Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography
A wide angle lens is not the only lens to pack into your camera bag - sometimes a telephoto lens is best.
In this post naturalist, photographer, and computer scientist Steve Berardi from PhotoNaturalist explains why you need a telephoto zoom lens for landscape photography.
When you think about landscape photography, you might immediately think of the wide angle zoom lens, which is great for capturing those expansive landscapes and “taking it all in.”
But, a telephoto zoom lens can also be helpful when photographing landscapes. To understand why, it’s important to know what determines perspective and how perspective can help convey a particular feeling in a photograph.
What determines perspective?
As Ansel Adams repeats so often in his wonderful book, The Camera: “perspective is a function of camera-to-subject distance.”
There’s a common misconception that perspective is determined by focal length, but in reality, the only thing that determines perspective is where you put the camera.
There are at least two rules of perspective that you should be familiar with:
- the closer you get to a subject, the larger it will appear on the image frame (yeah, this one’s obvious)
- as you move closer to your scene, the closest objects will increase in size faster than the distant objects (not so obvious)
The second rule is the one we often forget, and it’s best illustrated with an example, so take a look at this photo I took in the Eastern Sierra of California:
In this photo, I was standing about 100 ft (30 m) from those boulders in the foreground. As a result, the dominant object in this shot is the mountain in the background, which stood miles away from the boulders.
Now, look what happens when I move just 50 ft (15 m) closer to those boulders:
All of a sudden, the mountains in the background don’t look so mighty, and now those boulders in the foreground are the dominant objects. This photo has a drastically different feeling than the previous one. The perspective you choose for a landscape will depend on the feeling you’re trying to convey.
Personally, in this case I prefer the first photo, because as I stood there in front of the scene, I felt like the mountain was in charge: it had an overpowering effect on me. So, I decided to give it an overpowering effect in the final image.
Another lesson to learn here: you probably noticed how different the lighting conditions are between the two photos above. The first shot was taken about 15 minutes before sunrise and the second shot was about 15 minutes after sunrise. Lighting conditions can change in milliseconds, so make sure you’re there for the entire show and be prepared to capture that light at any moment!
So, why do you need a telephoto zoom lens?
Since perspective is determined solely by where you put the camera, you’ll sometimes find that the most pleasing perspective is viewed from a great distance. So, to fill the frame with this perspective, you’ll need to zoom in to it with a longer focal length.
For example, the first photo above was taken at 70mm (on a 1.6x crop factor camera). I could have shot it at 40mm, but I wouldn’t have filled the frame: I would have inadvertently captured many of the surrounding elements of the scene.
The second shot was taken at 40mm, and this shorter focal length was necessary because I was much closer to those boulders in the foreground.
So, the lesson here is that carrying a wide range of focal lengths allows you to capture a wide range of perspectives.
What’s the best telephoto zoom lens for landscape photography?
This is definitely debatable, but most photographers would recommend the 70-200mm range (available from most camera manufacturers). Personally, I use Canon’s 70-200mm F/4L and it is easily my favorite lens (it’s great for wildflowers too!).
About the Author: Steve Berardi is a naturalist, photographer, and computer scientist. You can usually find him hiking in the San Gabriel Mountains or the Mojave Desert, both located in the beautiful state of California. Read more of his articles on nature photography at the PhotoNaturalist.
46 Responses to “Why you Need a Telephoto Zoom Lens for Landscape Photography” - Add Yours
July 8th, 2009 at 12:58 am
+1 for the Canon 70-200 F/4L
I’ve been into landscape photography for a few years now, but living in the flat midwest never felt like I was missing something by not having a lens in the 70-200 range. (I had the 100-400 F/4-5.6, but it’s a little heavy to hike around with). I recently went to California and photographing the hills there I felt like I needed something longer. So, I purchased the 70-200mm F/4L and absolutely LOVE the lens. It’s light enough to take around and fills the void I felt in my focal length coverage.
My only complaint would be the 67mm filter size, my other lenses I take around are 77mm (Canon 17-40mm and 24-105mm). Which means I’ll either need to get a different set of filters, or a step-up ring.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:21 am
I primarily walk around with my 70-200mm f2.8L IS lens. I don’t know why but I find I shoot more things with my telephoto lens than a prime. I typically like shooting wildlife (do you call a raccoon wildlife?) when I go for my walks. Though at a cropped sensor (as with my Canon XSI) the lens is 112mm-320mm) it doesn’t really offer that much of a wide angle. It does allow me to compose some pretty fun looking landscape photos though :)
Such as this photo of Mt.Baker: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tyleringram/3694011249/
July 8th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Steve,
Both images are fantastic. Did you change lenses between shots or did you shoot both with a 24-70 zoom perhaps?
July 8th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Nice illustration of the two rules of perspectives and I agree with Steve that the first photo’s overpowering. The mountains looked magnificent!
Read somewhere about using a 70-200mm lens for landscape photography and why not? Thanks for sharing.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:57 am
Yay! I’m always happy to see that emphasized.
July 8th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Great article, Steve! I’ve been know to take landscape photos with my 100-400mm lens from time to time. I love the way it compresses the layers of the Blue Ridge mountains where I live, and I’ve also found it useful for times when I’m feeling too lazy to walk clear across a huge meadow to take my shot :)
July 8th, 2009 at 2:48 am
There was a time when I accepted the notion that landscape lens = wide ange lens – but that maybe it was OK to push things as far as using a “normal” focal length. These days I shoot landscape (on full frame) with focal lengths ranging from 17mm to 400mm. (Here is one example shot with a 400mm lens.)
Regarding “perspective,” I think the issue is that there are multiple legitimate meanings for the word. Certainly the technically correct photographic meaning has to do with the location from which the scene was photographed. But the more generally understood meaning is, well, more general and it refers to something like “the way someone views something.” (Think of “My perspective on this issue is that…”) At a minimum, some confusion is to be expected, and one could argue that it is not completely wrong – albeit a bit confusing – to use the term in more than one way.
Dan
July 8th, 2009 at 3:03 am
I definitely prefer the second pic!
July 8th, 2009 at 5:02 am
I only own two lenses, my 50mm, and a 70-200mm. Whenever I go out shooting, I always take them both. I never know which one will get me the shot I envision. So, switching between the two has become the norm for me.
I totally agree with your assessment of “perspective.”
July 8th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Great article! I agree with your main points as I have often found myself in situations where a wider angle is actually inappropriate for capturing a good landscape. Having a good zoom lens around is imperative when I go out shooting.
Not to mention that at times it is better to zoom in and gain detail than to have to crop out undesired aspects of the photo later on, ultimately reducing your total image quality.
It’s also nice to be able to manipulate the emphasis of the photo with zoom in those situations as well. It allows me to set the desired object, or area, of focus much more pleasingly to the eye than a purely wide angle lens allows.
Thanks for the article. Keep them coming. :)
-Anthony
July 8th, 2009 at 7:35 am
One thing to keep in mind when using a zoom lens for landscape is atmospheric haze. The more atmosphere between you and the object you are photographing, the more water vapor the light has to go through. If conditions are good, it doesn’t matter. Some days however, it can really mess up the photo. The closer you are to the object, the less you need to worry about haze.
July 8th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Thanks everyone for your great comments!!
@Ryan – I actually grew up in the midwest, around Chicago.. I don’t miss the cold, but definitely miss the fall season! It’s strange, growing up I never thought the midwest had a very beautiful landscape.. but now whenever I go back home it’s like I see it differently, and it always looks so beautiful to me now.. I think when we spend so much time in one area, we become accustomed to the scenery and that kind of distorts the “freshness” of our vision. It’s inevitable, I think. oh, and I definitely agree about the annoyance of the 67mm filter size.. I tried using a step up ring for awhile, but that thing just annoyed me more, haha!
@Tyler – I’d definitely consider a raccoon wildlife :) I think anything that’s not a pigeon can be called wildlife, haha.
@Zack – good question, I should have mentioned this in the article. I DID switch lenses between each shot.. I took the first one with Canon’s 70-200 and the second one with their 17-40 (also a wonderful lens).
@Theresa – Thanks! I agree about the mountains.. in fact, I think all my mountain shots are with a telephoto (except the second photo here, shot with the 17-40)
@Dan – great shot at 400mm! I should have mentioned in the article that I don’t consider 200mm an “upper bound” for landscape photos.. I’ve seen great landscape photos at 300mm (and now 400mm with your shot).. there’s really no limit! And, good call on the word “perspective” — didn’t think about the two different meanings when I wrote this article.
@Lisa – great choice with the 50mm, that’s my second favorite lens :)
@Gary – great point about the haze. I’ve experienced that a lot while trying to shoot landscapes in the mountains. One way to battle the haze is to shoot early in the morning (when it’s less hazy).
Steve
July 8th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
What this article, and others like it, say to me is that a perfectly good basic kit for most shots (not long rand wildlife) is, for Canon, the 17-40L, a 50mm prime, and a 70-200 f4L. This is not too heavy to pack and covers most needs. Would have been handy to have this advice when I was first starting out since I ended up making a buch of “detours” before settling on this kit.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Same principle applies those wonderful MOON / Sun Set shots where these natural balls look great
July 9th, 2009 at 12:19 am
Simple to understand but great article.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:55 am
Is there a huge difference between a 50-200mm versus the recommended 70-200?
I am using a Nikon camera and Nikon lenses.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:10 am
@John – the three lenses you mention make a great kit. Add a 25mm extension tube and you can even do a little macro work with the 50mm.
@Benjamin – I’m not too familiar with Nikon lenses, but 50-200 sounds like a good range. In fact, there’s been many times where I wanted a focal length between my 17-40 and 70-200 (one of the reasons I may get a 24-105 in the future).
Steve
July 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Interesting. I’m mainly photograph landscapes. My gear is simple: a compact digital and a film slr. It seems like a 35mm (film equivalent) is enough wide to my. In my slr I have just a 50mm, and I think if I’d take another lens, it should be a tele (I’m not sure, maybe 85, 105 or 135).
Until now, I feel comfortable photographing with my 50mm, and almost I’m missing a tele because it could allow me to isolate my subject before to show a lot of things in a pic.
Good article. Regards.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
i used to carry a 28-200 lens around, and recently switched to 18-55 due to it being a lot lighter, and find it quite sufficient. i see a telephoto zoom lens as a “nice to have” but never as a “must”
July 10th, 2009 at 3:17 am
Steve,i’m a beginner, so should i consider the 70-200mm f/4? Or the 70-200mm f/2.8? I also own a 70-300mm f/4.5 w/ IS. People are selling their 70-200mm f/4
……………………………………………………….message ends…………………………………………………………………………………………..
July 10th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Pretty spendy lens. Great article.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:59 am
I agree with the inclusion of foregrownd to imply more depth, and I do the same with a wide angle set at the smallest aperture posssible and focusing very close or midrange on the subject to get fore and background in focus, creates some great landscape results. A tripod may be necessary (larger aperture). I have to try it more with the telephoto lens
July 10th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Carleton, go for the F/4.
It’s a lot cheaper and for beginners, it’s a great lense in both weight, clarity and speed.
The F/2.8 is definitely faster, but also heavier and a lot more expensive.
.
As for the topic, I couldn’t agree more on the weapon of choice.
I use my 70-300 Tamron a lot for landscapes, one result is here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hanspama/3671629739/
If i had used my 28mm or 18-55, the power lines wouldn’t have curved as realistic as they do here.
I also use my 50mm F/1.8 a lot on landscapes, it’s the best darned piece of equipment I ever had for this price.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:42 am
@Carleton:
Whether to get a 70-200mm f/4 or a 70-200mm f/2.8 is only a question of 2 things:
- Price
- Weight, Size
Both factors are about doubled for the f/2.8 compared to the f/4. If neither matters, go for the f/2.8 and, if weight and size really don’t matter, go for the IS on either of them. I have the IS on my 100-400mm f/4 and I love it!
Gossi
(Canon 1Ds MkII, 5D MkII, EF 24-105 mm f/4 L IS USM, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM)
July 10th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Thanks Steve for a great article,
I am about to upgrade my equipment (I shoot with Canon) and the telephoto I am leaning towards buying is the Canon 100-400mm F4-5.6 L USM IS. It was a toss up between that and the 70-200mm F4L which you use (awesome shots by the way). I know you’ve said that 200mm is by no means an “upper bound” for landscape photography but considering I shoot mostly landscapes do you think 400mm is a bit much? The main reason I am leaning towards the 400mm is because I currently own the 75-300mm Canon zoom (kit lens) and sometimes find the 300mm max focal length frustrating in that often it doesn’t get me quite close enough to compose a shot properly and I end up having to crop in later. I figured the 400mm would be handy to have on hand for these situations but wondering if it’s actually worth carrying around the extra weight.
Craig
July 10th, 2009 at 10:35 am
@Craig
Only you can be the judge, but the 3lb 100-400mm is almost twice as heavy as the 70-200 F4. I’ll tell you, I have both and I carry my 70-200 much more than my 100-400.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
@fswerk – I think the telephoto just allows you to capture more perspectives.. and I think perspective is one of the defining elements of a good landscape photo.
@Carleton – I like the f/4 because I mostly use the lens for wildflowers and landscapes.. so the widest aperture I’ve used is f/5.6. I mostly shoot at f/8 or f/16-22 with the lens. I’ve talked with a few portrait photographers though that love the f/2.8. btw, the f/4 is also much lighter than the f/2.8, which comes into play when you’re hauling a backpack with a ton of gear :)
@Craig – I know a few people who use Canon’s 100-400 and they all love it.. it’s capable of getting some awesome images. But, I’ve mostly heard it being used for wildlife or butterflies/dragonflies.. that definitely doesn’t mean you can’t shoot landscapes with it though!
Personally, in addition to the 70-200, I also use Canon’s 300mm f/4 prime, often with a 1.4 extender to get 420mm.. that’s one route you can take.. or you can just get the 100-400. If you shoot a lot of landscapes though, I’d definitely recommend you have focal lengths in the 70-100 range (and you will if you keep the 75-300).
And, as Ryan points out, the 100-400 is pretty heavy.
July 12th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
A quick question regarding perspective and focal length: with a 1.6 crop-factor camera (mine’s a Samsung GX-1L) am I correct in understanding that is exactly that – a crop. I mean for at 50mm focal length, say, the perspective is the same as if I was using it on a film camera. I just get a shot without the edges. It is NOT the same perspective as if I had an 80mm lens on the Spotmatic?
Correct?
July 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
i tried this and it really worked! thanks for the great tip!
July 14th, 2009 at 1:23 am
@davidn:
” with a 1.6 crop-factor camera (mine’s a Samsung GX-1L) am I correct in understanding that is exactly that – a crop. I mean for at 50mm focal length, say, the perspective is the same as if I was using it on a film camera. I just get a shot without the edges.”
Yes, that is correct.
“It is NOT the same perspective as if I had an 80mm lens on the Spotmatic?”
If I read you right, it IS the same perspective.
If you stay in the same place and change lenses from 50mm to 80mm, you get a crop. Zooming in closer with a zoom lens is cropping – you get the same shot without the edges.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
@davidn – remember: “the only thing that determines perspective is where you put the camera” — perspective has nothing to do with focal length, so if you stand in the same spot and switch your lens from a 50mm to a 80mm, you’ll get a photo with the same perspective, but as Persma points out, your photo will be cropped more with the 80mm.
July 14th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Thanks persma & Steve. I think I understand. For example, if I’m looking between two big trucks from a distance, I might not see a small car hidden by one of them. No zooming in or changing of lens will make light bend round corners and show me the car, but walking forward, between the trucks would… and THAT is changing perspective.
Thanks again.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Great article Steve, in particular your examples are really strong on the effects of moving closer to the subject. I love seeing this sort of stuff here, I think photography needs to concentrate on the art theory behind image making a bit more and the technology just a bit less. Things like perspective, color theory and other things painters have been studying for hundreds of years it’s high time for photography to more broadly embrace. I can pixel peep with the best of them, but at the end of the day if you don’t have a vision to go with all of that technical prowess you end up with very tidy but boring images.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Guilty! I find myself taking way too many “tidy but boring” pictures. I recently got back from a trip to Alaska and have quite a few keepers but way too many TBBs. It’s not the equipment but the eye and the perspective that make the photo. The good shots were the ones I had to go and get, not the easy ones from the side of the road. Equipment discussions are great and I groove on them but to make yourself a better Photographer you’ve got to have a little vision, be ready to take some criticism, some decent equipment, and a willingness to get up early (those sunrise shots really are magic). There’s a lot more of course but I digress…
July 18th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
A friend sent me photos of lightning from this site and it does look interesting so I have signed up to receive the newsletters. I primarily like to shoot scenic, panaramic and love clouds in the picture. I have not shot much lightning for some time. I currently have a Canon PowerShot Pro 1 with a 28 to 200 zoom lens. In the near future I am planning to buy the Canon Eos 50D with a 10-24 ultra wide-angle and 18-27mm zoom from Tamron…probably within a month of this date. This site looks interesting.
July 28th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Hi everybody, just went through the tutorial and all the posts and I’m really looking forward to going out and shoot with my new Canon 70-200mm f/4 L. I’m quite new to the whole photography thing and shoot using rather my instincts than the knowledge of the basic photography principles (typical woman ;oP ). I was given a choice of a lens for my birthday and couldn’t decide which one I should go for (the curse of two other photographers in the family ;oP). In the end I chose the above mentioned telephoto zoom lens based on various photography websites, incl. dps and I’m glad to see even more positive feedback… Thanks a million for giving loads of useful tips and advices that are easy to understand. I’m sure I’m not the only one who appreciates it…
July 30th, 2009 at 4:52 am
I love seeing photos that make me go, “Omigosh!” ;-) These two are certainly in that category. Great reminder of the things we need to consider.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:45 am
I’m sorry, but the images yo presented aren’t a good example for what you are taling about.
In the first one, the boulders are under the line of the mountains. In the second, they are above the line of the mountains. This is, in fact, the gratest change you’ve made. On the place where you took the second one, in a very low angle probably on your knees or lower, if you stand up, it will look almost like the first one. And the dramatic diference will not be that much. It will be just a meter of taste to chosse one or the othe.
One other big chage from the first to the second one, is the “zoom2 to simplify it. On the first one you work with an close angle, and in the second one you’re using a wider angle. And this realy makes a diference in prespective. The closer the angle, more compact and glued together the planes are. The wider the angle, the most thing are separated from each other.
Just one other major diference in those pictures, framing. The sides of the pictures don’t show the same thing. You have cut of the smal rocks on the right, and on the left, you cut the boulder.
And on the second one, you have a lot of floor.
If it is a tutorial, you should also give the information about the angle – focal distance- you have used.
I’m sorry, but these are not two diferent pictures of the same thing, but just two diferent pictures.
And last, but defenetly not least, this is realy not truth – “There’s a common misconception that perspective is determined by focal length, but in reality, the only thing that determines perspective is where you put the camera.”
If in doubt, try this – put the camera on a tripod. After framing lock it.
1 -put yourself at 10meters of two birds that are apart 2 meters. One is 10m from you, the other 12m. Take a shot with your 70-200mm at 200mm. f value big so you have deep of field.
2 – Stay here you are, dont tuch the tripod, and simply pull back the zoom and take another shot at 70mm.
3- Go to photoshop and put the first over the second, and resize this one until the birds are the same size, meaning, overlaping almost perfectly. Crop, print, put side by side.
Then come back to this coments if you still think the same way.
Best
Fernando.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:06 am
Dont get me wrong. I like both pictures, the sun whs rising, and you took them 40minutes apart. I prefer the colors of the second, but i think i would love the colors of the one you took in between aroung 15 after the first one. Not so yellow yet, but not so red anymore.
What i miss on both, is the feeling of whats in the midle, between the boulders and the mountain.
Again, it is onother picture.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:30 am
This is really awesome advice to a budding, self-taught photog like myself! Thank you!
This will definitely change my lens-buying priorities. I tend to like my photos to be full of drama, whether they are shots of flowers or highways or buildings…etc.
Great stuff!
Jennifer More
JenniferLynn Productions, LLC
August 12th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Excellent article about perspective and camera placement, as well as always having a zoom lens when doing landscape shots.
Another issue that really needs to be included is how one can frame a landscape shot for taking several images and stitching them together to make a panorama.
If you have a fixed wide angle lens, good luck in stitching multiple images together to create a panorama shot because the shorter the focal length, the higher the perspective distortion.
With a zoom lens say @ 12~60mm, you have the instant choice of weather you want a single wide angle shot or zoom in to say 40mm and take several images for a panorama of the same landscape
Thanks for posting.
August 16th, 2009 at 3:46 am
Nice article. Well written, informative, understandable. The humor was suttle but made me LOL. Thanks
August 26th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I prefer to see both pictures in terms of the first word that came to mind on seeing them. Power. The first thunders with ‘overwhelming’ power, the second with ‘passive’ non-chalant power.
It’s a wonder how a little change in view point can change the picture’s effect so much. I’m an amateur photographer. I wouldn’t even call myself photographer as I don’t do it to earn money. I just collect pictures, mostly of nature and put them in my private collection album. With my album, I take vacations anytime I want, anywhere.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Thanks for that and reminding us of ‘The Camera’ by Ansel Adams -I’m not much of a landscape photographer myself but I’m off to the mountains tomorrow. I’m definitely taking my SLR + 200mm along. But still, I can’t leave my Zorki and 35mm lens behind…
October 17th, 2009 at 4:39 am
If you are trying to show the affects of one feature like the effects of “where you put the camera” on perspective then you should change only that feature between shots and nothing else. There is another effect that confuses this issue in that a long focus lens will magnify a distant object more than it will a near one if everything else is the same including the FRAMEING of the near object and that of course changes “where you put the camera” but only a little. I have tested this very carefully and it’s a trick used by cinema photographers in old western movies like Shane and the way you think about it gives more control over the results.
Also Zooms are not the best for landscape photography even if somewhat better than they were in the past.
Now go back to Lone Pine and do it all over again:)
Walter Minton
October 17th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Interesting note about the movies -I will definitely put some thoughts into that. I have posted whatever came out from that day I mentioned in my previous comment. It’s on my website -ads free: http://cedricfrancois.com/2009/10/17/telephoto-landscape-photography-on-film/ if you care to have a look!
Leave a Reply