105mm portrait lens vs. 500mm tele: will you see the difference?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

ElenaH

ElenaH

Well-known member
Member's gallery
We all know the famous quote of Robeert Capa: „if your photographs aren't good enough you're not close enough“
Well.. the other day I was watching a presentation of David Yarrow in YouTube where he said: „Will you photograph a beautiful woman with the 600mm lens? .. And why do you do it with animals? … go and buy a portrait lens …“
I did.
I loved his photographs. I thought that he was right and sometimes I had a lion or a hyena just beside my vehicle in the dusk and didn’t have the good lens to capture it. 105mm had f1.4.
I took it with me on safari and the first „beautiful woman“ I’ve got in front of my lens was … Guinea Fowl! 😂
Not beautiful? Well...
The Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The other resident of our camping place was a ground squirrel and it was at least definitely a „woman“.
They were very hospitable and agreed to pose for me a bit.

I took one photo of each model with 105mm portrait lens on D500 (DX) and one with 500mm PF on D850 (FX).

The photos actually looked l the same. Yes, it is clear, with 105mm I was closer and with 500mm I stepped back. Was the DoF the same?
I took a full body portrait of ground squirrel with 105mm at f2 and I might be staying about 2m from her. The bird was taken with f4 but I was closer, let’s say 1,5m. The both cases on DX with 105mm give me 3cm of DoF. To have the same DoF with 500/5.6 and FX I must be stepping back to 5m what is very plausible. So, the same (approximately) DoF of the portrait lens and the telephoto lens.

But do you see the difference? Which picture is taken with which lens? Could somebody guess? (I am quite sure that some of you can identify the lens correctly!)

Photo 1. Guinea Fowl.
_9019-1.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Photo 2. Ground Squirrel.
_8991-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Photo 3. Guinea Fowl.
_3165-3.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Photo 4. Ground Squirrel.
_3155-4.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Have you ever tried to photograph the animals with portrait (85-105mm) or longer portrait (135mm) lens?
 
Member's gallery
Nice test, subjects and photos!

Perhaps a good alternative question to "Will you photograph a beautiful woman with the 600mm lens?" would be:
- "When photographing animals with shorter focal lengths, can you consistently achieve desired compositions?" :)

Perhaps the most obvious answer to the question "Why do you do it (take photos with long lenses) with animals?" is likely:
- Some animals often don't let us get close enough.
There are other reasons, such as the effect of a compressed background, which helps reduce visual distractions (in nature there are often many); and the fact that shooting at a longer distances can give the effect of shooting at eye level more easily, as Steve often mentions in his youtube videos.

I could be wrong but I believe DOF renders differently when using different focal lengths but the same composition. I tend to prefer bokeh rendered by longer lenses.
In a test I did a while ago, results showed that, given the same composition and f-stop, longer focal lengths kept more of the subject in critical focus and had a more sudden background blur. On the other hand, smaller focal lengths, to my surprise, kept less of the subject in critical focus and had a more progressive transition to background blur.

Points in favor of shorter focal lengths for wildlife photography:
- They are are usually available with larger maximum apertures.
- They expand the range of composition possibilities.
- They can give a better sense of proximity to the subject
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
great post, @Tiago Cardoso ! Thank you very much!
Tiago Cardoso said:
Some animals often don't let us get close enough
Click to expand...
that is true, but David Yarrow manages to take wide-angle shots ;) I also noticed that the trend goes to wider lens and more environment in the pictures. In contests they want to see what they didn't see before...
You described very well how focal length effects the DoF and entire rendering!
 
Member's gallery
Capra was shooting with a 35mm rangefinder camera where the longest possible focal length was 90mm and longest practical focal length was 50mm. Fashion photographers use the longest lens that they have available as they get OOF backgrounds and more flattering facial features with the compression effect of longer than normal lenses. Even with people there is the tendency of amateur shooters to use normal or shorter than normal focal length lenses and so I see pictures of people with the size of their noses or hands or feet exaggerated as a result.

The longer lens also affects camera to subject distance and this is important for the comfort of the subjects. A 85mm to 135mm focal length allows for camera to subject distances that are more comfortable for ones subjects. When I took a 70-200mm lens to Italy and used it on the street there was a visible tensing of people's faces and bodies when the large lens was pointed in their direction.

With wildlife it tends to be the opposite situation with often too long a focal length used and with subjects so tightly cropped in the shot as to give them no breathing room and no sense of their environment and whether they were even photographed outside of a zoo or game park.
 
Tiago Cardoso said:
Nice test, subjects and photos!

Perhaps a good alternative question to "Will you photograph a beautiful woman with the 600mm lens?" would be:
- "When photographing animals with shorter focal lengths, can you consistently achieve desired compositions?" :)

Perhaps the most obvious answer to the question "Why do you do it (take photos with long lenses) with animals?" is likely:
- Some animals often don't let us get close enough.
There are other reasons, such as the effect of a compressed background, which helps reduce visual distractions (in nature there are often many); and the fact that shooting at a longer distances can give the effect of shooting at eye level more easily, as Steve often mentions in his youtube videos.

I could be wrong but I believe DOF renders differently when using different focal lengths but the same composition. I tend to prefer bokeh rendered by longer lenses.
In a test I did a while ago, results showed that, given the same composition and f-stop, longer focal lengths kept more of the subject in critical focus and had a more sudden background blur. On the other hand, smaller focal lengths, to my surprise, kept less of the subject in critical focus and had a more progressive transition to background blur.

Points in favor of shorter focal lengths for wildlife photography:
- They are are usually available with larger maximum apertures.
- They expand the range of composition possibilities.
- They can give a better sense of proximity to the subject
Click to expand...
Good answer.
 
Member's gallery
ElenaH said:
great post, @Tiago Cardoso ! Thank you very much!

that is true, but David Yarrow manages to take wide-angle shots ;) I also noticed that the trend goes to wider lens and more environment in the pictures. In contests they want to see what they didn't see before...
You described very well how focal length effects the DoF and entire rendering!
Click to expand...

(y)

Good point about showing the enviroment.

I just checked David's YT channel and watched his latest video. He sure likes to get up close and personal with the Hippos! :eek:
Takes quite a risk, scares a few in the process but gets a couple of really nice photos.

I also checked his website and he has a really nice porfolio, although without many bird photos... :)
 
Member's gallery
So, now we know that portrait and telephoto have:
1. different bokeh and transition sharp-unsharp
2. different distortion
Would you guess which images made with which lens?
 
Member's gallery
ElenaH said:
So, now we know that portrait and telephoto have:
1. different bokeh and transition sharp-unsharp
2. different distortion
Would you guess which images made with which lens?
Click to expand...
Not sure which lens is which but, I suspect that 1 and 2 were the portrait lens and they are the two I like the best.
 
Member's gallery
Very stimulating OP, Elena.

Not sure if it's Yarrow, but I read of a wildlife photographer who shot wild elephants using wide-angle lenses. His (flagship) cameras were often trampled beyond repair! Of course, he was shooting by remote.

As an aside, this photog guessed that he got only 1 to 2 wall hangers per year, but they were stunning.
 
Member's gallery
ElenaH said:
So, now we know that portrait and telephoto have:
1. different bokeh and transition sharp-unsharp
2. different distortion
Click to expand...
So, nobody tries a guess? You don't feel confident? You told already about those two points in your posts. Don't hesitate, try to identify the lens!
 
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
ElenaH said:
really? I even didn't notice that he photographed foxes...
I cannot imagine that famous professional photographer can afford to violate the national park rules... Which park was it?
Click to expand...

I'm reading a book by Joe McNally.

He tells of taking a dinosaur model out to a park and chainsawing it into a tree. Then they fled the scene...Actually, it was more like a bush.

Park remains anonymous. Sssshhh...Keep this on the DL.
 
Member's gallery
I think the last squirrel is with the shorter lens. On the ground it looks that this image is taken more downwards which it will be if you have your camera a bit higher than the animal and at the same high for both the images.

The bird? Maybe it is easier to guess which is which if you are used to the Nikon gear and know which lens is sharper, the shorter with F 2 or the longer with F 5,6 . I have no Nikon gear.
 
Member's gallery
@Charlie Lasswell , thank you for the link... It is horrible!! It looks like some people think they can do everything... I was better opinion about David.. but now I changed it.
@John Woodworth , what are you writing about is also no-go. But it is a book what are you reading, maybe it was not in reality? I don't know why they did it in the park.. They could have done it in their own garden or what ever...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top