Missing the forest (Page 2): Exactly - that's why I need a telephoto.

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

Mac wrote:

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

Exactly - that's why I need a telephoto.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

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.

Because a photo of that bison 1/2 mile away is incredibly boring of the animal itself.
There are many reasons of safety, skittish animal that is unapproachable, restricted access and several other reasons.
PS in the service we used binoculars to see better further comes in handy.

I believe there are many here myself included that use wide lenses a lot as well.
Why? Because we can and it helps get the composition envisioned.

Geegee Loc: Peterborough, Ont.

Unless you are taking a picture of a landscape you want to zero in on your subject, leaving all the distracting items out of the picture. A long lens will let you do just that. My walk-about lens is an 18-200 and most of my pictures are taken near the 200 end. I would rather capture just what I want on my sensor than crop in post.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I bought years ago a Nikon 80-400 AF lens for wildlife and sports. I seldom use it, perhaps once a year or so.
The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 AF-D sees more use.

jwest Loc: South Dakota

When shooting wildlife of any kind an ethical photographer wants to stay as far away from the subjects as possible to limit or eliminate disrupting their habitat, creating anxiety, or causing them to bolt. Try that with your nifty 50mm. That’s why I have a 100-400mm. I also shoot sports. Why do those guys always have long lenses? If you don’t use a telephoto by the time you crop out the extraneous you have a 1MB file.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

jwest wrote:

When shooting wildlife of any kind an ethical photographer wants to stay as far away from the subjects as possible to limit or eliminate disrupting their habitat, creating anxiety, or causing them to bolt. Try that with your nifty 50mm. That’s why I have a 100-400mm. I also shoot sports. Why do those guys always have long lenses? If you don’t use a telephoto by the time you crop out the extraneous you have a 1MB file.

wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

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.

WILLARD98407 Loc: TACOMA, WA.

wdross wrote:

Not totally accurate. Our eyes are marvelous "... (show quote)

like this.
was once given this explanation, minus the degree of angles, about the brain's mosaic-building. the Opthalmologist's statement was that the eye's normal area of focus is less than 1/4 the size of a dime at 20 feet.

TMcL

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.

You must have a very narrow view of "reality". Humans have traveled a quarter million miles to the moon, even though our legs are only designed to walk a few miles.

bikertut Loc: Kingsville, MO

Geegee wrote:

Unless you are taking a picture of a landscape you want to zero in on your subject, leaving all the distracting items out of the picture. A long lens will let you do just that. My walk-about lens is an 18-200 and most of my pictures are taken near the 200 end. I would rather capture just what I want on my sensor than crop in post.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Mac wrote:

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

I can see our squirrels - but they can see me also. I can get a reasonable image only with 300mm FL; with 50mm they're only a few pixels of image before they head for the next state.

Cheese

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 our vision was 400mm we would all starve to death because no one would be able to see the food on the table in front of them.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

camerapapi wrote:

I bought years ago a Nikon 80-400 AF lens for wildlife and sports. I seldom use it, perhaps once a year or so.
The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 AF-D sees more use.

With those ranges, you must have a FF camera but must not photograph wildlife very often. On my Pentax APS-C camera, the 18-135mm WR lens gets the most use, but my 55-300 WR is mounted daily at home, because I never know when a bird or squirrel will suddenly appear, and even with the denser sensor, I need that lens to put more than a few pixels on the subject.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Having been into photography since 1973, the one truth that I've learned is to use the focal length you need to get the shot you want. When I first went digital I bought into the hype of "the wider the better" for landscape photography. I wound up with big skies, big foregrounds, and small, uninteresting subjects. The results are tremendously different when photographing a distant mesa at 18 mm and 300 mm (if you can find the distant mesa at 18 mm!).

aellman Loc: Boston MA

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.

It's for photographers obsessed with birds. Look at the gallery here and you'll see how prevalent that is.