Telephoto Lens and distances

[BebeAphrodite]

I was wondering if anyone knows where I can get stats on how far away a person can be from a subject to take photos. I'm looking for maximum distances.

TIA

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I'm not entirely certain what you're asking. Any lens can focus on a human being an infinite distance away, the person will just be very small in the picture. Are you asking about using a long telephoto lens to take "zoomed-in" photos of people at a distance? If that's the case, are you asking what the classic "portrait" telephoto lengths are?

I mean, heck, you can certainly take photos of a person with an 800mm lens, that'd certainly get you a long distance from the subject, but I'm not certain that's the results you'd want.

[BebeAphrodite]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
I'm not entirely certain what you're asking. Any lens can focus on a human being an infinite distance away, the person will just be very small in the picture. Are you asking about using a long telephoto lens to take "zoomed-in" photos of people at a distance? If that's the case, are you asking what the classic "portrait" telephoto lengths are?

I mean, heck, you can certainly take photos of a person with an 800mm lens, that'd certainly get you a long distance from the subject, but I'm not certain that's the results you'd want.

I'm looking for some type of link/source I can quote for a project regarding invasion of privacy and technology. I remember seeing a paparazzi hanging off of a tree on neighboring property (quite a distance away) taking photos of a celebrity and wanted to have some stat on the maximum distance they can be to still obtain a good photo.

[250and3]

with high end lenses and cameras, it's possible to take very good photos from long distances. until fairly recently, you would have needed a tripod for this, as the extra focal length of the lens will magnify the shakiness of shooting freehand.
If it's a professional celebrity photographer, they probably have at least $10,000 invested in that gear, and I'd guess they could take very good photos from a couple hundred yards at least.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by BebeAphrodite


I'm looking for some type of link/source I can quote for a project regarding invasion of privacy and technology. I remember seeing a paparazzi hanging off of a tree on neighboring property (quite a distance away) taking photos of a celebrity and wanted to have some stat on the maximum distance they can be to still obtain a good photo.

Oh, OK, now I got ya. Let me do some FOV calculations on common long-teles and get back to you on that. I'm not sure I can help you with your sources, though.



Edit: OK, I've done some calculations, the longest of the long teles that would be usable for paparazzi work would be 800mm prime, as that's really the biggest of the big guns. Huge, but I'm sure that the most enterprising of paparazzi would have one.

Alright, so if a paparazzi was looking for the absolute longest reach he could reasonably get, he would be packing an 800mm f/5.6 with a 2X teleconvertor on a digital SLR with crop-sensor. (Let's assume a 1.5X crop for the calculations.)

An 800mm with a 2X TC on a 1.5 crop gives an effective field of view of a 2400mm lens. That's a field of view of 1.03 degrees. Now, assuming your average paparazzi shot needs the subject filling approximately half the frame (reasonable, we're talking about the extreme edge of what would be considered printable here), that's a half- frame subject length of about 6 feet. To calculate the subject distance, we use tan(FOV)=(half-frame subject length)/(subject distance)

So, tan(1.03)=6/(subject distance), where subject distance = 333.7ft

So, to get a reasonable image of someone from as far away as possible using modern equipment, the photographer can be up to 333.7 feet away. (101.7 meters)

[ex1z7]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat

To calculate the subject distance, we use tan(FOV)=(half-frame subject length)/(subject distance)

So, tan(1.03)=6/(subject distance), where subject distance = 333.7ft

So, to get a reasonable image of someone from as far away as possible using modern equipment, the photographer can be up to 333.7 feet away. (101.7 meters)

Holy fuck.

And that's why I don't reply with knowledge to things like this.. Because Trev is here, and that makes me lose pretty quick.

[BebeAphrodite]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Oh, OK, now I got ya. Let me do some FOV calculations on common long-teles and get back to you on that. I'm not sure I can help you with your sources, though.



Edit: OK, I've done some calculations, the longest of the long teles that would be usable for paparazzi work would be 800mm prime, as that's really the biggest of the big guns. Huge, but I'm sure that the most enterprising of paparazzi would have one.

Alright, so if a paparazzi was looking for the absolute longest reach he could reasonably get, he would be packing an 800mm f/5.6 with a 2X teleconvertor on a digital SLR with crop-sensor. (Let's assume a 1.5X crop for the calculations.)

An 800mm with a 2X TC on a 1.5 crop gives an effective field of view of a 2400mm lens. That's a field of view of 1.03 degrees. Now, assuming your average paparazzi shot needs the subject filling approximately half the frame (reasonable, we're talking about the extreme edge of what would be considered printable here), that's a half- frame subject length of about 6 feet. To calculate the subject distance, we use tan(FOV)=(half-frame subject length)/(subject distance)

So, tan(1.03)=6/(subject distance), where subject distance = 333.7ft

So, to get a reasonable image of someone from as far away as possible using modern equipment, the photographer can be up to 333.7 feet away. (101.7 meters)

Wow, thank you so much for helping me! It's very much appreciated!

[Daan]

i see in BEBEs request more than just sheer curiosity =)
so, next time when you touch yourself, make sure there is no one


... on a 100 meter radius =)

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by BebeAphrodite


Wow, thank you so much for helping me! It's very much appreciated!

You know what? I just realized that I made an error, I should have been using an angle of 0.515 instead of 1.03 for the half-frame. Here's the revised calculation:

tan(0.515)=6/(subject distance), where subject distance = 667.5ft, or 203.4 meters.

Sorry about that!

[dmtx]

hollllyyyy !$!#$@...... would this get there?



from:
http://kwc.org/blog/archives/2007/20...00500_f28.html

[DJ Lazy]

Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


You know what? I just realized that I made an error, I should have been using an angle of 0.515 instead of 1.03 for the half-frame. Here's the revised calculation:

tan(0.515)=6/(subject distance), where subject distance = 667.5ft, or 203.4 meters.

Sorry about that!

I thought 333.7 seems short for 800 with 2xTC... haha..

[Hash_man]

hahah damn... I had kinda always wondered that myself, but too much intense thinking for my liking.