Among wildlife photographers, it is the long lens that gets all the glory. The bigger the glass, the more serious one is assumed to be about one’s craft. Less a tool than a symbol, sometimes, the bigger telephoto lenses telegraph to the world that we mean business. How I envied those photographers as a younger man, how incredible I imagined their photographs would be. And how disappointed I was when I could finally afford my first big lens, a used Soligor 400/6.3 that—I was shocked to discover at the age of 16—made the animals bigger but did not necessarily make my photographs proportionately better.
Click any of the images in this post to see them much larger (images will open in a new window)
The ability to isolate one’s subject is important; longer lenses are one way to do that. They allow us to get closer (in a manner of speaking) when we might not otherwise be able to do so. Through our photographs, that allows us to show others a perspective or proximity they might never have. And if you’re lucky enough to have a long lens with a wide maximum aperture, you can isolate that subject even more by blurring out distracting backgrounds. More experientially, longer lenses can create a greater sense of intimacy. When you stare down the barrel of a 600mm lens at the magnified face of a leopard, you feel something you might not otherwise ever feel. The connection can feel very real.
But long lenses can also be a bit of a one-trick pony, most especially for the photographer who hasn’t yet learned that filling the frame isn’t the only way to tell a story or convey an emotion.
A portfolio comprised only of centre-punched, fill-the-frame animal portraits may initially feel like eye candy, but on repeated viewings, might also feel like it’s missing some rhythm and variety and begging for some scale and context.
For those who’ve not been subjected to this particular sermon, indulge me with a short detour: there is no such thing as a wildlife lens. And despite the many headlines that assert otherwise in blogs and magazines, there is no such thing as a landscape or portrait lens. There is no ideal focal length for photographs of any genre of photography, and those who tell you otherwise are trying to sell you something, most likely a new lens.
Different focal lengths do different things, and the question when selecting a focal length is not “What are you photographing?” It’s “What do you want it to look like?”
The photographs accompanying this article are among my favourites. They were all made with focal lengths less than 200mm, and most of them could have been made with a 24-105 lens. The widest images allow a greater feeling of depth than a longer lens would have created in the image—a greater sense of place and a feel for the light and the atmospheric mood. This is not necessarily better than what I could have done with a longer lens, but different. And in some cases, that difference means it accomplishes something more powerful.
Don’t get me wrong; I love my long lenses, but I’m just as likely to shoot with a 24-105mm, which you’ll never see on anyone’s “best lenses for wildlife” list.
Here’s what I’m getting at:
- Don’t let the lack of a big, sexy lens get in the way of your desire to photograph wildlife if that’s what you want to do. We all work with constraints, and one of those will always be the lenses we have available to us and the focal lengths those represent. Work with what you’ve got. And if the choice is to spend $10K on a lens or spend it on a trip and use the lenses you’ve already got, you’re probably better doing the latter. You can go on a safari with a 24-70 and a 70-200 and still make magic.
- Even if you have the long lens, it’s probably not the best tool for the job 100% of the time. There are incredible photographs to be made that are not just tight portraits. Don’t be afraid to put the long lens down and shoot with something shorter. It’s OK; no one’s looking. We know you mean business and won’t think any less of you. Sometimes a lens is just a lens, you know?
I don’t know where the fetish for long lenses comes from, nor why we value them so highly at the expense of wider lenses, especially when they can be so powerful when used well. Perhaps it’s something the camera companies have instilled in us; Lord knows those long lenses aren’t cheap. Whatever it is, think of them as just one tool among many.
The creative photographer isn’t the one with every tool but the one who uses the tools they have well.
For the Love of the Photograph,
David
The biggest challenges for most photographers are not technical but creative. They are not so much what goes on in the camera but what goes on in the mind of the person wielding it. Light, Space & Time is a book about thinking and feeling your way through making photographs that are not only good, but truly your own. It would make an amazing gift for the photographer in your life, especially if that’s you. Find out more on Amazon.
Comments
Hi David,
I found the following three of your fabulous images very intriguing, for it appeared that you were “close” to the subject:
1) The Cub shot at 15mm, 2) The Elephant shot at 24mm and 3) The Rino also shot at 24mm.
Were you physically close to your subject, or did you crop the image, or was there another explanation.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Hi Skip! Thanks for the question. I don’t crop my images much, these are pretty much framed as I shot them. The camera was just really close! In the case of (1) and (3) I used my camera with a remote from a bit of a distance. For (2) I was on the ground. Very close. But with a good guide watching my back and very close to the Land Cruiser, my legs kind of tucked under the front. Here’s a link to explain my remote set-up: https://davidduchemin.com/2024/10/my-remote-camera-set-up/
I hope this helps!
I can’t imagine what you feel seeing, just a few inches away, the ” magnified face of a leopard.” That would be an awesome connection!
Where did you keep all those great images?!?! I loved every single one of them!!!!
As usual, thank you for these defying ideas which help us to push our photographic craft further. I am not into wildlife photography but I think it applies to every single genre.
Hello, David!
Thank you SO VERY much for this lovely article and the photos illustrating your points.
I am just an “everyday modest photographer in constant awesome of my surroundings” and have really enjoyed your posts… As a painter, it’s easy to see how the Art resonates in the same way in photography! 🙂
Hope you are doing well…
Take care!
Colette
Hi David I love what you have written. Spending $10 to $15,000 on a 600 mm lens just to say we’re a wildlife photographer, never made any sense to me. Since our Kenya trip with you last year, I have two lenses. A 16-24mm and a 28-400mm. They work really well for wildlife, landscapes and night photography. A lot less expensive too 🙂 Off to Patagonia April 4th to play with them.
Say hi to Cynthia for Jo and I
As another option, I chose to spend my money on a different sensor size, thus gaining a 2x reach / crop effect for less money & lower weight. A different tool for the same job – happens to be great for macro too.
Thank you, David, for this post. I began taking pictures in the late 60’s and was a casual photographer for a couple of decades and then put my Pentax Spotmatic away. It was only in 2014 on another bird watching trip with my wife that I heard about the super zoom camera that was then coming on the market. I could not believe that a small camera could extend to 1000 mm optical. And it was only $500 or so. I decided that I would get one for our next year’s bird watching trip. Just before leaving I went to the camera store and bought my new camera which is a thrilling moment for any photographer. And lo and behold, the camera, a Canon Supershot 60HS, had been ujpdated to 1350 mm reach. Birding involved a lot of effort just in following the group and there was no way that I was going to lug a large camera around. The photographers I saw carrying their long telephoto lenses would not have been able to catch many images. My super zoom would almost fit in my pocket and had a range of 21 mm to 1350 mm. I did not know a lot about digital photography and sensor size meant a whole lot less than the 16 megapixel count. I enjoyed using that camera for many birding trips and I still get great images from it. It performs well in good light but not so well in low light. It is limited in its aperture range so dramatic bokeh or deep depth of field are not available. If one understands its limitations, it performs very well. My heightened awareness of the camera’s limitations came about as a result of joining a seniors’photography course. There was general disapproval of my instrument so I ended up buying a Fujifilim X-S20 with the basic 15-45 mm lens. I still don’t know what kind of pictures I would like to take so I have not invested in a ‘proper’lens. Photography is a highly elusive activity and your post reinforces my belief that one should develop one’s ability and photographer’s eye within the llimitations of the equipment available and upgrade only when something is needed to get past those limitations.
Outside of the photographer’s community, nobody cares about the gear. An amazing shot could garner awards, hang in a gallery, and maybe even sell a lot of prints, but most people won’t care about the camera equipment. It’s like asking a painter what kind of brushes they use.
Of course, we are photographers and we are curious because we also want to make interesting photos. I hate carrying a long lens. I know what it can do and I know how to use it, but it’s heavy and clumsy and after a few hours hiking with one, my neck hurts.
The allure of the long lens is that I captured an image of an alligator yesterday and posted it on social media and sent it to friends and the only question they had was how close were you?
Well, David, thanks for your great ideas and inspiration. But me being a bit of a coward when it comes to rhinos and bears I don’t think that I’ll ever get close enough for a 24mm lens :-). Just love my 500mm
Some of your images with the 105 or 24 focal length beg the question of how close were you to the subject or were they cropped to bring the subject closer. I know that I will crop some of my images to bring the subject closer and make them more prominent in the image. For what seemed like a long time I felt I was hampered by only having a 70 to 300 dx lens, but I made some good and great images with that lens. Now I am looking at going back to using a 24 to 105 lens just as soon as I can save up and purchase one. Great conversation starter piece for Photographers. keep up the good work.
“I don’t know where the fetish for long lenses comes from…”
As with other things in society, I suggest it comes from the belief that “size matters.” 🙂
Always enjoy your writings, David.
Nick Brandt, one of my favorite photographers, let alone wildlife photographers, used to use a Pentax 67 and three lenses: a 55mm, a 105mm, and a 200mm. These are equivalent to a 28, 55, and 100mm lenses in the full frame digital era.
There is most definitely something to equally showing the environment, along with the subject and how they impact each other.
Great lesson, as always, David!
David: I absolutely LOVE your image of the bear, which you made with a 15mm lens. I’m guessing you were not that close to the bear, so assume you must have set the camera in some sort of a protected box or cage and used a remote trigger.
Can you share a bit of info as to how you achieved this intimate image.
Gratefully,
It should also be mentioned that with today’s high pixel count cameras, that a good image taken with a less than uber long lens has the potential of being cropped into a medium close up print if desired.
I somehow instinctively knew this but hearing it from you made my day. Thank you for putting it in writing that we do not need the longest lens we can afford or can tote around.
MarionB
OK, so this is a great post. I have always felt this way about lenses. It’s often been said that wide angel is best for landscape, but as you say, it’s all about what you want to say. I have found wide angle is great in urban environments, because you can often capture a whole building, etc. while not having to stand very far away from it. Also, wide angle makes much in a landscape appear very diminished, which is OK at times but not always. Of course there are times you just need a certain lens for; a long lens can make distant objects in the background appear much closer, which is at times desirable, say islands out at sea behind a subject much closer in. But all in all, there is no perfect lens, as you have so eloquently stated, for any particular subject, with the possible exception of real estate photographers capturing interiors, needing wide angle! 🙃
Not wildlife related but heading to Morocco soon, so I suppose one could count camels as wildlife, and I’ve been pondering lenses, especially a need for long lenses. I have decided to not 😱 take a long lens which will be a first for me.
So very true. My favorite ‘wildlife’ lens is a 90-280, and I often use a 24-90 as well.
On a few occasions I have felt underlensed, such as when shooting orcas from a distance, but if you wait patiently, most animals get curious about us (just as we are curious about them) and start to approach.