird the size of a pack of cigarettes in the wild? Good, because it is! In the zoo you can get quite close to the animals and, especially with the larger ones, it can even be a problem to get the whole animal in the frame! That little bird in the wild will be sitting on that branch for about three whole seconds before it disappears, so you don't even have time to get so close as to fill the frame with it! All I want to say is this: In the zoo I'm having a ball using my Nikon AF-S VR 70-200mm f/2.8 zoomlens and the same goes for landscapes. But in the wild seeking images of animals I have yet to find use for it. In those circumstances you need the biggest lens you can possibly get.

And that is where the problems begin! Increase the focal length of a lens and two things will happen: the weight and size of the lens will increase and so will the price. Increase the maximum aperture of a lens (e.g. f/2.8 instead of f/5.6) and the same two things will happen ... only more dramatically! If you want you can end up with a 600mm f/4 lens costing the same as a small car! These are beautifully crafted pieces of equipment, but while the price could be an obvious drawback, do not underestimate the weight. Just imagine having to walk several miles through the fields with your camera, a 600mm f/4, one or two other lenses and a big, sturdy tripod. Oh and don't forget your lunch and coffee! We are talking about 15 kilograms of equipment here, what if it's 35 degrees Celcius? Is there no alternative? I think there is! It's not really an alternative though, it's more like a compromise. You could buy a very decent 400mm f/5.6 lens. It is much lighter and much more compact and it won't cost you an arm and a leg. And believe me if I say you will be able to make stunning pictures with a lens like that! That doesn't mean that an f/5.6 is just as good as an f/2.8, it isn't. A larger aperture has a few important advantages, among other things you will have a brighter viewfinder, focussing will be faster, you will be able to use a 1.4 (looses 1 f-stop) or a 2.0 (looses 2 f-stops) teleconverter and use faster shutterspeeds.

So what if you're using a digital SLR, does that change anything? Yes it does! In fact, you just might be very lucky indeed. The image sensor on a digital SLR can be significantly smaller than the normal 35mm negative. So when the lens is projecting the 35mm image onto the film plane, in this case the image sensor, cropping occurs and the "field of view" is changing. To calculate what the effect is on the field of view, you use a Focal Length Multiplier. And that really depends on the camera you are using. My Nikon D200 for instance uses a Focal Length Multiplier of 1.5x which means that a 400mm lens would produce the equivalent field of view of a 600mm lens!

To sum it all up: just buy the biggest lens with the largest maximum aperture you can afford to pay for and carry with you.

One last thing: You might be asking yourself the question "do I have to use a UV filter to protect the front lens?". The answer is no you don't, but if you trip over a tree root and scratch that front lens, don't go blame it on me! If you have a good hood with the lens, I mean one that doesn't fall off all the time, you could consider that as ample protection. I have a UV filter from B&W on every lens just to be on the safe side, because I often use lenses without a hood. It's like an insurance ... if you have one nothing will happen, if you don't ... well, have you ever heard of Murphy's law? Get a UV filter and get a quality one, your lens deserves one and so does your wallet. A good filter will set you back about 50 Euro, which is peanuts compared to what you paid for that lens! And while you're at it, get one of those microfibre cloths to clean your lenses and filters safely when necessary.

By now it should be very clear that choosing a lens is a formidable task. And there are more things you could consider. How about Image Stabilization (IS) or Vibration Reduction (VR)? Both systems try to compensate for camera movements and they are doing a great job! The least it will do for you is to increase the number of "keepers". And what about a rotating tripod collar? Normally, the camera is mounted to the tripod, so the lens will stick out quite a bit. A rotating tripod collar will make it possible to mount the lens to the tripod and switch easily from horizontal to vertical mode and back. More importantly it will give camera and lens a better balance on the tripod, reducing the chance of accidental movements.

There's a lot more information about lenses on the internet. I would definitely recommend going to some of the links I have provided for you on the Links-page. The more you understand about the technique behind the lens, the more you will be able to deal with difficult situations in the field. Knowledge helps!

Happy hunting!