Why do so many people have big telephotos?

Call it what you like, the longer the lens the more pleasing the portrait IMO
Yes, because to get the same framing, you're further away from the subject.
 
It's all too much for my tiny little brain :ROFLMAO: I just know what lens I'd rather use for portraits and it wouldn't be anything wider than a 50mm [35mm equiv]
 
I can't help but notice these.

1 - when someone is starting out, they almost always want a big zoom as much as their "walkabout" zoom. The 2nd lens they would get is a 70-200 or a 70-300.
2 - there are a lot of people here with a lot of big telephoto zooms, 100-400, 200-400, 150-600 etc.

How many people here don't have any lenses longer than 135mm? That's currently my longest lens and I don't even have a tele converter and shoot FF.

Surely it’s very dependant on the subjects/genre you shoot? It also depends on details such as subject size & shooting distance (some wildlife can’t safely be approached-remote cameras can get around this).

Many in wildlife photography think a long lens is the only thing you need. Of course it can help in certain situations but it isn’t to say there aren’t situations where wide angles or mid zooms (70-200) is the right tool to use. The same goes for landscapes, you don’t necessarily only need a wide angle lens, mid zooms are good to capture only part of a landscape. It all depends on the image you are trying to create.

It all about using the right tool for the look you are going for. If there wasn’t a market or use for lenses the manufacturers wouldn’t produce them.
 
" Why do so many people have big telephotos?"

Because of todays Thomas Heaton video from Svalbard ;)
 
WHAT! Of course there's distortion on the wider lens. Lenses with smaller focal lengths distort the face so it looks thinner..... It was one of the exercises we did on my degree course.
Oops.
 
WHAT! Of course there's distortion on the wider lens. Lenses with smaller focal lengths distort the face so it looks thinner, as you get longer it gets more realistic and wider,which is why 50mm on a crop, 85mm on a full frame is generally used as it produces the correct size/shape of the face.

It was one of the exercises we did on my degree course

150542517.eW16bwxS.jpg
Either your degree course taught you wrong or you misunderstood. Focal length does not cause the distortion here, it is distance to the subject. A shorter focal length requires you to get closer to the subject and it is this shorter subject distance that causes the distortion. The same principle applies to wide angled photography.
 
How come if I'm at the same distance, with a 50 and a 14, the 50 still doesn't distort it's just a much tighter image, yet the 14 will make a person look like a fish? :LOL: Doesn't FOV enter into the equation? nobody has mentioned this
 
How come if I'm at the same distance, with a 50 and a 14, the 50 still doesn't distort it's just a much tighter image, yet the 14 will make a person look like a fish? :LOL: Doesn't FOV enter into the equation? nobody has mentioned this
No... Given the same distance from camera to subject, crop the 14mm image to frame it the same as the 50mm the distortion (perspective) will be the same.
 
How come if I'm at the same distance, with a 50 and a 14, the 50 still doesn't distort it's just a much tighter image, yet the 14 will make a person look like a fish? :LOL: Doesn't FOV enter into the equation? nobody has mentioned this
Some lenses have more barrel distortion or pin cushion distortion but this is individual to the lens.

FOV doesn’t enter into the equation in terms of distortion of a subject, but of course it will dictate how large or small the subject is within the frame. ‘Compression’ of the background is also the relationship of camera to subject distance. The closer you are to a subject the less the background compression.
 
I kinda get it, still a bit head melting though. Can't I just continue to imagine that wider lenses can cause more distortion when too close, and longer lenses do compress the background, because it was a lot easier! :D
 
I kinda get it, still a bit head melting though. Can't I just continue to imagine that wider lenses can cause more distortion when too close, and longer lenses do compress the background, because it was a lot easier! :D
Yes, because in the real world that’s how we tend to shoot with these lenses and that’s the effect we get (y) It’s just us pedantic type that like to confuse you :p
 
Why would not all of it be in focus? If you take the photo from, say, 20 feet away and f/8, the 400 mm lens should have sufficient DOF to have the whole subject in focus.
Where does f8 get mentioned?

Also, what about the background? The shots would definitely not look the same. Maybe the heads would look similar, but the shots would not look the same.
 
I can't help but notice these.

1 - when someone is starting out, they almost always want a big zoom as much as their "walkabout" zoom. The 2nd lens they would get is a 70-200 or a 70-300.
2 - there are a lot of people here with a lot of big telephoto zooms, 100-400, 200-400, 150-600 etc.

How many people here don't have any lenses longer than 135mm? That's currently my longest lens and I don't even have a tele converter and shoot FF.

Whilst out and about in the countryside I often spot people (usually blokes and accompanied by women who might be their wives) dangling huge lenses, and these lenses, curiously, are mostly white. My primitive intelligence suggests that they are Canon users? My take on statistics also suggests that only a small proportion of them could be what I'd call good photographers, any more than having an expensive car makes you a good driver. A dedicated form of dick-talk, therefore, and a probable creative dead end.

A very few of them will maybe take great shots of wild creatures (or in other circumstances, sportspeople), which is admirable, but in such a case they'd be unlikely to appear in such a strolling mode, and I feel no envy at all on seeing anyone sporting large or expensive-looking gear - apart from certain twinges when I see someone with a film Leica or Hasselblad. But that's a consumerist envy of a certain kind, and little to do with the actual pictures taken / made.

My longest lens is 85mm. But I might equally go out on a photo hunt with just a 50mm, arguably the most boring focal length imaginable? Do people make pictures of things, or do they make pictures of light? I often wonder. For pictures of light, maybe anything will do?
 
Where does f8 get mentioned?

Also, what about the background? The shots would definitely not look the same. Maybe the heads would look similar, but the shots would not look the same.
Aperture was not mentioned at all but you do have to have a aperture! I picked f/8 out of the air for the sake of choosing an aperture - f/8 will give the required DOF but other apertures might or might not.

I am not going to explain again about the distance between camera and subject being the issue, not focal length. Several people have explained and another explanations will not help.
 
Last edited:
Whilst out and about in the countryside I often spot people (usually blokes and accompanied by women who might be their wives) dangling huge lenses, and these lenses, curiously, are mostly white. My primitive intelligence suggests that they are Canon users? My take on statistics also suggests that only a small proportion of them could be what I'd call good photographers, any more than having an expensive car makes you a good driver. A dedicated form of dick-talk, therefore, and a probable creative dead end.
You might spot me and Bestbeloved - although my long lens is black. Bestbeloved is the birder and has expensive binoculars which cost much the same as my long lens. She finds the birds and I photograph them. I like to think I am a competent photographer.
 
It's all about the results - are they a worthwhile statement of seeing, or not?
 
Aperture was not mentioned at all but you do have to have a aperture! I picked f/8 out of the air for the sake of choosing an aperture - f/8 will give the required DOF but other apertures might or might not.

I am not going to explain again about the distance between camera and subject being the issue, not focal length. Several people have explained and another explanations will not help.

I’m not saying that the distance between the camera and subject isn’t the issue. I’m saying a cropped wide angle shot will look different from a telephoto shot because on the telephoto not everything will be in focus.
 
Whilst out and about in the countryside I often spot people (usually blokes and accompanied by women who might be their wives) dangling huge lenses.
My take on statistics also suggests that only a small proportion of them could be what I'd call good photographers, any more than having an expensive car makes you a good driver.
A dedicated form of dick-talk, therefore, and a probable creative dead end.
Do people make pictures of things, or do they make pictures of light? I often wonder. For pictures of light, maybe anything will do?

Nothing judgemental or condescending in that then. Why do people have to judge others from appearance?
People buy and use the equipment they choose to for their own reasons and the standard of their photography (unless they are aspiring pro’s) is of no concern to anyone but themselves. Statements like “Do they make pictures of things, or do they make pictures of light?” Say much more about the judge than the judged.
 
Edited...

Done to death... I think it’s sorted now.
 
Last edited:
So I guess in conclusion we all need a 50gigapixel sensor camera with an incredibly sharp 10mm lens. The rest can be done in post :D
 
That, or just stop stressing over what anyone else is using and enjoy the gear you got [between stages of G.A.S at least!]
 
Not completely true. Try this experiment. Shoot a portrait at 400mm. Change to a 14mm lens and reshooot without either you or your subject moving. Crop, enlarge, compare. What do you see?
But in reality that's not what you do. Why would anyone in reality shoot from the same distance when getting a 400 to produce the correct framing than with a 14mm, you usually shoot to maximise the available sensor area.
 
When I started photography, I think my first lens purchase was the 55-250, realised it wasn't long enough for Airshows, Wildlife, Moon etc. so bought the most bang for buck telephoto I could - Siggy 150-600 C. Show me a decent frame filling shot of the Moon and it's detail at 250mm and I'll show you one at 600mm.
 
The perspective question is well explained in the video posted earlier - this one https://fstoppers.com/architecture/how-lens-compression-and-perspective-distortion-work-251737

Sorry for being picky, but use of the word 'distortion' in this context is very misleading and actually wrong. For a few reasons:
- There is no such thing as perspective distortion. Perspective is what it is - the relative size of objects viewed from different distances. It is never distorted, it just changes.
- I prefer terms like 'exaggerated perspective' to describe images taken with wide-angles used close, and 'flattened or compressed perspective' for distant subjects taken with a long lens...
...because strictly speaking 'distortion' is a technical term for a specific lens aberration where straight lines are rendered as curved, ie barrel distortion (typically wide-angles) and pincushion distortion (typically telephotos). Neither has anything to do with perspective.

Apologies :D
 
Last edited:
The perspective question is well explained in the video posted earlier - this one https://fstoppers.com/architecture/how-lens-compression-and-perspective-distortion-work-251737

Sorry for being picky, but use of the word 'distortion' in this context is very misleading and actually wrong. For a few reasons:
- There is no such thing as perspective distortion. Perspective is what it is - the relative size of objects viewed from different distances. It is never distorted, it just changes.
- I prefer terms like 'exaggerated perspective' to describe images taken with wide-angles used close, and 'flattened or compressed perspective' for distant subjects taken with a long lens...
...because distortion is a technical term for a specific lens aberration where straight lines are rendered as curved, ie barrel distortion (typically wide-angles) and pincushion distortion (typically telephotos). Neither has anything to do with perspective.

Apologies :D
would perceived perspective be better? it is after all the perceived separation between subject and background and not actual (as that doesn't change)
 
would perceived perspective be better? it is after all the perceived separation between subject and background and not actual (as that doesn't change)

Yes if you like (y) Just avoid use of the word distortion if you want to be clear and unambiguous about perspective, because distortion is technically something quite different.
 
But in reality that's not what you do. Why would anyone in reality shoot from the same distance when getting a 400 to produce the correct framing than with a 14mm, you usually shoot to maximise the available sensor area.

The point wasn't that it was a recommended way of shooting, just a fact of perspective vs focal length. Nobody would actively choose to shoot with a 14mm then crop from the same distance that they'd shoot with a 400mm and fill the frame.
 
Unless they actively chose to not have any longer lenses in their arsenal! It's all about having the right kit for a "job", whether that's a short tele for portraits, a macro for close ups or a longer tele for some wildlife.
 
Whilst out and about in the countryside I often spot people (usually blokes and accompanied by women who might be their wives) dangling huge lenses, and these lenses, curiously, are mostly white. My primitive intelligence suggests that they are Canon users? My take on statistics also suggests that only a small proportion of them could be what I'd call good photographers, any more than having an expensive car makes you a good driver. A dedicated form of dick-talk, therefore, and a probable creative dead end.

A very few of them will maybe take great shots of wild creatures (or in other circumstances, sportspeople), which is admirable, but in such a case they'd be unlikely to appear in such a strolling mode, and I feel no envy at all on seeing anyone sporting large or expensive-looking gear - apart from certain twinges when I see someone with a film Leica or Hasselblad. But that's a consumerist envy of a certain kind, and little to do with the actual pictures taken / made.

My longest lens is 85mm. But I might equally go out on a photo hunt with just a 50mm, arguably the most boring focal length imaginable? Do people make pictures of things, or do they make pictures of light? I often wonder. For pictures of light, maybe anything will do?
What a pompous a**e!
 
The OP hasn't bothered with this thread since page 1, and nobody is really adding anything to it, it was a question that really only required a very simple straight up answer: 'Because why not?'
 
The OP hasn't bothered with this thread since page 1, and nobody is really adding anything to it, it was a question that really only required a very simple straight up answer: 'Because why not?'

I've been reading it, beyond the ill informed regarding the distortion and "because that's what you shoot", it wasn't really the answers I was looking for.

Perhaps the opening post worded it wrong, I was and it is just an observation that lots of beginners seems to gravitate towards LONG focal lenses. Statistically speaking, you would think the spread would be much wider, like people would go for am ultra wide angle just as much but it seems, as least looking at the pages here, that is a lot less.

I am just curious why people gravitate towards these big lenses, not just "because it suits what I shoot". I would expect there would be an equal spread of lenses ownership. But posts such as "because that's what I like to shoot" doesn't really answer the question and I am not sure how to get into the psyche of someone just starting out. Do they get these lenses because that's what they should get, or because its cheap, or because it's what they need?

How many people when they started out just buy body only then get a prime?

Either way, I was just curious.

(Does that answer your question?)
 
I've been reading it, beyond the ill informed regarding the distortion and "because that's what you shoot", it wasn't really the answers I was looking for.

Perhaps the opening post worded it wrong, I was and it is just an observation that lots of beginners seems to gravitate towards LONG focal lenses. Statistically speaking, you would think the spread would be much wider, like people would go for am ultra wide angle just as much but it seems, as least looking at the pages here, that is a lot less.

I am just curious why people gravitate towards these big lenses, not just "because it suits what I shoot". I would expect there would be an equal spread of lenses ownership. But posts such as "because that's what I like to shoot" doesn't really answer the question and I am not sure how to get into the psyche of someone just starting out. Do they get these lenses because that's what they should get, or because its cheap, or because it's what they need?

How many people when they started out just buy body only then get a prime?

Either way, I was just curious.

(Does that answer your question?)
It's probably a case of beginners not knowing what they will get in to and advice from camera shops. I know when I was starting out and asking for advice the common advice from shops was "most people start out with a short zoom and a telephoto zoom to cover all bases". So what did I buy when starting out? The Sony 16-50mm f2.8 and the Sony 55-300mm. Every time I go into a camera shop and listen to advice given to beginners wanting their first camera you hear the same and most folk will walk away with an 18-55mm and 70-300mm or similar. A lot of beginners see primes as specialised and too restrictive, and tbh probably not fully understanding what they are and their benefits. It's only when people start taking it up as a serious hobby that they start to look seriously into the different lenses and what possibly suits them better. That's my experience anyway.
 
I've been reading it, beyond the ill informed regarding the distortion and "because that's what you shoot", it wasn't really the answers I was looking for.

Perhaps the opening post worded it wrong, I was and it is just an observation that lots of beginners seems to gravitate towards LONG focal lenses. Statistically speaking, you would think the spread would be much wider, like people would go for am ultra wide angle just as much but it seems, as least looking at the pages here, that is a lot less.

I am just curious why people gravitate towards these big lenses, not just "because it suits what I shoot". I would expect there would be an equal spread of lenses ownership. But posts such as "because that's what I like to shoot" doesn't really answer the question and I am not sure how to get into the psyche of someone just starting out. Do they get these lenses because that's what they should get, or because its cheap, or because it's what they need?

How many people when they started out just buy body only then get a prime?

Either way, I was just curious.

(Does that answer your question?)

Maybe start a poll asking which lens people bought straight after their kit lens camera purchase, I'm guessing people who shoot just landscapes went for a wide angle lens of some sort, and those who shoot wildlife only went for a longer focal length lens.
 
When I got my first dslr, a Nikon D80, I got an 18-70mm and and 80-200/2.8. As I got further into photography I bought an 85/1.4. It's a beautiful lens but, for me, a very specialized lens that sees little use. I don't think I'll ever sell it though. I've flirted with 50 primes and at one point purchased a 35/2. I rarely ever use the 35 and probably should think about shuffling it on. Last year I purchased a 150-600, primarily for shooting soccer (football for the rest of the world) games for the schools I shoot for as the 80-200 was just too short. Another use was for wildlife. My most used lenses are my 24-70, 80-200, 24-120 and 150-600 in that order.

I'd agree with Toby, shops are in the business of making money and if a person comes in wanting to get a camera and doesn't know what they want to shoot it makes sense to sell them a range as long as the customer is willing to part with the cash. I was, and I did. Ten years on I'm glad I got the 80-200 as it's been a stellar lens/purchase.
 
For me it was a desire to shoot zoo animals across their enclosures and to shoot relatives unobtrusively at family events (will resist the urge to say it’s one and the same)....a 55-200mm does the job nicely most of the time.
 
How many people when they started out just buy body only then get a prime?

Either way, I was just curious.

Ok so it was a bloody long time ago, but my first film camera came with a 50mm prime and a 2x teleconverter. The next lens I bought was a 135mm which is still my favourite FL. I later bought a 28mm which I figured was a bit ‘specialist’.

I could start from the opposite viewpoint.

Most people buy a ‘walkabout’ zoom with their camera which usually starts at about 24mm equivalent, why do they think they need such a wide lens straight away. ;)

I probably only go wider than 35mm for a handful of occasions a year. But I do use my 70-200 fairly regularly :)
 
Back
Top