Wildlife: is 300mm long enough?

I haven't shot too much wildlife because I don't have a telephoto

lens, but I'm just wondering, is 300mm long enough for most wildlife

shots?

 

I'll be shooting with a Canon D30 and I'm trying to decide whether to

get something like an 80-210mm f/3.5-4.5 or a 70-300, 75-300, or 100-

300 model. So it's pretty much between 336mm on the 80-210 and 480mm

with one of the others.

 

The 80-210mm is smaller, an f-stop lower, and I'm assuming the AF is

slightly faster than one of the cheapo 75-300mm type lenses. I don't

have much money to spend so don't recommend Canon L Glass, and if

shooting 300mm is long enough, I might consider getting a Sigma 70-

200mm f/2.8 lens.

 

So... back to the original question, is 300mm long enough? Or should

I sacrifice quality, light, and size for 480mm?

 

I'll be going to Alberta this summer to shoot everything from Bison

to ducks, deer to squirrels, and I live in BC where I plan to shoot

photos of birds, ducks, maybe some moose/deer. I'm pretty good at

getting close to animals like birds and I'll probably be using

camouflage stuff to hide in the bushes for bird pictures also.

 

So....? What would you do?

I personally would prefer a bigger lens, but if you can get close enough you should be OK

with a 300, especially with the so-called focal length multiplier of the D30. It all depends

on how cooperative your subjects are, their size, and the kind of image you'll be happy

with. Compared to 'big glass' telephotos (400 mm +), a 300 mm will pose a greater

challenge to getting frame-filling shots of small or shy animals, but it will be more

conducive to 'animal in habitat' images.

It depends a lot on the terrain, your field skills and the tolerance of the area's wildlife. In south Florida I'd say 300mm should be fine for most subjects but in the Sierra Nevada where hunting is allowed I'd say "no way".

<P>

Hre are some links to photos I've made with <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/300.html" target="_blank">300mm,</A> <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/400.html" target="_blank">400mm,</A> and <A HREF="http://www.wildlightphoto.com/560.html" target="_blank">560mm</A> lenses on a 35mm film camera.

300mm is pretty short for frame filling animals..

With a 1.4x at 420 your getting closer. Just came

back from a trip shooting large birds 30-40ft away

with a 200-400 and it was barely enough. Many people

were shooting Canon 300 f2.8 with 2x, 400 F2.8 with 1.4x,

400 F5.6,500 F4 with 1.4x and 600 f4 lenses.

These were on tame birds shot from a boardwalk.

Oh yeah,better get a heavy tripod too.

Using a 300mm for birds will require that you be VERY close to your subjects. For dramatic bird shots, you'll probably want to be more in the 500mm+ range. That's what the pros are shooting.

<p>

For large animals which allow you to get pretty close (e.g., Yellowstone NP Bison), you can get frame-filling shots with a 300mm. I was shooting those last summer and even whished I had a longer lens to do some Bison "portraits".

<p>

I'd be surprised if the 80-200mm offers a much faster AF than a 75-300 provided that both models are USM. And if you're on a tight budget, the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM is a bargain. I have the non-USM version; it's a dog. Not the highest quality with either, but you'd be spending for the "L" lens if that was your primary concern.

<p>

In order of ascending price, image quality (best guess) and focal length, I'd do the following:

<p>

1. Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM (300mm, ~$170)<br>

2. Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x TC (400mm, ~$920)<br>

3. Canon EF 300 f/4L IS USM + 1.4x TC (420mm, ~$1400)<br>

<p>

AF will function with all three solutions. You may even be able to find an older 300mm f/4L without IS for a good price via the normal used channels.

<p>

Hope this helps.

Some people who shoot "extreme" wildlife will argue that nothing ever long enough (when people shoot a 600mm with a 2x and a 1.4x stacked, plus the 1.6x cropping factor of a 10D, you know that they want "really long") (at that focal length the moon doesn't fit in the frame any more).

Yes, it's long enough. You can't go longer anyway and with the 1.6X crop, you'll have a perfectly usable lens.

I'd like to second most of the above. A 300mm lens on a D30 with the crop factor is a good minimum. The good thing about digital SLRs is that you can up the ISO sensitivity on them to compensate for slower lenses and have lower noise than an equivalent rated film stock.

 

I'd say that if you have to crop the frame do it on the long ends. Yhat way you won't lose much effective enlargement potential.

 

BTW I too am planning on a DSLR with a 300mm lens and maybe a 1.4x TC. Wildlife will be one of my subjects. It's not likely I'll need anything longer than that.

Most pros use a 300 mm for "environmental" (animal in habitat) shots of wildlife. For full-frame portraits you will need longer focal lenghts.

IMHO you will be fine with a 300 mm for most of the cases you are mentioning, but remember that many photo-oportunities might be lost because of the need of having to get closer to the subjets.

 

Enjoy,

 

Manuel Weber

Steve,

 

I spent three weeks in Jasper, Banff and Yoho a couple of years ago

and my longest lens was a 300mm. I shoot film so no magnification

factor but I did have a 1.4x and a 2x extender.

 

I too was concerned that 300mm was going to be too short. Don't worry,

the critters up there are so acclimated to people that you'll get

frame filling shots of nearly everything.

 

You'll want at least a 1.4x to add for small birds but caribou,

mountain sheep and other large mammals will be along side the road,

just look for the traffic jams, and will tolerate crowds.

 

Bears, on the other hand, are more reclusive, I saw several but was

never able to get a decent shot.

 

Try the lake Malign road out of Jasper, I got a great shot of a

mountain sheep nose to nose with my Samoyed. Through the rear window

of my truck I hasten to add, but both enjoyed the encounter.

 

Yoho is another great spot that seems less known than the rest of that

area. Great little glacial lakes, tons of water falls etc.

 

Enjoy the tri

What is your budget? How much are you willing to carry? How much quality do you need? Will you be taking a tripod?

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

" is 300mm long enough?" => It all depends on what you want to do!

 

=> There is no such lens that is long enough!

 

That said, 300mm is the entry level for large game photography at places where animals can easily be approached.

Very soon you will find yourself buying a 1.4x and 2x extender for more reach (420 & 600mm).

 

Once you have stabilized & mastered your gear, and finally made it to get sharp images, you will go for the next hurdle: a largee maximum aperture to freeze action, to speed up AF and to blurr background. Or you start missing your zoom for the "in-camera" cropping ability...

 

It never really ends, but 400mm or 420mm isn't too bad for an amateur. It'll give you enough room to grow and works with.

Over the past years I started out with a 80-400mm zoom, changed to a 300mm f/4 plus TC's. Switched systems at the digital dawn and now I am back to a zoom, a 100-400mm IS. Portable, sharp enough for my application and giving me all the reach I can AFFORD!

This setup is light, portable and can be efficiently used with just a monopod!

I used to carry some 38 lbs. of gear afield, after the digital conversion it is merely 15 lbs.! => I now know what I do NOT need & use... ;-)

 

The other day I had a chance to use the Sigma 500mm f/4.5 from a fellow photographer that I met in a Spanish birdhide. Very nice, but, despite the price, I am not sure if I am prepared to haul such monster around (nor a 600mm f/4)!

 

Happy shooting!

I've got a 300mm Nikkor IF. With a Nikkor 1.6 AF then on the Digital its a 600mm. Been using this alot now. Used it in Rocky Mtn Natl Park and was awesome. Also used the 80-200 F2.8 to shoot moose. Lucky it was so close. Of course I would use the Canon 500mm F4 IS all the time. Even when I used the Canon 10D and 500mm F4 IS with a 2x tele it wasnt long enough. Never long enough is what I say.