Telephoto madness?

[Leighgion]

For some reason I keep looking at 210mm and 250 and 350mm lenses when I personally have absolutely no application for long focal lengths on MF (my kids who should eventually become part of my landscape shots are way too fast).

Since I also see this happening to other folks (people buying long glass, then not using it and eventually selling it at a loss) I wonder what drives me (and others) towards telephoto lenses. Is there something unconsciously messing with my/our thoughts?

I'm going to take a dissenting tact here and say you've got things backwards.

It's your conscious mind, the one that's decided you "... have absolutely no application for long focal lengths on MF..." that's messed up. Your subconscious on the other hand, being the repository of your instinctive self, has a much broader view.

Maybe you don't have much realistic practical use for long glass on medium format, but it obviously still has appeal and denying it isn't going to help. You've got a much better chance resisting impulse purchase if you admit the appeal is real and reasonable.

 

[clayne]

Maybe you don't have much realistic practical use for long glass on medium format, but it obviously still has appeal and denying it isn't going to help. You've got a much better chance resisting impulse purchase if you admit the appeal is real and reasonable.

He's questioning that the appeal is actually not real and driven by the desire to purchase something shiny and new. The same effect drives consumers all day, every day. 95% of the time, they don't need it.

 

[Aurum]

I've tried the long lens thing, but quite frankly find it a PITA to haul around.
Many moons ago tried out a Zenit photosniper kit. Cool as Flip to look at, but the lens was slooooooooooooow and the damn thing weighed the same a Russian Army tank.

Wouldn't dare use one now. SWAT would leave my ass like a collander just as I was framing up

 

[Ricus.stormfire]

I also own a 500mm lens for 6x6, but it stays in the closet. It came as part of the camera kit when I bought it, so it wasn't a specific purchase (the previous owner couldn't stop waxing lyrical about it though). It's slow and weighs more than the rest of the kit, thus a bit of PITA to carry along (and most likely not even use). I prefer the 150mm. Plus now I can stick a 35mm camera and lenses in the void it left in my backpack.

I think (sometimes) long telephoto lenses play into the whole "bigger = automatically better" mentality many people fall into. Fine for sport/wildlife/being a "statement" of some sort (I'm rich and this is my pseudo-penis) but mostly (like many above posters have stated) it is a white elephant (if this "elephant" has a red ring on it's head, you could call it "Elli" or "L"- sorry Canon )

(At this moment in time I would love to trade this 500mm for a 110mm macro & a couple film backs, but I don't think there is that many SQ-A users down here )

Ricus

(GOOD LUCK HOLLAND)

 

[Galah]

... Is there something unconsciously messing with my/our thoughts?

Yes, subconsciously you are reaching for the stars!

 

[benjiboy]

My longest lens for M/F 6X6 is 180mm I've never needed anything longer, if I did I'd shoot 35mm.

 

[Robert Budding]

There is no substitute for a long lens. Getting closer will completely change the perspective, and sometimes I want to compress distances. It's not just about framing or about being too lazy to hike. I actually find that I have to move greater distances when using long lenses to alter the relationships between objects in the frame.

Conversely, short lenses are excellent at emphasizing close objects. Perspective control is critical. The worst way to use a short lens is to place everything in the frame because it will de-emphasize distant objects.

 

[clayne]

Except long lenses have the huge disadvantage of a lack of shared space. Easily perceptible to the viewer and photographer - not to mention the environmental shift as a result of that lacking.

I never use 'em.

 

[benjiboy]

There is no substitute for a long lens. Getting closer will completely change the perspective, and sometimes I want to compress distances. It's not just about framing or about being too lazy to hike. I actually find that I have to move greater distances when using long lenses to alter the relationships between objects in the frame.

Conversely, short lenses are excellent at emphasizing close objects. Perspective control is critical. The worst way to use a short lens is to place everything in the frame because it will de-emphasize distant objects.

That's very true Robert either wide angle or telephoto lensed visually change the relationship between the foreground and the the background.

 

[pollux]

aurum why? i'm planning to purchase a 400 or 800mm tele for a pentax 67. we still have rights in this dictatorial police state in the UK.

 

[magkelly]

Long lenses do have their uses, particularly outdoors. It's pretty hard to walk right up to a wild bird and get a good shot with a 50MM. Use a 200 or 300MM though and it's a different story. I can't say I'd use one much indoors, but out, sure. No I don't think it's at all about penis envy, though I joke about it being otherwise. It's about getting rid of limitations.

There are times when you can get the shot with a basic lens, but sometimes you just can't get that close and that's where the long lenses do come in.

I definitely want a full kit with a wide angle, some kind of lens for macro, a basic 50MM lens, a portrait lens, and at least one good long lens. I like to cover all the bases and I do that knowing that I will indeed use that 200MM or 300MM quite often.

I'm an admitted nature freak and in particular I love photographing birds, lizards and bugs. I can't see me NOT having some longer lenses. It's not like I can just walk right up to a wasp's nest and not risk being stung. At least with a long lens I've maybe got time to run if my taking a quick picture makes them angry!

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Now this is a long lens!

http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/contents-frame/8baac109cb80bddfc12571e100393a1b

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't think that each type of lens has to have a specific 'use'. For my Hasselblad camera I use the 80mm and 150mm lens interchangeably to make portraits. I don't prefer one over the other, but the 150 definitely has more reach, but also requires more time and patience to focus.

What I do is I regularly leave the house with just one lens on the camera, and I force myself to use what I have. It has helped me a lot to learn how to adapt to a specific focal length, rather than having a camera bag full of lenses, wondering which one to choose next.

For 35mm I shoot landscape both with a 16mm super wide, as well as 55mm, 100mm, and 135mm lenses. I really don't prefer one over the other. I just use them. One at a time.

It helps not to 'label' the lenses. Try to work around the common concepts of "Wide angle for landscape", "telephoto for portraits", and "around normal for everything else". Force yourself to use a telephoto lens for a while. Think outside the box and see how you like it. After a while you will learn to 'see' with the lens, and develop a sense for what will look good or not.

I once went on a photo trip with friends to Michigan. I had a Mamiya 645 1000 S at the time. After much pondering of what to bring I figured my camera bag was too heavy. So I just brought the 150mm lens, nothing else, (other than a Holga and a pinhole). I came back with some of the most rewarding pictures I've ever produced, probably because I didn't think about what lens to use, but rather just learned to become 'one' with the equipment at hand, and simply figured out how to make things work. The attached picture is one of the pictures from that trip.

- Thomas