Telephotos – lenses that are “zoomed in” to a significant degree – are wonderful tools for almost any genre of photography, but they aren’t necessarily easy to use. In particular, telephoto lenses will magnify any camera shake and provide a much thinner depth of field compared to wide angles. Don’t let that stop you, though. Telephotos have a unique way of showcasing the world – one which may be ideal for your photos. In this article, I’ll go in detail about how to use telephoto lenses, discuss some of their benefits and tips for dealing with their unique challenges. Although I personally tend to take landscape photos, the techniques in this article apply no matter what subjects you like to capture.
Table of Contents
Focus on Details
Not surprisingly, telephoto lenses are very useful if you want to focus on smaller details in a given scene.
Because telephoto lenses have such a narrow field of view, they make it easier to capture just a thin slice of the world. In everything from dense forests to wide-open overlooks, a telephoto lens lets you isolate details far more easily than a medium or wide angle lens. (That’s not to say you can’t capture small details with a wide angle; some of my favorite images do just that. However, the narrow field of view that telephotos have typically makes it easier.)
What sorts of details? That depends upon the type of photography that you like to do. If you’re a portrait photographer, you can capture someone’s face more easily, without any surrounding elements. For landscape photography, you can focus on a single mountain peak and make it the most prominent item in your image. Also, don’t forget macro lenses, which are typically telephotos; they let you photograph even the tiniest of scenes.
This is perhaps the most important way in which I use telephoto lenses. It isn’t true in every landscape, but — more often than many people think — a single detail can be more impressive than an expansive scene. You just need to keep an eye out and a telephoto handy.
Create Abstract Photos
One of my personal favorite reasons to use a telephoto lens is to create abstract or semi-abstract photos.
Since telephotos can isolate details so well, in certain landscapes, you’ll be able to capture a small sliver of the scene that completely removes context — the definition of an abstract image. Other times, even if you can’t remove the context completely, you’ll still end up with a photo that focuses on shapes and patterns rather than a perfectly-literal image of a scene.
I’m a fan of abstract photos. They’re all about the basics: light, color, shapes, and composition. If your viewer can’t tell what a photo actually depicts, then the image becomes more about its underlying aesthetic qualities. For example, if you take an abstract photo at Yosemite, people’s first reactions will be “Wow, those shapes are really interesting” rather than “Cool, I also went to Yosemite!”
Of course, not all photos need to be abstract, and not all abstract photos must be taken with a telephoto lens. You can still capture abstracts with a wide-angle, particularly if you are able to position your camera very close to your subject. However, if abstracts are what you want to photograph, you should keep a long lens handy. It’s one of the best ways to isolate the shapes and forms of a scene.
Show a Sense of Scale
If you’re standing close to a tree with mountains in the distance, and you use a wide angle lens, the tree will appear quite large compared to the background:
This has to do with perspective. The closer that you are to an item, the larger it appears relative to its background. Although it may seem like it, this effect actually has nothing to do with the lens you use — it’s all about your camera position. However, if you are positioned very close to something and use a wide angle lens, then your field of view will be so wide that this relationship is much more obvious to viewers. (If this is confusing, Elizabeth wrote a full tutorial on lens compression and Nasim has an article about focal length and subject distortion that you should consider reading.)
The flip side of this coin is when you use a telephoto lens and stand much farther back. Then, items start to look their actual relative sizes. People in front of a mountain will appear huge if you stand two feet away from them and use a wide angle lens, but they’ll be tiny if you stand back and zoom in; instead, the mountain will appear larger.
When I took the photo above, I wanted to focus on the interesting patterns in this tree. However, I soon realized that this perspective didn’t show the extreme scale of the mountains in the distance. So, I switched from my 20mm lens to my 70-200mm, and I walked farther back. Ultimately, I was able to capture this photo instead, which has a very different sense of scale:
This technique can be valuable in a number of different situations, from landscapes to sports, and everything in between. If I ever capture a mountain that doesn’t have enough power in an image, I always zoom in; or, if one of my foreground elements appears too large, I’ll step back and use a telephoto.
The extra sense of scale in these photos isn’t directly caused by your longer lens, but it indirectly is an important factor. Your photo’s perspective is determined by your camera position — which, if you use a telephoto, can be farther back than normal.
This effect is often used by portrait photographers in order to “flatten” their subject’s face and make their features look more like normal. See the comparison below (photos by Nasim):
Here, although the photographer’s position is what really caused the change in perspective, the 300mm telephoto lens made it possible to capture a head-and-shoulders portrait (without cropping) that had realistic proportions. The 14mm image, by comparison – where the photographer was only a couple feet from the model – looks much more exaggerated.
If your goal is to show the real-life relative sizes of the elements in your image as accurately as possible, your task is simple: zoom in, stand back, and compose your photo. Compared to a wide-angle at close range, you’ll notice a clear difference.
Getting Enough Depth of Field
As you zoom in, your depth of field will shrink dramatically.
With an ultra-wide lens — something like 14mm — it is incredibly easy to capture an entire landscape within your depth of field. Even a moderate aperture like f/5.6 will render the entire scene with extremely high levels of detail from eight feet to infinity.
However, just by zooming into 50mm — by most standards, not even a telephoto yet — you’d need an aperture of roughly f/22 in order to capture the same depth of field. (I got these numbers from my article on choosing the sharpest aperture.)
Telephoto lenses are amazing for landscape photography, but your subject needs to be quite far away if you want the whole scene to be sharp! You can sometimes focus stack if you don’t get quite what you want, but that can be a time-consuming technique, and it isn’t possible for some quickly-moving landscapes.
How do you get around this issue? If a small aperture like f/11 or f/16 doesn’t provide the depth of field you need, and you aren’t able to focus stack, you’re mostly out of options. Definitely try moving farther back, if possible, although that won’t be feasible everywhere.
Still, don’t let this stop you from taking landscape photos with a telephoto lens! I find that most telephoto-worthy landscapes are far enough away that depth of field isn’t a big issue — and, for most of the others, you’ll be able to focus stack instead.
Using Shallow Depth of Field to Your Advantage
Worst-case scenario — or, if you’re optimistic, best-case scenario — you’ll have to work with a shallow depth of field.
A shallow depth of field is one of the most compelling parts about photography, and, simultaneously, most annoying parts about telephoto lenses. If you want everything in your photo to appear sharp, this thin depth of field can be a headache; if you want to capture a softly-blurred background, it’s perfect.
As a landscape photographer, it’s typically unusual to capture photos of grand landscapes with an out-of-focus background. However, if you ever take pictures of wildlife or small details, it can be a great tool:
A shallow depth of field simplifies your photos. By highlighting your subject, it tells your viewer’s eye exactly where to look.
Since telephoto lenses have a naturally thinner depth of field (assuming that you stand in the same position), they are perfect for this type of photography. Use a wide aperture like f/2.8, get close to your subject, and zoom in. You’ll end up with a beautifully-blurred background.
Watch for Camera Shake
Telephoto lenses have an unfortunate habit of magnifying the camera-shake problems in your image.
For example, if you’re handholding a lens with poor technique, a wide angle lens may never show the problem — but a telephoto lens could reveal it immediately. Or, more difficult to control (but still fixable), a tripod shaking in the wind may cause blurry photos with a telephoto even when wider angles seem to be completely sharp.
If you use a telephoto, you need to be particularly careful with your overall setup. Any slight bit of shake will be magnified, and the problem only worsens as you use longer and longer lenses.
How do you remedy this problem? With a long lens, be willing to use a tripod to stabilize things as much as possible. Or, if you’re shooting something like sports or wildlife — where you may need to move your camera more quickly than a tripod allows — consider using a monopod instead. If it’s windy, try lowering the thinnest sections of the tripod to see if that improves your stability.
Most of all, check occasionally to make sure that your shots are sharp. Review your photo and zoom in all the way. Does the photo look good? If not, try to find places where you can eliminate blur from your setup. It won’t always be easy, but telephoto lenses provide such an interesting perspective that they are worth the effort.
Conclusion
Clearly, telephoto lenses are fantastic tools that can provide exactly the look you’re after, depending upon the scene.
People always seem surprised when I describe my 70-200mm as, perhaps, my favorite landscape lens. Some photographers simply don’t think of telephotos as a tool for nature photography — if it’s not a wide angle, it isn’t worth using. If this has been your outlook on things, you may be overlooking some beautiful potential images.
Of course, you don’t have to be a landscape photographer to enjoy using telephoto lenses. Portrait photographers often employ the “zoom in, stand back” rule in order to capture their subjects’ faces in a more flattering way. Or, if you’re a sports/wildlife photographer, a telephoto lens can help you focus on the smallest details of your scene, bringing your viewer face-to-face with a distant subject.
Telephoto lenses don’t work for every image, though. If you want to show a wide field of view, they certainly don’t work (unless you resort to a multi-row panorama). Or, if you’re trying to exaggerate the size of nearby objects — such as the foreground in a landscape — there are typically better tools for the job.
However, if you want to show people the details and scale of a distant scene or isolate your subject with a shallow depth of field, a telephoto should be at the top of your list. For many people, it will be the most-used lens in your kit.
There seems to be a maximum effective range for a telephoto lens. It must be related to focal length. I photograph wild horses and I have noticed that if the horse is too far away (for the given focal length lens I am using), the image will be soft (appears out focus) when cropped. It is not an issue of stability, to slow shutter speed, or missed focus. I have used $12,000, 600mm Canon lenses as well as $2500 Sony 100-400 zoom lenses. Any thoughts?
Excellent information Spencer Cox. I often see the common misconception that wide or ultra wide is the best landscape lens. And, I often say that experienced landscape shooters let the landscape dictate which lens is the best landscape lens for that landscape. I totally agree, that the Telephoto lens is as essential as the ubiquitous ultra wide angle for landscapes. And, the more I do landscapes, and learn techniques, I find myself using the ultra wide as a specialty lens, and use the all in one zoom for most of my landscape shots. Also, with the use of multi-shot multi-row panorama, a telephoto like the 70-200 can do a ultra wide shot without the huge distortion of a ultra wide. Nevertheless, a recent purchase of the infamous 70-200 f/2.8 has got me looking for info on shooting the long distances. And I found your info very helpful. Thank you.
Thank you Spencer for this informative subject. I recently purchased a telephoto ( 70-200 ) and trying to wrap my head around how to use it for landscapes. Your article gave me a better understanding on the advantages of use in regards of landscapes. In my world I thought my 24 prime lens is all I required in the field. I shoot raw with my D810 with tons of resolution to play with. So if I need to clear out unwanted clutter or isolate a scene, then all I did was cropped. Would you agree with this technique? Having said this I decided to purchase this Tamron Lens and after reading your article I can see the uses. I must say Spencer that your article does lead to things to think about like sharpness and blur. Thanks again for another great article.
I would like to add:
the Electronic First Curtain shutter in the d810 makes it possible to use longe shutterspeeds as well.
It turns out that the shutter shock is causing enough vibration to ruin you sharp image.
This vibration can also cause the VR to be useless.
So i know it is not always applicable but try it if your camera has one.
In particular i think of the combination of the d810 and the 300pf lens-
EFC + VR make 1/40 sec handheld sharp photographs possible
Great article, I find it much more simple to create a strong picture with a telephoto lens than with a wide angle lens as excluding things is much easier with the narrow field of view and many landscapes are too busy to allow easy framing with wide angel lenses (at least for me)
About depth of field: depth of field (things in focus) and background blur are different things and even with the same depth of field a telephoto lens will create a stronger background-blur
Great point with regards to background blur vs depth of field. This can be confusing to many photographers, since telephoto lenses do have a stronger background blur effect than wide-angles, even when subject magnification and aperture are identical (meaning that depth of field is technically the same). In other words, you’ll see exactly the same detail in background elements in both photos, since depth of field is identical, although those low-detail background elements will be much larger in a telephoto frame, making them appear like they are more out-of-focus.
The background does not only appear more out-of-focus, it actually is more out-of-focus.
Let’s assume we are taking a picture of some statue etc. with a hight of 2 meters with 2 different lenses, 35mm and 200mm
For the framing we would need a distance (35mm-sensor) of 2.9 meters with the 35mm and 16.7 meters with the 200 mm lens.
Depth of field would be ~1.1 meters in both situations but the background-blur is much much stronger with the telephoto-lens as the entrance pupil of both lenses are totally different (12,5mm for the 35mm-lens and 71,4mm for the 200mm lens)
This calculator shows the differences in background-blur quite well:
www.cblur.org/de/in…38;sw=true
This is also the reason why telephoto-lenses are very nice for portraits as you are able to create a strong background-blur without having a razor thin depth-of-field
forgot to mention: calculation valid for f/2.8
Thorben, Thank you for your comments.
For practical examples of your point, Elizabeth has amply illustrated it in her excellent article What is Lens Compression and How to Use It In Your Photos:
photographylife.com/what-…ompression
Yes, we are on the same page! What I meant in the prior comment is that, if you were to zoom in on the background of the 35mm photo (assuming small enough pixels that you don’t start to see pixels at this point), the detail in that out-of-focus region would be identical to the detail in the telephoto’s out-of-focus region. If there is a line of text that you can read, barely, in the telephoto shot’s background, the same will be true in the wide-angle shot’s background. That line of text will simply appear much smaller in the wide angle frame and you’d need to crop in order to read it – but, assuming enough pixels, the actual detail due to out-of-focus blur would be the same. Hope that makes sense.
Depth of field exquisitely explained, illustrated, and scientifically demonstrated, by Paul van Walree:
www.vanwalree.com/
Thank you for the link, Pete, that author goes into this topic in much more detail! Very well-written.
Indeed, thanks a lot!
Spencer – good article, good responses. Another use for a telephoto, that wasn’t covered, is with extension tubes to accomplish close ups from a more distant vantage point. I use my 70-300 mm with either a 20 or 36 mm extension tube to shoot butterflies from several feet away. This way I don’t scare and flush the insect, yet get good sharpness and reasonable depth of field from a more comfortable working distance.
Good point! For macro photography, that’s why a telephoto lens is typically preferred — it lets you stand farther away from your subject, yet still fill the frame with what you’re capturing.
I think you have ommitted one golden rule when it comes to avoiding camera shake with a telephoto lens: the shutter speed should be at least the equivalent of your focal length: so if you are shooting at 500mm full frame your speed should be equal to or faster than 1/500 th. If you are shooting with, say, an APSC with a 1.6 crop factor, and using a 1.4 converter, with a 500mm lens, your speed should be no less than (500X1,6X1.4) = 1/1120 or, say, 1/1200th of a second. I
personally try to double these values and rather give up a bit of ISO..
Hi Rick,
The minimum shutter speed required to avoid motion blur depends on four things:
1. How steadily we are able hold the camera, which varies tremendously between individuals.
2. The intended viewing angle of the final print / digital image.
3. Whether or not the camera system has image stabilisation.
4. The amount of movement in the objects within the scene.
Item 1 is especially important to me, for neurological reasons, therefore my ‘golden rule’ is to use a shutter speed that is ten times faster than your rule. Fortunately, the VR system in my Nikon lenses seems to be especially good at compensating: it allows me to shoot using shutter speeds that are one to three stops slower than the focal length — giving me a 5 to 7 stop improvement over non-VR lenses. This doesn’t apply to just telephoto lenses, the 16-35 mm f/4 VR has enabled me to take sharp wide-angle shots in a variety of situations — something that I’d never been able to achieve using sharp non-VR lenses on autofocus camera bodies (only on manual focus cameras fitted with a split-image plus microprism focussing screen).
Pete, your always helpful comments have been somewhat scarce lately. I value your quest for truth and your very meticulous and logical posts. Trust all is well- please keep them coming.
Spencer and Nasim, carry on!
Thank you, Benji. I lost my self-confidence, but it’s starting to come back.
Rick, we have addressed that in our “what is reciprocal rule in photography” article.
Hi , Great article. I often end up having blurry images while shooting birds with the telephoto lens. Is there a particular focus mode that you would recommend in a Nikon 810 which could give sharper images , I have a 70-200 Nikon lens and a 150-600 tamron
Once again thank you for another helpful article
Glad you liked it, Mark!
Just a note. Telephoto doesn’t inherently have a smaller depth of field. That’s a popular myth. You’ll find that and several explained here: www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutor…lenses.htm
“Note that nowhere in this page is it mentioned that a wide angle lens has a greater depth of field. Unfortunately, this is another common misconception. If you are magnifying your subject by the same amount (meaning that they fill the image frame by the same proportion), then a wide angle lens will give the same* depth of field as a telephoto lens.”
The “flattening” effect (or lack thereof) is purely a factor of perspective. All a focal length really is, boiled down, is a crop of the visual world. Telephotos crop narrow, wide angle crops wide. You could easily stand at a position where the 14mm lens gives you exactly the same proportions for the portrait and crop. The two would look very similar (aside from different lens constructions and compromises).
Thanks for mentioning this. However, although the quote you included is accurate, the conclusions you’re drawing from it don’t seem to be. Telephoto lenses do have a shallower depth of field, assuming that you don’t move backwards or use a smaller aperture in order to compensate for their shallower depth of field!
There are three factors that affect depth of field: camera position, aperture, and focal length. (If you prefer two variables, you can combine aperture and focal length into a single variable, the physical diameter of the entrance pupil; or, you could combine focal length and camera position into a single variable, magnification.)
If you keep aperture and camera position constant, but you use a longer focal length, you will get a shallower depth of field — even compared to cropping from the wide shot. Test this yourself if you don’t believe me! A 200mm lens at f/4 is 100% equivalent to a 100mm lens at f/2 cropped to match the same frame (aside from, of course, the lower resolution of the cropped image). That’s because their entrance pupils have exactly the same diameter — 100/4 or 25 millimeters across. So, a 100mm lens at f/4 will have more depth of field than a 200mm lens at f/4, even if you crop the 100mm image to match the composition of the 200mm image.
The article you’re quoting is referring to magnification –as you zoom in, you can step back in order to keep the subject exactly the same size. Telephotos absolutely have a thinner depth of field, but, if you stand back to compensate (making the magnification of your subject identical in both photos), then yes, the depth of fields will be the same. Though, in that case, your perspective will be quite different, and the two photos will be far from identical in every respect aside from depth of field.
(As for your quote about perspective, you are correct, but I already included that in this post: “The extra sense of scale in these photos isn’t directly caused by your longer lens, but it indirectly is an important factor. Your photo’s perspective is determined by your camera position — which, if you use a telephoto, can be farther back than normal.”)