Are All-Purpose Telephoto Lenses Making Us Lazy?

[willpridham]

I love using my

telephoto lens. I

love it because it

covers such a wide

range of

applications, it is

fast, and it can

produce good photos.

But lately, I have

been really trying

hard to put it away

and start using

prime lenses at the

28mm, 50mm and 105mm

range.

 

Why is this?

 

Because I feel that

it makes me a much

better photographer.

Constantly having to

reposition due to

lighting and

composition of the

subject is much more

work, however, I

seem to learn much

more than focusing

and framing than

zooming in and out

to get the right

shot.

 

Yesterday evening I

was down at the park

with my daughter and

people were looking

at me strangely as I

kept darting around,

in and out of light

trying to get photos

of her. A gentleman

came up to me and

introduced himself

as fellow pro and

asked me why I was

not using a

telephoto lens (it

would create less

work he said). I

explained that I

felt like I

understood more if I

had to actively look

for lighting (also,

my daughter thinks

its funny). He just

gave me a puzzled

look and walked

away.

 

Has anyone else

thought the same as

me?

[lex_jenkins]

Lenses are just tools. Even screwdrivers come in different lengths. I used to have one that was two feet long, with a square sided shaft for leverage with a wrench, just for getting at difficult to reach parts on automobiles and farm equipment. Damn thing was useless for tightening up the itty bitty screws on my eyeglasses.

[rconey]

Second. Zooms aren't new. With my old F3, a 35-70 lens lived on it almost all the time. On digital, cropping with a zoom lens maximizes the sensor potential, even if there is some lost "quality" compared to a prime. If light is changing rapidly, it is better to use a zoom and get the shot than miss it changing lenses. Less dust for digital as well. Tools for a purpose. Use the one that best fits the situation for you.

[randall ellis]

As Lex and Robert have already stated, these things are just tools to accomplish a specific task. Part the the craftsmanship of photography is being able to choose the best tool for the job. Many tools in our toolbox can be used in many ways, but there is usually one that will meet our needs better than the others, which may still very capable, but not the *best* match for the task at hand. I used to use zooms for everything when I was a kid. They allowed me to work without carrying around a lot of gear, but as I learned more I found that I could get better results from primes. Later I moved to medium format because I found that it was a better match for the tasks that I wanted to accomplish, and now I use 4x5, and increasingly 8x10, cameras because they are an even better fit for the job at hand. That said, I still have medium format, and even some 35mm equipment, so that I can meet the task with the tool that I feel best suits my needs, but I do find that as my vision and my goals change, so too does my equipment.

 

- Randy

[don_e]

If "All-Purpose Telephoto Lenses" are long zooms I think it can make photos look spatially challenged, dimensionally shallow, lacking in depth, all scrunched up, like the Renaissance never happened. But lazy? Depends on how big a zoomer you're lugging around, I guess.

[willpridham]

I am not disputing that they are tools (and necessary ones at that)! But look at the broader picture of photography as an ever-learning art. We all have the tendency to look at it dispassionately because some of us make a living at it.

 

Easier and faster=less time and more money

 

I'm sure many of you have already done this, but take an evening or morning and walk around with one prime lens on your camera (very much like street photography). Go to your local park or wherever and challenge yourself... It's a lost art.

[phule]

[[because I feel that it makes me a much better photographer. Constantly having to reposition due to lighting and composition of the subject is much more work, however, I seem to learn much more than focusing and framing than zooming in and out to get the right shot. ]]

 

Maybe for you this works, and if so, that's wonderful. But what about someone who was using primes and starts using a zoom lens, finding that the new experience is allowing them to produce interesting and better images? Isn't their experience just as valid as yours?

 

As Lex points out. Lenses are tools. How you use them is a personal decision. There is no "lazy" about any of it.

[michael_darnton1]

The tool you have in your hand affects the way you think. There's no way around that. I use mostly primes because I'm more aware of the possibilities for the lens that's on my camera than I was when I had no particular lens (a zoom) on it.

[cooltpmd]

I think the same skill is needed for all lenses (still need to consider composition, lighting, angle, shutter speed & depth of field) the telephoto simply saves you exercise.

 

Personally if I could find an EF 15-500/f1/IS 1:1 Macro ... I'd buy it and be done with it all.

[scott_stadler]

"Personally if I

could find an EF

15-500/f1/IS 1:1

Macro ... I'd buy it

and be done with it

all." Yes that

would be a great

lens, but I don't

think I would be

able to lift it. :)

[beauh44]

My most-used zoom doesn't make me lazy; it's too heavy to do that!

[lauren_macintosh]

"Personally if I could find an EF 15-500/f1/IS 1:1 Macro ... I'd buy it and be done with it all." Yes that would be a great lens, but I don't think I would be able to lift it. :)

 

 

Heck with lifting it , Did you just hit the big big big Lottery jackpot:

[sfcole]

"A gentleman came up to me and introduced himself as fellow pro and asked me why I was not using a telephoto lens "

 

Don't you just love unsolicited advice? I think the only people worse than photographers in that regard are fly fishermen.

[phule]

[[i love using my telephoto lens.]]

 

Also, it should be pointed out that what you should say is zoom lens, not telephoto.

 

A 200mm prime lens is a telephoto lens. A 200-400mm lens is a telephoto zoom.

[danielleetaylor]

Photography makes us lazy. We should be painting our images ;-)

[matt_needham]

"Constantly having to reposition due to lighting and composition of the subject is much more work..."

 

I find perspective to be vital for composition. Perspective is determined by distance to subject, and isn't effected by focal length. If you change focal lengths, but stay in the same place, perspective remains the same. If you change locations, but keep the same focal length, perspective is altered. Focal length merely determines the ability to crop efficiently in-camera, which may or may not be important.

[matt_needham]

"I'm sure many of you have already done this, but take an evening or morning and walk around with one prime lens on your camera (very much like street photography). Go to your local park or wherever and challenge yourself... It's a lost art."

 

Even better, sign up for Design and Drawing 101 classes at your local college. Those classes will deal extensively with composition, and the rendering of the 3D world into 2D without ever mentioning focal length.

[tonmestrom]

I'm in Will's corner with this one. What surprises me a bit that nobody has mentioned other advanteges. Let me explain. When I was ath the Acadamy we where only allowed a standard lens for a period of 2 years (50 mm and 75 or 80 mm for medium format). Also we had to print the whole negative, no cropping allowed. I had lots of other prime lenses at the time so I wasn't too happy with that. But I can tell you it did a lot to improve my composition skills. Nowadays I often use a short tele but still am very carefull in composing, even when I have to work fast. It has become second nature.

So, you're absolutely right. Working with primes has some advantages qualitywise but more importantly it can indeed make you a better photographer.

 

One last thing, there is not much that you can't do with a standard lens.

[willpridham]

It seems to me that I am one of the few on this side of the argument. As far as "telephote" and "zoom"... thats semantics to me. I am also not saying that having the these lenses are not good for composition, in fact I use them a ton as they make my life tremendously easier and allow unique perspectives.

 

Question, how many of you are guilty of cropping because of pure compositional laziness (I will definitely include myself in this category as I am guilty)? Especially those with full-frame cameras! Next time out, take 20 photos of different things and see if you can get by without cropping any of them.

[bruce_margolis]

Will, don't forget that sometimes you just can't take two steps forward or backward. Fact is, there are times when a zoom is simply more practical.

 

For example, those photos of your daughter. If she was a little more antsy waiting for you to get your 'correct' composition, you may have missed the shot altogether.

 

But that said, I also love my primes and use them when possible. All of them are tools in the kit and each has its time and place.

[markci]

<i>Has anyone else thought the same as me?</i>

<p>

What I mainly think is that you're confusing "zoom" and "telephoto," which are completely orthogonal concepts.

[willpridham]

From now on I'll refer to them as telephotos and that way there is no mix-up!

[matthew_newton]

I don't crop at all since I use film, other then the about 5% crop all around the frame that the idiots at 1-hr places always seem to do with the negative (if I wanted it cropped I would have stepped closer to my subject).

 

I prefer primes, but I still have a couple of zooms. I use a 35-70/3.5 a resonable amount of the time and I also carry a 70-210/3.5 zoom. The primes I generally carry with me are a 24/2.8, 28/2.5 and a 50/1.4. Anything indoors and I live with a prime on my camera. Outdoors it depends on what I think I am going to be shooting, I probably use my 35-70/3.5 more often then not outdoors, but the 24 and 28mm lenses get their fair share of use. These days at least half of my shooting are people shots (with an almost 5 month old you take a ridiculous number of baby pictures) so my 50/1.4 gets the most use, my 28/1.8 and 28/2.5 probably get the next most use.

[machts gut]

I understand you perfectly, Will. Use your feet and a standard lens is the formula I follow for most of my photos.

[Matt Laur]

Mark's right - there are far too many conversations that don't make the distinction between teles and zooms. Very different discussions, there!

 

I would be lost, doing what I do, without the ability to rapidly (in three seconds) change focal lengths. I shoot at events where you simply can't, by virtue of the logistics, get any closer that X to your subject (people are using real guns!), but sometimes my subject comes very close to me... at 20 miles per hour (running dogs, cantering horses, that sort of thing). I don't consider myself lazy for using tools that help me to produce a wide variety of images under rapidly changing circumstances. Lazy would be me staying home and just shooting flowers and whatnot, since I can do that and have a beer at the same time. Man, that sounds relaxing. I'll have to try that.