wich 300 mm lens is better for wildlife photography? nikon or canon?

[rahul_gupta2]

<p >I intend to pursue wildlife photography(birds & mammals) seriously as a hobby. And want to make the DSLR Body/Make decision based on the lens best suitable for same:</p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p >I have narrowed down two best(affordable) options of nikon and canon:</p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Nikon 300mm f/4D IF-ED AF-S Nikkor Lens </strong></p>

<p ><em>Pros according to my research:</em> faster, sharper</p>

<p ><em>Cons according to my research:</em> No image stabilization</p>

<p ><strong> </strong></p>

<p ><strong>Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Lens</strong></p>

<p ><em>Pros according to my research:</em> image stabilization</p>

<p ><em>Cons according to my research:</em> not as faster focus compared to nikon, sharpness same </p>

<p >I am not too sure about my research. Please correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Is there any other better lens(other than mentioned above) for wildlife photography for both nikon & Canon in the same budget?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I will be primarily shooting handheld or with a monopod alongwith a 1.4 X tele convertor in either cases. I am very confused between the two, please suggest which one to choose between the two lenses overall?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Also, according to snap sort Nokia D5100 has 20% better image quality than Canon EOS 60D, is it true? According to you, is nikon D90 better than Canon 60D overall?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >You help in this regard is highly appreciated.</p>

 

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I have no experience with Canon. The Nikon 300mm f/4 AF-S is excellent, and still pretty sharp with a 1.4x TC. Despite the AF-S, however, it's not the fastest focusing lens. If it is true that the Canon is slower, I would worry a little about that. However, since you intend to shoot hand-held or with a monopod, go with Canon for the image stabilization. Both companies are known to make excellent bodies and lenses, but vibration reduction or image stabilization makes a huge difference when attempting to hand-hold this kind of lens.</p>

[danield]

<blockquote>

<p>I will be primarily shooting handheld</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, that settles it then, you will need a stabilized lens. That's far more important than minutia differences in sharpness or focusing speed. If you are considering a crop (APS-C) body then stabilisation is even more important.<br>

Also, not sure where you've got the focus speed conclusions from, but be aware that focus speed is highly dependent on the camera body used (not to mention subject and light conditions). I haven't seen an unbiased scientific comparison of focusing speeds between Canon and Nikon systems done anywhere so far.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there any other better lens(other than mentioned above) for wildlife photography for both nikon & Canon in the same budget?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Possibly the Canon 100-400mm - better as in more practical and longer reach, optically OK.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, according to snap sort Nokia D5100 has 20% better image quality than Canon EOS 60D, is it true? According to you, is nikon D90 better than Canon 60D overall?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A statement like "20% better image quality" makes so little sense that it really makes me question its credibility. I wouldn't base my decision on that.<br>

There's not that much difference between these cameras you mention, all of them are good. Decide based on features you want and your feel of the cameras in the hand.</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>neither - 300mm is too short unless you have very tame wildlife.<br>

I'd think 400 at least.. and you mostly get what you pay for i.e. Nikon may be better, but cost more.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I never used the Canon 300mm but would be surprised if it was slower than the Nikon version. Now, since you intend to use the lens mostly with a 1.4x TC - I suggest to have a look at Canon's 400/5.6 lens - reportedly very fast focusing. But lacking IS - which in many cases is missed sorely. I can't give any advice on Canon cameras - but to me even the Nikon D7000 has one problem when used for action-type shooting: a very shallow memory buffer that limits one in shooting in bursts. I would also look for a camera that has better and faster AF than a D90 or D5100 - which means you need to look at a D7000 or D300S - and in the Canon lineup at the 7D.</p>

[craigd]

<p>I agree with Chris. 300mm is inadequate unless you're shooting elephants and they aren't all that far away. I'm not much into wildlife shooting myself, but from my experience I'd want at least 400mm on an APS-C camera (or 500-600mm on full frame), and I'd carry a 1.4x TC for those times when I'd need it. This leads to the next problem, which is that with a TC on a 400mm f/5.6 lens, you'd probably find that your AF was slow and unreliable (the camera may even disable AF in that situation). There are f/4 and f/2.8 400mm lenses, but they're really pricy, huge, and heavy.</p>

<p>As to the difference between Nikon and Canon lenses, both companies make excellent pro lenses. The important difference between the two 300mm lenses is that Canon has IS, which you will need if you plan to shoot hand-held.</p>

<p>As for cameras, a Nikon D5100 is an entry-level camera, and the Canon 60D is a "pro-sumer" model. This involves a number of differences other than just image quality. The 60D is better made, has superior AF (important for wildlife), 2x faster continuous shooting (also important for wildlife)... I really can't take the D5100 seriously as an action/sports/wildlife camera. The 60D isn't necessarily ideal either (I'd prefer a Canon 7D), but it's not bad. The D90 is a nice camera, but its technology is a few years old at this point -- the D7000 would be a better choice if you can't afford a D300S.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are some places and some game that can be approached closely enough for a 300mm, but usually a longer lens of at least 400mm is best.<br>

I'd be skeptical too of some of the claims made by some of the sources you found. Besides, I'd personally recommend a longer reach zoom lens, regardless of the Nikon or Canon choice. A prime lens can be inflexible for those times the target does come in close, even if its IQ may be a little better.</p><div></div>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I own the Nikon 300mm, and when I used to work for a newspaper, their equipment was all Canon, so I have extensively used the Canon 300mm as well. You're comparing apples, and nearly-the-same-color-and-nearly-the-same-taste apples. Both perform equally well, and both Canon and Nikon will work wonderfully for your needs. For that matter, so will Pentax and Sony, although they have no lenses greater than 300mm right now. If there were one clearly right answer, then the other companies wouldn't exist, or they would have to cost significantly less while delivering the same product. The "which brand is better" debate is pointless, as there is no clear winner, and there never will be. One advantage of Canon is that the lenses seem to cost a noticeable amount less than Nikon offerings, and they have fewer holes in their lineup. As mentioned above, they have a relatively inexpensive 400mm lens, the f/5.6 version for $1,300 while Nikon's only past-300mm choice is a 400mm f/2.8 for $8,000.</p>

<p>The statement that the D5100 has 20% better image quality than the 60D is nonsensical. Snapsport is a stupid website that uses cheap tricks to get themselves to the top of google searches. They spout facts, without judging a camera by its merits. Either camera will work fine for you, although from your post I'd put good money down that either camera is too much for you right now, especially the 60D with its more advanced features and controls over the D5100. Start with the Canon T2i or Nikon D3100, with the associated 300mm f/4, and go shooting. I highly recommend a monopod as well, as shooting these lenses handheld is essentially throwing money down the toilet. You have to walk before you can run, and judging by your question, you need to step back and get a good grasp of the basics before you start jumping right in to telephoto and super-telephoto shooting. Use the included 18-55mm lens, and start understanding aperture, exposure, etc.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>I would think the difference between those two lenses would be so small as to be almost meaningless. Far more important to me would be the operation and feel of the different cameras in my hands. Selecting a camera system because one lens is "slightly better" will seem very short-sighted if it means putting up with some feature, functionality, or ergonomic on the camera that you hate. If you can, try to handle the two types of camera, and make your decision that way. I did that a couple years ago, as I had no real feel for whether I wanted a Nikon or Canon (I was a Minolta shooter in the manual-focus film days). When I was done, I chose Canon, but you might feel otherwise after checking out the same cameras. There is no right or wrong answer there!</p>

<p>I agree with the others that 400mm - even with a crop sensor camera - is about the "entry level" for wildlife. My go-to lens is Canon's 100-400 zoom (at least until I can afford their 500mm!), which has image stabilization, and is only a little more expensive than the lenses you are considering. When I go to Conowingo Dam in Maryland to shoot the Bald Eagles, I see lots of folks with 500mm lenses and longer, often using 1.4x or 2.0x converters on them. So, unless your wildlife is large, close, and not too nervous, you would be better off looking at longer lenses.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>I don't see any difference in sharpness wide open between the two 300mm lenses, certainly nothing that would survive post processing: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=111&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=651&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>From the same link the Canon lens + 1.4x TC combination exhibits better IQ then the Nikon combo.</p>

<p>I don't have experience with the Nikon version, but the Canon version (which I own) focuses fast enough for birds in flight on a 7D, so it should be sufficient for just about any wildlife situation you encounter. IS is a huge plus for hand held work.</p>

<p>You might want to look at the Canon 100-400 / Nikon 80-400 instead for more versatility and reach. In this comparison the Nikon gains VR but loses AF-S and therefore focusing speed. Again looking at TDP crops, it looks like the Canon version exhibits higher IQ overall (some focal lengths are similar, but 400 is clearly better on the Canon). The Canon version can also take TCs though you won't be able to AF with anything less then a 1 series body.</p>

<p>Snap sort is not a reputable or reliable source. The D5100 is most certainly not "20% better" than the 60D in terms of IQ. People love to debate the differences between Canon's 18 MP APS-C sensor and Nikon's 16 MP APS-C sensor, but there aren't any significant differences. All other things being equal you could produce 30" prints from both all day long and nobody could tell you which came from which.</p>

<p>Canon is stronger in telephotos if your budget won't allow for the top end f/2.8 glass (where they're both very close). There's the two 70-200 f/4L's; the 300 f/4 has IS; the 100-400 has USM and better IQ at 400; the TC's seem better; and there's the new 70-300L. Something to consider.</p>

<p>Also consider the 7D if you can swing it for the faster and superior AF; 8 fps; weather sealing; and much better viewfinder. The price is pretty low right now.</p>

<p>One last note: wildlife can require more reach than 300 or even 400 on APS-C. But you can crop in even further with today's high MP sensors. I have made numerous cropped, 9 MP, 16x20 surfing prints using my 7D + 300 f/4L IS. They are tack sharp with plenty of detail for the subject matter.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>I will be primarily shooting handheld or with a monopod alongwith a 1.4 X tele convertor in either cases</em>."</p>

<p>If you are going to be shooting primarily handheld(good luck with that) you are definately going to need Image Stabilization or a tripod. At those focal lengths even the slightest little movement will cause focusing problems. It's almost like shooting Macro where even a small breeze can affect focusing. Especially with the 1.4x converter.<br>

As fas as Nikon/Canon I would concentrate on your equipment and where that lens might fit the best. If most of your equipment is Canon get the Canon Lens, if most of your equipment is Nikon get the Nikon Lens. None of those lenses are going to make a significant difference in your images.<br>

There are plenty of paid Professional nature Photographers that use one or the other.</p>

 

[kerry_grim]

YOU NEED A GOOD TRIPOD.

 

Shouting yes, but without a good tripod you will never use a sharp telephoto to its capabilities. It won't

matter if you use a Canon f4 or the extremely sharp Canon 300 2.8 L version II. That is not to say sharp

pictures can't be done handheld or in a pinch, but if you want sharp photos you need to have the mindset of

using a good tripod. Yes, it is a pain in the butt to carry a tripod. There may be

situations where a monopod is useful or even handhold for flight shots, but a tripod is your best friend.

[mart_e]

<p>I've only done bird shots with the Nikon 300mm f4 AF-S, and in my limited experience lack of image stabilisation with this lens isn't as critical for the subjects I shoot.</p>

<p>Birds fidget and twitch all the time, so I always try and keep SS down to 1/500 in an attempt to get sharper shots. In this range, I don't think VR/IS is as useful. I use a monopod / tripod where possible - but more often than not, I use a bean bag and wall, tree to help stablise me / camera / lens.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>I agree with the others, you're going to need at least 400mm for birds and most wildlife. And IS image stabilization is extremely useful handheld at 400mm, even at 300 or 200mm</p>

<p> </p>

[donbright]

<p>I'll throw my cents in on the 400mm. In the field with wildlife work you don't want to be in a position of having lens envy for birds in particular. The 400mm is actually a starting point in the field for wildlife. I was fortunate enough to have borrowed a 300mm to taste, and to prove my instructor at the times point, the 300mm was not enough. There will always be times when we have too much lens, but this point is to illustrate that when getting used to for example a 400mm, you begin to see that way, and identify the lens with the subject. This point goes to the 400mm. I have a Nikkor 400mm 3.5. Would have loved the 2.8, but,$$$$$. The 400mm 3.5 is tack, razor sharp, and the TC-14B 1.4 converter loses 1 stop, and has no residual image degradation contributed. I also believe in not having screen envy when it comes to computers, so when choosing a MacBook, I went with the 17, game over. Also forget about handholding a telephoto lens, use a tripod, you will gain percentage of usable images in the long run.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>The 400mm is actually a starting point in the field for wildlife</em>."<br>

I agree with Don on this one, the problem with the shorter lenses is that you need to get pretty close to even have a chance of getting a good shot especially with birds. Birds know how to keep their distance and unless you are wearing some type of camouflage gear, they can see and smell you a mile away. This goes even for the larger birds such as eagles and hawks. <br>

Not to say you won't be able to photograph them with a 300mm lens, it just means that they won't fill the frame. Or that they will be so small in the viewfinder, that the AF will have problems trying to focus on them.<br>

You might have better luck with larger game especially if they are in a zoo, otherwise it's you who might want to keep their distance. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I've got the Nikon AF-S 300 f/4, and the TC14 (and TC17, which I do not recommend with this lens). The quality hit with the 1,4x TC is relatively small leaving a really quite good 420mm f/5.6 lens. I've used the combo quite often hand-held, and it is doable. But not funny for longer times. In other words: get a tripod, or train the arm muscles and develop a seriously good handling (posture, breathing, etc.). Or both.<br>

Other ~400mm lenses in the same price range for Nikon in my view are not up to the optical quality of the 300 f/4 with TC14. So even if you regard 400mm a starting point, then I think the starting lens remains this 300 f/4 (or the prices goes up a lot).</p>

<p>And for that, some extra things worth noting:<br>

1. For hand held shooting, I very seriously doubt whether a heavy lens like this balances nicely with a small and lightweight body like a D5100. This is one of those situations where a heavier camera is really nice too have. And in order to keep a combo as these a bit stable, a good balanced camera really matters a lot.<br>

2. The tripod collar of the AF-S 300 f/4 is no good. If you feel you're going to use this lens frequently, get a replacement tripod collar (I've only recently got the Kirk, and now know what I've been missing all this time). It adds another quite hefty sum to the bill :-(</p>

<p>I've got no experience with the Canon lens, but the lower end ('rebel') EOS bodies also suffer from being quite small. The same might apply with regards to handling, and while IS is a great asset, it won't cover for all. So I'd strongly recommend trying the combination first to see if it actually handles well.</p>

[joseph_nowak]

<p>There is NO best 300mm lens./camera body combo that gives you the best image, NO MATTER WHAT ANYONE TELLS YOU. Both Nikon and Canon make excellent camera bodies and lenses. I myself have all pro Nikon bodies and lenses... because that is the brand I started with as a pro in 1970. But Canon is just as good. Are there differencess in the image you end up with. Yes.... but it's all minutia. Chose your camera based on HOW IT FEELS in your hands... which one is easier for YOU to control the settings without removing your eye from the viewfinder? Which one feels better balanced(although with a 300mm prime lens, balance ain't going to be perfect!). My advice to you if you're getting your first DSLR is to scrimp a little on the body, but get the best lenses you can afford. If you should decide that Nikon fits you best, TRY to get these three zoom lenses, if you can afford them... Nikon 14-24 f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8. and the 70-200mm f/2,8 VRII for general purpose photography. I have all three and they are fabulous. These lenses range in price from $1,700 to $2,200 apiece, but are well worth it.</p>

[joseph_nowak]

<p>Continuation...<br />. If you'd like to see some examples I shot using these three lenses, go to:<br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_nowak/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_nowak/</a><br>

Every shot I have on flicker, except one, was made with one of those three lenses</p>

[djolk]

<p>I've shot handheld, birds in flight with a 300mm AF-D f/4. You can get lucky and get sharp shots. <br /><br />What I really wanted to say was to suggest, again, that you go for something longer then 300mm. I work with captive wildlife, that live in large, large enclosures. These animals are quite habituated, plus its my job to feed them, but I often wish I had a lens longer then 300mm. Even on a crop camera.</p>

[rahul_gupta2]

<p>Thank you so much guys....you all have been very helpful.</p>