The telephoto lens has always seemed to me both counterproductive and ill-suited to wildlife photography as the best photos depict not only the creature but the creature situated firmly in the context of its element. Isolating the creature, as so often happens with such lenses, cuts out everything so essential to a great photo and makes for bad art. Is there anyone out there who ditches the zoom lens for wildlife photography and opts, rather, for very close shots with short focal length wide-angles to highlight the relationship of the creature to its environment?

i hauled a 300mm along with my Nikon F years ago in the hopes of getting a good moose shot,no luck there.
i see what you are talking about.i have seen photos of wolf that could be taken in a zoo,i have also seen wolf that are a dot against the tree line.unless you are a pro and out to get shots for a book wildlife work for most of us is hit and miss.
here is a hit.
this wolf photo was taken on Moose Lake at the end of a long day of travel coming back from the Q.i was getting close to the Scout camp and shore lining when i came into a small bay and there it was.i ran the tele all the way out on my pocket digital camera and got a few shots before he was gone.i was not even sure it was a wolf being so close to the camp and outfitters but a wildlife guy ID'ed it for me.
how about a miss.


taken with the same camera at full tele,there is a deer in there someplace.

quote hubben: "The telephoto lens has always seemed to me both counterproductive and ill-suited to wildlife photography as the best photos depict not only the creature but the creature situated firmly in the context of its element. Isolating the creature, as so often happens with such lenses, cuts out everything so essential to a great photo and makes for bad art. Is there anyone out there who ditches the zoom lens for wildlife photography and opts, rather, for very close shots with short focal length wide-angles to highlight the relationship of the creature to its environment? "

I my opinion there are two types of wildlife photos - portrait and environmental. I've seen great examples of both. It's all on how the photographer wants to represent the animal. But, more often than not it's a safety issue, for both the photographer and the animal. I'd only want to get so close to a grizzly bear...

quote bear bait: "

quote hubben: "The telephoto lens has always seemed to me both counterproductive and ill-suited to wildlife photography as the best photos depict not only the creature but the creature situated firmly in the context of its element. Isolating the creature, as so often happens with such lenses, cuts out everything so essential to a great photo and makes for bad art. Is there anyone out there who ditches the zoom lens for wildlife photography and opts, rather, for very close shots with short focal length wide-angles to highlight the relationship of the creature to its environment? "

I my opinion there are two types of wildlife photos - portrait and environmental. I've seen great examples of both. It's all on how the photographer wants to represent the animal. But, more often than not it's a safety issue, for both the photographer and the animal. I'd only want to get so close to a grizzly bear..."

And for a guy with a name like "Bear Bait", an environmental photo of a grizzly taken at close range with a 19mm wide angle lens is acquired only in the company of significant safety hazards! The consummate photographer must somehow avoid becoming the consumed photographer.

quote hubben: "

quote bear bait: "

quote hubben: "The telephoto lens has always seemed to me both counterproductive and ill-suited to wildlife photography as the best photos depict not only the creature but the creature situated firmly in the context of its element. Isolating the creature, as so often happens with such lenses, cuts out everything so essential to a great photo and makes for bad art. Is there anyone out there who ditches the zoom lens for wildlife photography and opts, rather, for very close shots with short focal length wide-angles to highlight the relationship of the creature to its environment? "

I my opinion there are two types of wildlife photos - portrait and environmental. I've seen great examples of both. It's all on how the photographer wants to represent the animal. But, more often than not it's a safety issue, for both the photographer and the animal. I'd only want to get so close to a grizzly bear..."

And for a guy with a name like "Bear Bait", an environmental photo of a grizzly taken at close range with a 19mm wide angle lens is acquired only in the company of significant safety hazards! The consummate photographer must somehow avoid becoming the consumed photographer."

I die, the bear dies. Lose, lose. Irresponsible photographer kills the animal they so love to photograph. No photo is worth that. It just gives photographers a bad name.

Shot with a 400mm lens

fyi, the name bear bait comes from my dad when I was a kid. On family camping trips I would pick on my sisters on the car ride up north. My dad said if I didn't nock it off he would tie me to the bumper and go trolling for bears...bear bait. :)

If you have the time and skill to get in close and have time to get the shot without a telephoto, a different lens can be great. I do not often find myself in that situation.

When I take my digital SLR out for an adventure I try to figure beforehand which lens do I most want to deal with today and try to arrange my shots accordingly. I often get stuck with the wrong lens on and don't have time to switch. What I really need are a couple of really good cameras each with different lenses around my neck and I can just choose on the spot but that ain't gonna happen.

it seems most of us are canoe tripper first and the photos just happen to come along.i'm sure we would all like to settle into a blind and see what wanders down to the lake for a drink or the dead moose for a meal but with time and money being a factor the canoeing comes first.
when i took that 300mm along i kept it in reach while traveling but in camp a 24mm went on because i knew i was going to be spending time doing close ups of moss and mushrooms.doing that i did lose some gray jays in the breakfast left overs photos--

Short focal lengths don't usually produce successful shots either. The issue here is: it's very hard to get close enough to a bear/moose/wolf/eagle/deer to use a 24mm.

quote wetcanoedog: "i hauled a 300mm along with my Nikon F years ago in the hopes of getting a good moose shot,no luck there.
i see what you are talking about.i have seen photos of wolf that could be taken in a zoo,i have also seen wolf that are a dot against the tree line.unless you are a pro and out to get shots for a book wildlife work for most of us is hit and miss.
here is a hit.
this wolf photo was taken on Moose Lake at the end of a long day of travel coming back from the Q.i was getting close to the Scout camp and shore lining when i came into a small bay and there it was.i ran the tele all the way out on my pocket digital camera and got a few shots before he was gone.i was not even sure it was a wolf being so close to the camp and outfitters but a wildlife guy ID'ed it for me.
how about a miss.



taken with the same camera at full tele,there is a deer in there someplace.

"

It must be, in part, a matter of personal preference, but in my opinion, I would never write off the whitetail photo you took as "a miss". The deer, in my opinion, looks all-the-more elegant in the context of its environment. I think it's a great shot.

quote halvorsonchristopher1: "

Short focal lengths don't usually produce successful shots either. The issue here is: it's very hard to get close enough to a bear/moose/wolf/eagle/deer to use a 24mm."

I really enjoyed those bear photos (I believe I first saw them in another thread about Knife Lake). It's clear from your images that you can get great "environmental shots" as well with a telephoto.