If it isn’t obvious from the photos I share on Photography Life, the camera equipment I use makes it quite clear: I am not a wildlife photographer. In fact, my longest lens weighs in at 105mm — nowhere near the super-telephotos used by most wildlife pros. However, although I rarely seek out wildlife opportunities, animals do not avoid me. I have been fortunate enough to see everything from whales to reindeer while taking pictures, and I’ve learned some tips for photographing wildlife with a short telephoto lens along the way.
Table of Contents
1) Include Context
Context is the most important part of making effective wildlife photos with a short telephoto lens. In fact, it’s something that would be very tricky with a super-telephoto.
Whereas super-telephoto lenses are good at isolating a subject from its background, wider lenses are better at showing the scenery nearby.
In part, this context stems from the larger perceived depth of field from wide lenses, even at maximum aperture. I took the photo below at f/2.8, for example — an aperture that would have rendered the entire background featureless with a 400mm lens.
Wider telephoto lenses also provide context by allowing you to frame the wildlife as a smaller part of your composition. Whereas a 400mm lens cannot show a large portion of the nearby landscape, a 105mm (or 70-200mm, or 50mm) allows you to include part of the scenery around the wildlife as well.
Although traditional wildlife photography focuses on magnifying the subject as much as possible, don’t discount the benefits of a more context-based composition. Some of the best wildlife images I have ever seen depict a beautiful landscape, and it takes a moment to realize that an animal is hiding in the photo as well.
2) Wait
Sometimes, the best way to photograph wildlife with a shorter lens is simply to wait. Because a wider telephoto lends itself to including context, I sometimes frame my photo before I even see wildlife — then, I just have to wait for an animal to appear.
Granted, this doesn’t work in most locations. But, in wildlife-concentrated areas like coastlines, it often is possible to anticipate where an animal will be before it enters the scene. If you wait for wildlife to be in the perfect location, you can give more thought to the way you compose your images.
Whenever you see wildlife in front of an interesting background, you can make an educated guess that it will return — plan your compositions accordingly. Yes, it could be a once-in-a-lifetime fluke for the animal to be there, and you may never see such a scene again. More likely, though, the animal is crossing a well-travelled path, and it will be back shortly.
When I was photographing at Jökulsárlón lagoon in Iceland, a single seagull flew by my camera, far larger and faster than any of the nearby birds. I missed the photo, but that seagull made the same maneuver ten minutes later — and the next ten minutes, and the next. Because I stayed in one location and pre-framed my shot, I was able to frame the shot below with my 105mm lens.
3) Get closer
If you are using a shorter telephoto lens, you will find it difficult to photograph distant wildlife — and including context doesn’t work if your subject is only a few pixels wide. This means that you must get closer to your subject than you would with a longer lens.
Typically, you need to outsmart the animal, especially if it is skittish. I wrote in my Photographing in Iceland article that I learned a way to approach reindeer for photography, and I wasn’t exaggerating.
I already stood downwind from the reindeer in the photo below, but they moved away whenever I approached. To get the shot I wanted, I left my tripod behind, walked to a nearby hill, and lay down. Within fifteen minutes, the reindeer had approached much closer, and I was able to frame the shot I wanted.
Far more advanced techniques exist for approaching wildlife, of course — everything from camouflaged tents to duck calls. For the casual wildlife photographer, though, it should be enough just to stay downwind and remain motionless.
Yes, this would have been easier with a super-telephoto. However, with the equipment that I had, I am happy to have taken such a photo.
3) Get much closer
Although most animals are scared of people, you will find some (those who are around humans constantly, or those who have never seen humans) which may allow you to approach as close as you want.
In such a scenario, you can frame your images just as you would with a longer lens. There is an added benefit, too: whereas super-telephoto lenses will compress a distant subject, a wider lens provides more dimension to the wildlife if you fill the frame.
Take care not to abuse these animals’ trust — you wouldn’t want to startle nervous wildlife with a loud shutter (cough, A7r) or cause it distress by getting too close.
4) Photograph Groups
Take a look at the photo below:
Although the birds cover about half of the photo’s horizontal width, each individual bird is quite small in the frame.
The morning I took this photo, my goal was to take a photo of a single sandpiper rather than this group. Birds are skittish creatures, though, and it is almost impossible to fill the frame with a lone sandpiper using a 105mm lens.
However, although my lens is too short to photograph a single bird, sandpipers tend to travel in larger groups. I was lucky enough to find four of them walking down the beach together, a wonderful opportunity for a group portrait.
This technique isn’t perfect — and it is harder to take quality wildlife images when you are multiple animals need to look good in one photo, of course. It took several dozen tries before I got an image with all four sandpipers facing the same direction, without any bird blocking the others.
It goes without saying, too, that you can not always photograph wildlife in a group — some animals prefer to travel alone. However, when you are working with a wider lens, it is worthwhile to search for wildlife that sticks together; a single animal may be too small for your intended composition, but a group makes it far easier to fill the frame.
5) Conclusion
A super-telephoto lens will always be the most important staple in a wildlife photographer’s kit, but that doesn’t make it the only lens available. Whether you have a nickname for your 600mm f/4 or you have yet to purchase an extreme telephoto, consider photographing wildlife with a wider lens than typical — you may be pleasantly surprised by what is possible.
If you liked this article and want to go more into detail on some of these topics, check out the video that I made on the subject below!
Very good article. Now I have a new knowledge about wildlife photography
Very Informative article. Thank You for changing our vision.
This was the best article I have ever read thank you so much this has given me more self confidence than anything I have ever read to do with photography I will now save up to get a similar lens and not give up on my journey into photography Thank you again
Very constructive information, very helpful
Glad you liked it! Thanks, Don.
For what it’s worth, a long time ago I read a series of articles which which led me to reevaluate my own thinking – and which encapsulate the issues which came up in this discourse.
The following is my precis of those articles.
I take no credit for the content.
“Intelligence is not rationality – an essay on genius”.
Most people seem to recognize that intelligence and rationality are not the same thing.
IQ tests test intelligence and intelligence is a very useful thing. It is an important component of rational thought, too. But it is not the same thing as rationality and, without rationality we don’t make the kinds of choices that solve real problems.
So, IQ tests test cognitive ability BUT ability and performance are not the same thing.
Intelligence is an important factor in rational thought, but it is only one factor that matters. Knowledge is also necessary to solve many problems and intelligence cannot make up for a lack of information.
But the other, perhaps most vital items that contribute to rationality are thinking dispositions.
We tend to the think that people are irrational because they lack intelligence or knowledge. However, intelligence and education are no guarantees of rationality because other factors such as cognitive laziness and open/closed-mindedness are just as, if not more, important.
In other words, human beings tend to be irrational out not only out of stupidity or ignorance, but also out of laziness or arrogance.
We are sometimes irrational because we are stupid (unintelligent) and we are sometimes irrational because we are ignorant (lack knowledge), but we are often irrational because we are lazy (lack intellectual curiosity) or arrogant.
The scientific process addresses each of these factors to ensure that the answers we find are as accurate as possible. The scientific method itself is inherently intelligent -a good researcher must have a minimum level of intelligence in order to succeed, as good research rises above bad through the process of peer review.
Regarding cognitive laziness, science itself is curious; scientists would not be in the business if they were not intellectually curious and willing to do the work to find accurate answers. Science is competitive and interactive, discouraging arrogance. An individual scientist may be overconfident, but the process of peer review and replication beats that arrogance down in order to produce a consensus view.
When overconfidence is combined with inflexibility, rationality is nearly impossible and the potential for damage is boundless. Stubborn overconfidence is arrogance and arrogance is blinding. This deficit of the need to ‘think things through’ renders intelligence useless and leads to irrational choices and behaviours.
People who using poor study strategies (e.g., rote memorization or “rehearsal” of conceptual material) feel entitled to do so and resist the conclusion that poor results are a result of those strategies.
Also, people with high entitlement attitudes have been shown to be the most overconfident, but to be the least competent (this is the Dunning-Kruger Effect), and tend to attribute poor outcomes to forces outside of their control (the teacher, the system, ADD, ).
They perform poorly because they don’t understand the material and they don’t know that they don’t understand it.
They reject feedback and attribute underperformance to outside forces, not themselves.
Feedback therefore does not cause them to change their behavior.
This is correlated with feelings of entitlement, superiority, and narcissism, so they feel entitled to continue with poor learning strategies
Those poor strategies do not lead to greater competence, hence they remain in a cycle of ignorance and incompetence.
Everyone is an idiot but them.
This creates what is known as a “Cycle of Incompetence.”
The most competent people recognise that the more we know, the more we understand how much we do not know.
Conversely, those with the least competence don’t know what they don’t know.
If you think that you are competent or right, if you don’t know that you don’t know and you won’t accept criticism as feedback, it’s unlikely that you will make the changes needed to become competent.
When we are unable to set aside our beliefs and opinions, unable to accept the possibility that those beliefs are wrong, we are unable to objectively evaluate arguments and evidence.
When we are unable to be objective, we are unable to be rational.
And when we are unable to be rational, we risk forming beliefs and making choices which lead to poor outcomes.
Thus, open-mindedness and flexibility are the cornerstones of rationality.
Science—the best means of acquiring knowledge—is humble, open, and flexible for that reason. You may be reasonably certain of a conclusion, but the moment you close the door on the possibility that you are wrong, you become irrational.
So being smart is not enough. Being smart and educated is not enough.
We must be smart, educated, curious, and open-minded, and this last one is perhaps the most important of them all.
*sigh* – Don, when did I use word better? I used words such as “norm”, “more commonly used” and such, but not better. Let me rephrase: 24mm lenses are more commonly used for landscape photography than 85mm lenses :) – how is that? Now, about hitting the slopes :) – I am always a game for that :) (and can make a heck of a guide :) )
One final message for this ignoranus, *Jack*. I’ve selected this article *especially* for you, since the author describes frauds like you down to the final detail.
In summary, “There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who just talk about it.”
Please, enjoy!
kenrockwell.com/tech/…aphers.htm
Guest, thank you for your comment and link: I totally agree with you.
Ken’s earlier article to which he refers “The Seven Levels of Photographers” is particularly relevant to the commentator “jack” — I shall leave it to the readers to conclude which level “jack” has managed to attain.
Spencer, I do understand your two reminders that the discussions were getting out of hand on both sides, and I fully support your suggestion on one thread that “It’s time to call this one to a close.”
I wrote to Jack, which equally applies to everyone else:
“If you wish to have an informed discussion, you are most welcome. If you wish to continue with your self-serving arguments, which misinform the readers of this website, then don’t be surprised each time I decide to take you to task for your comments.”
Hopefully, you and Nasim will inform me as to whether Photography Life supports my above statement, or would rather that I just keep quiet to maintain a status quo when abjectly false (or otherwise misleading) information is being promulgated by a commentator on any of the posted articles.
Sincerest best wishes,
Pete
NICE!!! Calling daddy to mitigate a dispute? hehehe
“If you wish to have an informed discussion, you are most welcome. If you wish to continue with your self-serving arguments, which misinform the readers of this website, then don’t be surprised each time I decide to take you to task for your comments.”
At no tome were my comments self-serving (how did you even come up with it?) and once again it is more of an misinformation to tell users that the best lens for landscape is 85mm rather than 24mm. (or to tell them that f-stop is used in calculation of dof – hehe)
“I just keep quiet to maintain a status quo when abjectly false (or otherwise misleading) information is being promulgated by a commentator on any of the posted articles” – yeah :) I am so glad you were here to protect users and tell them that f-stop is not used in DOF calculation :)
Jack,
You said it yourself. You are very opinionated, and you are entitled to those opinions, but when you say that a 24mm lens is better for a landscape shot than an 85mm, you make me wonder whether or not you really know what you’re talking about. Landscape photography encompasses a very broad range of photography, and there are many instances, and I do mean many, that even a 200mm lens is just barely enough. I do agree with your assertion that a super wide angle lens is probably the wrong lens for wedding portraits, but that’s a different story. Since you’re here for the entertainment, I hope that I helped. Let’s hit the slopes.
Don
Jack when you understand the difference between F-stop and entrance pupil diameter all will become clear.
Until then, you will remain lost, barking at the moon.
oh, betty betty… are we talking about an eye or a lens here? Nice attempt to cover how wrong you were about DOF in photography :) – once again – F-Stop controls aperture so IT is important to DOF calculation (DOF in photography – using camera and lens that is) – stop, you were wrong, admit it and move on….
In writing, in photographing and most especially in responding to comments, Spencer shows a remarkable maturity and wisdom beyond his years. I am grateful that PL found him. Looking forward to many years of the same. Zane
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, so if the photographer thinks that it’s wildlife photography, who has the right to dispute it. Personally, I like photos 1, 3, and 6, and particularly number 3. They’re well composed, interesting, and I see some wildlife in each, so they must be wildlife photographs. One of my own favorite photographs is of a mourning dove. I was using an Olympus E-M1 and had my 9-18mm attached. I didn’t have time to switch lenses, so I took it at 18mm (36mm full frame equivalent). Obviously, it doesn’t fit into the definition of wildlife photography for those who limit that definition to a minimum of a 200mm or 300mm lens, but I was close enough that it filled most of the frame, so it must be a wildlife photograph.
Thank you, Don!
I like your definition of wildlife photography, since it gives the final word to the photographer : )
It seems to me that wide angle lenses are more difficult to use for wildlife photography, as you would expect, but they provide equally interesting results as telephotos. It is always nice to see a subject in a new way, which wide angles (or even less-extreme telephotos) inherently provide.
~Spencer
If you look on the FIAP or RPS or PSA websites you will see that wildlife/nature photography has a tightly proscribed definition – at least for the purposes of competition, exhibition and publication.
Animals in constrained conditions (game farm, zoo, etc), farm animals and domestic pussy cats and pooches are not admissible.
Neither is wildlife photography defined by the lens an image was made with.
On that count there are no constraints.
The rest is animal photography.
There’s nothing wrong with animal photography, but we shouldn’t pretend it has anything to do with wildlife or wildlife photography.
It’s possible that folks with super zooms and long focal lengths might feel a tad threatened by this rather excellent article :)
Wildlife photography isn’t about simply capturing an animal’s eyes at 800mm. For instance, many of the winning entries of the Wildlife Photographer Of The Year competition (hosted here in London) over the years were taken with wide angle lenses or short primes. They revealed the subject in a way not seen before. And surely that’s a cardinal tenet of any photography?
What I take from this article is that creativity, vision and skill in wildlife photography is not dependent on the size of one’s focal length, and can be used to overcome the limitations of any focal length to produce beautiful images, as Spencer has ably demonstrated here.
Good job Spencer.
Regards,
Sharif.
Thank you, Sharif!
Indeed, I find it interesting how often the winning wildlife photos from WPOTY or similar contests are taken with unconventional lenses. It’s clear that people like to see subjects in unusual ways, and “new” focal lengths certainly qualify.
~Spencer