Commercially available, I mean. So not counting spy satellites or whatever.
Let’s just say that I want to become a member of the paparazzi. With access to available camera equipment, what’s the maximum range where I could sit out to sea on a boat or up in some oceanfront cliffs and take recognizable photos of the celeb du jour out on the beach?
I’ve tried looking at Google but the only sites I found talk about the size of the lens, etc and I don’t know how to translate that into “Can photograph some guy from a half mile away”.
The Canon 1200mm is designed for a 35mm SLR or DSLR, the Zeiss is for a medium format camera so it probably not what you’re looking for.
The 1200mm focal length is a big honking lens. This would get you pretty close, but you can also add a telephoto converter or use it on a non-full frame DSLR which will multiply it further, usually by 1.6x. I’m looking for a good demonstration online that will show you what a 1200mm focal length really means.
These lenses require a lot of light, so if you’re shooting anytime not at noon you might run into problems.
Nifty. I saw the $90k one in my searching but I’m not sure I’d call it “commercially available” and I have no concept of what a 1200mm lens can do. Any way to translate that into laymen’s terms? Such as “Take a decent magazine quality photo of a guy from X distance away”?
With adapters and extenders, they can get the Canon 1200mm to a focal length of 17280mm. No example photos, unfortunately.
Canon had a 5200mm lens capable of taking photos of objects “18 to 31 miles away” in the 60s. [EDIT: this is obviously not “available camera equipment” it’s just cool]
Not to be too much of an ass, but IMO, the most powerful lens is the one used by someone that takes the most intellectually and emotionally moving image with it. Getting a photo of a guy 1/2 mile away with a monster lens is nothing if that picture doesn’t have meaning.
That famous photo of the South Vietnamese cop shooting the suspected VC in the head- probably taken with either a 50mm or a 35mm lens.
The Chinese guy standing down a tank in Tienamen Square- probably taken with a 300mm or 400mm and blown up quite a bit.
I can’t remember the photog’s name at the moment (Capra?), but he said this-
“If your pictures aren’t good enough, then you aren’t close enough.”
There is more truth in this statement than is obvious at first reading.
Speaking as a working news photographer, it is far too easy to get a shot with with a telephoto lens but if you want to get inside the moment, get close and personal with a nice short lens.
Fair enough but I do not know that this holds true for wildlife photography. I mean just how close is a photographer expected to get to a pride of lions for a good picture? What about eagles on the next mountain summit over that you cannot get to (or for that matter be parallel to as opposed to below their nest)?
Oh, if we’re talking about wildlife photography then you’ll definately need a bloody big lens and the faster the better since the best photos happen just after sunrise or before sunset. A 400mm f/2.8 or a 600mm f/4 should to do the trick. Get a very heavy tripod to mount it on or something else very sturdy and stable. You will not be hand-holding either of these for very long-I’ve used both for sporting events and they’re heavy and cumbersome even with a monopod. They’re also rather expensive as well… I have a 300mm f/2.8 manual focus Nikkor that I paid $2800 for back in 1992 and it was used!
Anyhow, the OP was asking about getting shots of people, not wildlife.
Like anything, that quote is not so much a rule, but a rule of thumb. It works for a good many situations–especially in photojournalism–but getting telephoto and isolating the subject from the background is a visually striking technique and quite often more striking then just getting a few feet away from your subject with a 20-35mm lens.
What pulykamell states above is quite true. I spend so much time doing ‘my thing’ that I often forget or completely ignore that it doesn’t always translate to what someone else is doing.
True enough, but I’m more curious about the technical details than the artistic one. The catalyst for the thread was the recent “Obama on vacation” photos and someone I know asking how come Secret Service let the photographer get that “close”. I know there’s powerful lenses that’d allow you to take a decent photo of a person from some distance but I don’t know the limits of the range.
On a bad day in LA no long lens is going to get a good picture at long distance. Summer time, can you say pollution & heat waves?
Long glass is easy and cheap, long fast glass is very $$$$$ Those beautiful Pro football game shots in close and tight that SI prints. Those come from those guys with the $5000 lens cameras on sitting on the sidelines. You know the ones, about 12-18’ long and and 6-8 " in diameter. Big honkin glass but they are not really shooting that far and usually on cool nights with a lot of artificial lights. Dusk and dawn as stated above looking through haze, pollution and through the fence and Paris Hilton’s estate, not so much.
You can only do so much with $$$, then your brains, judgment, patience & talent are what really matter.
