Why do so many people have big telephotos?

Raymond Lin

Raymond Lin

I am Groot
Messages
10,033
Name
Raymond
Edit My Images
No
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.
 
Why do people want big zooms?

I assume because they want to photograph stuff that's a long way away? :D For example there's little point using a 35mm for birds in flight and getting close enough to use shorter lengths may not be possible or sometimes not even a good idea :D Plus there are people who like the "compressed" perspective standing further away gives, you just can't get that with shorter length and foot zooming.

Loooong time back when I first went digital I had a 28-300mm and although it was a poor lens by todays standards it was good enough for day out and holiday use. These days I have a TZ100 which goes to an equivalent of something like 250mm and I also have a 45-150mm for MFT giving an equivalent of 300mm. 35 to 50mm or there abouts is my most used sort of focal length but I can definitely see the appeal of longer lenses.

For FF my longest lens is 210mm but I don't use it from one year to the next. Tried to sell it and got no interest.
 
Normally when I’m out and about with family etc, the longest I have with me is 85mm, however as a coupleof my main passions are wildlife and motorsport I also have a 100-400.

When starting out I thought I must have fast zooms owning both 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8 lenses and after deciding that I rarely used them wide open I sold them in favour of smaller primes. My kit now consists of 16-35 f4, 35mm f1.4 Art, 55 f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and 100-400. With the exception of the 35mm all Sony FE for a relatively compact setup
 
Raymond Lin said:
I can't help but notice these.
Click to expand...

One of the first lenses I bought on here (about 9 years ago) was the Canon 100-400mm, I think the attraction was it's a good range for lots of interesting subjects, I never expected to use it on a regular basis (and surprise surprise, didn't) but I can't say no to a bargain.

The longest lenses I have now is a Canon 70-300mm, I won't use it much but it's nice to know I have the range should I ever want it and it's a cheap lens, after that it's a 90mm macro.
 
Cagey75 said:
I wonder the same about UWA - I have nothing wider than a 25mm, and that's on M4/3
Click to expand...

Not everyone favours a UWA lens but for me it's my go to lens for landscapes. Property photographers also favour them when taking internal photos.
 
I agree I don't understand "Big Zooms" either. A small/medium zoom (Canon 100-400 etc) is nice and flexible + not too heavy. I prefer long primes - better AF/IQ etc etc.

Given that the vast majority of my photography is at 800mm (without extenders) I struggle with short lenses!:(
 
It is not a hard subject.

Any sort of wildlife really needs a longer lens.

Plenty of landscapes require a long lens, sometimes 400mm or more.

Portraits look really flattering at 200mm or so.

Any sort of journalism and action shots benefit from telephoto lens.

Shall I continue?
 
Last time I was out trying to photograph the International Space Station, I had a 600mm f/4 and a 2x Extender on a Canon APS-C camera; 1200mm actual focal length and 1920mm full-frame equivalent. Don't know why I bothered really. Surely I could have done it with a 135mm lens?
 
Playing the Devil's advocates

LongLensPhotography said:
It is not a hard subject.

Any sort of wildlife really needs a longer lens.
Click to expand...

Any?

You can shoot wild life at any focal length. The only criteria is how much you value your life vs the animal :p

Insects you shoot with a macro.

That selfie with that monkey was like a 24mm !

LongLensPhotography said:
Plenty of landscapes require a long lens, sometimes 400mm or more.
Click to expand...

Walk closer ?

Whilst you can shoot landscape with a telephoto, I would gather most landscape photographers would say the opposite is true.

LongLensPhotography said:
I

Portraits look really flattering at 200mm or so.
Click to expand...

Not true, it's not the lens, it's the distance to the subject. You can shoot portraits at 14mm, just stand further back, for a different kind of portraiture, as opposed to just the headshot.

LongLensPhotography said:
Any sort of journalism and action shots benefit from telephoto lens.
Click to expand...

Any??? That's not true at all.

You know that photo of that girl in naked Vietnam war with the burns running? Pretty certain that isn't from a telephoto but like a 50mm. Isn't that the epitome of a journalism and action photograph?
 
Last edited:
i guess people want to be able to record details, in a really lazy way- like, someone shows me their holiday snaps and i'm like yeah that's a nice church spire, and a a nice shot of a market from 200 yards away- I'm all about being close, what it's like to be in that market trading goods, not what it looks like from across the street
 
I have a big zoom to compensate for my small gentleman’s parts. :)



Joking aside, I have a 150-500mm which I bought for the rare occasion when I need more reach. A good example was for when I went to shoot planes at the Mach loop last week, although I left it in the car!
 
Last edited:
hashcake said:
Not everyone favours a UWA lens but for me it's my go to lens for landscapes. Property photographers also favour them when taking internal photos.
Click to expand...


I am actually considering something wide-ish, I do like to experiment and switch things up now and then. I've never shot anything wider than 24mm FF and even then I tended to use the 24-70 zooms at the longer end mostly. I wouldn't make good use of anything wider tbh.

Raymond Lin said:
Playing the Devil's advocates



Any?

You can shoot wild life at any focal length. The only criteria is how much you value your life vs the animal :p

Insects you shoot with a macro.

That selfie with that monkey was like a 24mm !



Walk closer ?

Whilst you can shoot landscape with a telephoto, I would gather most landscape photographers would say the opposite is true.



Not true, it's not the lens, it's the distance to the subject. You can shoot portraits at 14mm, just stand further back, for a different kind of portraiture, as opposed to just the headshot.



Any??? That's not true at all.

You know that photo of that girl in naked Vietnam war with the burns running? Pretty certain that isn't from a telephoto but like a 50mm. Isn't that the epitome of a journalism and action photograph?
Click to expand...


Try shooting BIF or even high perched birds with a 35mm, all the cropping in the world won't save you. A lot of people buy tele lenses just for this purpose, even if it's just shooting birds in their garden. Try get close, they fly away. On the portrait front, you do get a very different look using a tele over a wide lens, completely different images. The compression a tele lens offers can be very nice, you can blur the background right out at F8 with a 300mm, you're not getting any of that with a 14mm unless you really want to distort your subject's face. And with landscape, it isn't always possible to "walk closer" - what if it's an Island off the coast or old ruins midway up the side of a mountain that is now unsafe to climb? Sports, detailed shots of the moon, Ariel photography for more detail ... and so on. I can think of more uses for a tele than I can for a wide angle

domart said:
i guess people want to be able to record details, in a really lazy way- like, someone shows me their holiday snaps and i'm like yeah that's a nice church spire, and a a nice shot of a market from 200 yards away- I'm all about being close, what it's like to be in that market trading goods, not what it looks like from across the street
Click to expand...

You're talking as if telephoto owners = tourist and only ever use the one lens, I'm sure they'll have something wide to get that obligatory shot of the man chopping cutlets in the market place too or the highly original sweep shot of a million different kinds of fruit at a stall, none of which they will buy :LOL:
 
Raymond Lin said:
Playing the Devil's advocates



Any?

You can shoot wild life at any focal length. The only criteria is how much you value your life vs the animal :p

Insects you shoot with a macro.

That selfie with that monkey was like a 24mm !
Click to expand...

Do me a favour and post a few interesting shots of a cormorant, a crow, a pheasant and heron with 24mm. I will even allow you to use the macro if you really struggle. All are common and frequently sighted species.

Raymond Lin said:
Walk closer ?

Whilst you can shoot landscape with a telephoto, I would gather most landscape photographers would say the opposite is true.
Click to expand...

I know a thing or two about landscapes just like you do about weddings :)

You do want to isolate things in certain images, and sometimes you even want that crazy shot with a giant moon in. Walking closer to that 4,800m peak and that moon isn't going to work well!
A wideangle or perhaps the "boring" 24-70mm will get more action, but you can't rely on it exclusively.

Raymond Lin said:
Not true, it's not the lens, it's the distance to the subject. You can shoot portraits at 14mm, just stand further back, for a different kind of portraiture, as opposed to just the headshot.
Click to expand...

You know very well the sort of things that a 200mm f/2.8 does to the background and all the imperfections as well as allowing for a greater working distance. You may prefer your 135mm or 85mm prime for whatever reason but as a second not-so-specialised lens an f/2.8 is far more versatile and just as epic.

Raymond Lin said:
Any??? That's not true at all.

You know that photo of that girl in naked Vietnam war with the burns running? Pretty certain that isn't from a telephoto but like a 50mm. Isn't that the epitome of a journalism and action photograph?
Click to expand...

Right, so all journalists and wedding shooters should only have 50mm or up to 50mm then? How about the great shot of the two royals in the car from the top with a 70-200mm? Surely the guy should have cropped his 50mm to oblivion instead.
 
I have one zoom lens, a 70-200mm, which I use (with a 2x converter) for wildlife including birds. It would be a pity not to have a lens like that when I live in the midst of so much abundant wildlife. My normal lenses are from 21mm to 135mm primes. I'll be travelling soon and I plan to take a 21mm, 90mm macro and 70-200mm (plus converter).
 
My 70-200 is on my camera 90% of the time.

I rarely shoot anything shorter than 50mm.

Might as well ditch anything under 50mm too as you can just walk further away?!
 
Only doing one type of photography would depress me, I understand the difference between pro-work and the casual enthusiast, but I think I'd prefer to remain the latter. Most of us on here just shoot whatever we feel like, and it makes us happy. Lenses are just tools to aid our imaginations. Whatever makes it easier/more enjoyable/stress free. I've seen many a wedding photographer use a 70-200 though too
 
Phil V said:
but many people shoot wildlife and aircraft.
Click to expand...
I had no idea that there was so much wildlife and aircraft in Birmingham City Centre.
 
In bird photography a long lens is often more about getting a decent image size of a small bird in the short to medium distance.
 
[QUOTE="Cagey75, post: 8176382, member: 35750"



You're talking as if telephoto owners = tourist and only ever use the one lens, I'm sure they'll have something wide to get that obligatory shot of the man chopping cutlets in the market place too or the highly original sweep shot of a million different kinds of fruit at a stall, none of which they will buy :LOL:[/QUOTE]

Are you taking the pee out of my flickr ?....don 't start :LOL::whistle:

Sorrento_Chillies by ImageMaker, on Flickr
 
Raymond Lin said:
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.
Click to expand...

My longest and most used lens is my 85mm

I did decide on having a macro too, so for extra length I have a 150mm macro - this has come out twice at a Wedding so far when the Vicar made me stay at the back of the church, and I've used it a few times for Landscapes too

Dave
 
imattersuk said:
[QUOTE="Cagey75, post: 8176382, member: 35750"



You're talking as if telephoto owners = tourist and only ever use the one lens, I'm sure they'll have something wide to get that obligatory shot of the man chopping cutlets in the market place too or the highly original sweep shot of a million different kinds of fruit at a stall, none of which they will buy :LOL:
Click to expand...

Are you taking the pee out of my flickr ?....don 't start :LOL::whistle:

Sorrento_Chillies by ImageMaker, on Flickr[/QUOTE]


:ROFLMAO: those are peppers though
 
Last edited:
domart said:
i guess people want to be able to record details, in a really lazy way-
Click to expand...

yeagh thats why I use my 400 2.8 used on an almost daily bais.. cus I am lazy haha

I should get off my backside. run onto the pitch and take some closeups :)
 
Raymond Lin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because longer lenses may be the appropriate tool for what different folks choose to shoot?
 
I only have up to 200. I find that lens plenty big enough and I cringed when I seen how clownishly large a Sigma 150-600 is.

In the future I will probably get one of those compacts that have insane 75x zoom or whatever they are these days. They are considerably smaller, lighter and cheaper. They just don't have the IQ but are improving rapidly I believe.
 
Raymond Lin said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is this a genuine question?

Not everyone shoots how you want to shoot. Not everyone predominantly shoot weddings. A lot of people shoot wildlife, for most people that requires a long focal length. Even from 8ft a blue tit doesn't completely fill the frame at 600mm on FF. Sports often require longer focal lengths if you want to fill the frame with a single subject.
 
Because it's often necessary to get the shots I want. It's frequently impossible to get physically closer since I can't walk on water as well as sometimes being rather dangerous to be closer - big cats can bite...
 
I suspect there's also a certain amount of people trading up from 'compact' cameras with long zooms and thinking they need the same now they have an ILC. They're also then disappointed with the results as they don't have a clue how to hold the camera properly......
 
Horses for courses isn't it....

BTW 2 of my 'macro' lenses are longer than 135mm and if you take most peoples definition of 'macro' then I also have a 400mm....

Some people like what the narrowed angle of view of a longer lens does to the background etc when used correctly.
 
StewartR said:
Last time I was out trying to photograph the International Space Station, I had a 600mm f/4 and a 2x Extender on a Canon APS-C camera; 1200mm actual focal length and 1920mm full-frame equivalent. Don't know why I bothered really. Surely I could have done it with a 135mm lens?
Click to expand...

I'd have thought you'd have had access to one of Canons 120Mpixel cmos's and so could shoot with the 35mm lens and crop... ;) :D
 
mikew said:
In bird photography a long lens is often more about getting a decent image size of a small bird in the short to medium distance.
Click to expand...
There is that. I'm shooting with my 100-400 at around 6-7 feet for the small birds
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top