Comments on: Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:50:05 +0000

Great article Steve, how I would love telephoto lens.
I cant count how many times Ive seen a great shot and thought of what I would do for a telephoto lens.
But being a photographer with not much money in the bank I guess I will have to stick to the where you put your camera method.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:12:40 +0000

Seems like this post got hijacked?

By: Tyler Pfiffner

Tyler Pfiffner — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:47:21 +0000

Thanks for the great article. Awesome information.

By: Yogeshwar Nath

Yogeshwar Nath — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:18:23 +0000

I have Nikon D80 with 18-135 3.5/5.6. which works wonderfully. Later I added 35 mm 1.8 to my kit. I am not satisfied with the later lens. It over exposes in the aperture priority. I am primarily into landscapes

By: Tom Manson

Tom Manson — Fri, 21 Oct 2011 16:02:17 +0000

Holy Moly Steve! How did you move those boulders on the left!!!???

By: Diane Slaunwhite

Diane Slaunwhite — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:41:08 +0000

You say you like to use the 70-200 F4 lens. Would you say it is a better lens to use than the 18 to 200. I have both, but have been using my 18-200 because of the wide angle advantage.

By: mick boyd

mick boyd — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 03:51:47 +0000

The difference in the two shots of the mountains reminded me of photos I took of Ayers rock with my zoom lens,from twenty five klms away.A marked difference in perspective.A very good lesson.I used a 55/200mm lens on a Nikon d60.

By: Fernando Tavares

Fernando Tavares — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:03:04 +0000

this is a diferent situation, object are not lined up, and working with wide and extra wide angle lenses is not the same as working with tele and long tele lenses.
I don’t mean to say prespective is only by focal, i ment, it is not only by moving camera.
Try to overlap the images of the autor. You’ll find out that it is impossible to do those two from the same place, only by zooming. Your exemple, however just confirm that.
Find a spot simelar and do it.
One major diference when you use tele, is that images tend to be compressed at a direct relation with the focal. The biger the focal, the more they are compressed and then, the less you realize drelations in distance between first and last plane.

By: Fernando Tavares

Fernando Tavares — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:02:33 +0000

By: Christopher Williams

Christopher Williams — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 21:53:37 +0000

@Fernando: both shots appear to be taken from standing height (or from tripod height). The boulders are probably 20 feet tall or more, which makes it look like the photographer is on his knees, when in fact the boulders are towering over him.

Regarding the framing differences, take a look at how much mountain there is in each. The second picture actually shows about twice as much mountain (horizontally) than the first, even though it shows LESS of the boulders in the foreground. This is due to a change in perspective, that is, moving the camera closer to the boulders.

Last, I followed your steps (but using a different subject inside my house instead of birds, and using a 18-50mm lens instead of 70-200mm). Here are the two pictures, one at 18mm and the other at 50mm. Can you tell which is which?

Go ahead and overlay them if you want. You’ll only find minor differences due to rotation or slight barrel distortion. (Lens distortion is NOT the same as perspective, by the way).

So yes, perspective is determined only by where you put the camera and not by focal length.

(Spoiler: the top photo is 50mm and the bottom is 18mm)