Missing the forest: The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

Most cameras are kitted with something like a 18-55mm {APS-C} or 28-80mm {FF}, and I'm guessing that range is what most of us use most - I know I do. More telephoto is an obvious step ahead from that.

insman1132 Loc: Southwest Florida

Interesting comment, gv. Can I assume the only lens that you use is your 55 mm?? That would follow correctly with your stated philosophy.

Actually for many of us who enjoy photographing various aspects of nature, for instance, the only way to record some things that are far away, and interesting to us, is to reach for them with a 400mm lens (or greater). I guess the choice is to record it however we can, using whatever it takes, or not to get it at all??!

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

I use a 24 on my FF most of the time.

Joe Blow

Most people are using a telephoto because they can't get any closer. African lions take a hungry view of tourists that wander in too close and most sports don't allow spectators on the field. Taking pictures with a normal or wide view lens will lose the action in the clutter. Many photographers gravitate to telephoto because what they want to capture is just too far away to capture any other way.

Our eyes are not the same as a camera - lens combo. Our eyes are hooked up to a fantastic computer called "our brain". Our brain narrows its focus in an entirely different way, filtering out much of the clutter. A camera can't do that. Cameras are stupid in that they can't differeniate between the subject and clutter. If we watch an outfielder catching a ball 300 feet away, we both, focus and hone our vision to the spot of where the play is. We aren't watching the runner leading off of second base except as a peripheral subject.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

I agree.
When I go out specifically for wildlife, I use a 300mm f/4 (with a 1.4x TC). But the lens that is on my camera most often is a 50mm f/1.8, followed by 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. And I have recently purchased a 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Joe Blow wrote:

Most people are using a telephoto because they can... (show quote)

How many African lions do you have walking around your town?

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55mm. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

Long telephoto lenses are pretty much needed for a lot of wildlife or sports photography. Not everyone does that though, I certainly don't. I might note here that there are few photographs hanging in museums or galleries that might be considered serious art that where taken with telephoto or other long local length lenses. And the same goes for most photo portfolio books other than say the two categories listed. Super wide lenses are more for effect than anything else. Most types of photography are done with say for 35mm format, 28mm to 105mm lenses.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

gvarner wrote:

If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55.

Using binoculars, try walking around with a limited field of view equivalent to a 400mm lens. Extremely difficult to navigate through an environment with that sort of extreme tunnel vision. And you won't be able to see danger coming from the sides until it is too late. The reason our vision is unlike a long tele lens is not because there is nothing interesting to see in the far distance, but rather that it is far more impractical than practical.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

The way people crop 'wildlife' in order to make it bigger - Obviously the trees are merely a distraction.
In the woods, horizons are short. 18-55 is generally big enough for most interest. However the 70 end of a 70 - 300 saves stepping over 'the rough' on occasion.

So, if there is no Photographer in the woods, Do the birds keep posing in the top branches??????

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

Not totally accurate. Our eyes are marvelous "tools". They can detect light for 220° and give us what we think is "detailed" vision for ~50° - except your eyes can't produce detailed vision for 50° outright. The eyes can only produce truly detailed vision for 3.8° and tapers to object shaped identification vision at about 5°. All the "detail" vision over that ~50° is generated by our eye's rapid focusing and moving and our brains generating a detailed mosaic and filling in any "blanks" of "detail" with what it knows should be there. So that 400mm is much closer than we realize to our actual detail vision.

hookedupin2005 Loc: Northwestern New Mexico

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

As a kid, I went hunting with my Dad many times. Shot my first deer at 11 years old. These days, I do all my shooting with a different kind of weapon. I love "reaching out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance", and I do not get lost among the trees.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

Personally I like the full range of my lenses. They vary from 10 mm to 500 mm. Each focal length has their uses. And NO, I am not a hunter, I am a photographer. I do not hunt wildlife, I photograph it. And yes, their is a difference.

ltj123 Loc: NW Wisconsin

I rarely use my 70-300mm, a 50mm macro is my preferred. But a 24-105mm m does get allot of walk around use...

Bill_de Loc: US

gvarner wrote:

The emphasis on which lens to use seems to be weighted towards the telephoto end, to reach out for that tiny slice of reality off in the distance. If those were the important parts of reality, our vision would be more like a 400mm than a 55. 99.9% of the important stuff is close. It's likely that photographing the distant bison or eagle brings out our hunter instincts and once engaged we get lost among the trees.

If we sit around talking about photography instead of actually going out shooting, we can promote whatever focal lengths come to mind. Some of the best shots I've seen here from people who post their images were obviously taken with long lenses. I think what these folks saw is a very important part of their vision. I doubt they are all 'lost among the trees'. Seems like a good idea to, at least occasionally, look beyond one's nose.

IMHO

--