Effectiveness of 300mm lens for wildlife

coreno

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
25
Reaction score
5
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Last year I bought a super-zoom point-and-shoot (Canon Powershot SX520), which has a 35mm equivalent zoom range of 24mm to 1008mm (thanks to extreme crop-factor). Having that 1008mm focal length is awesome for getting some great wildlife shots. But these shots are taken at the full 1008mm focal length.

But this camera quickly falls apart in low-light situations, and with landscape shots where details just look muddled.

I'd like to improve the quality of my photos with a DSLR (I've been eyeing the D5500). But I'm afraid that to get that great zoom on a DSLR requires extremely expensive lenses. Will a more affordable 300mm lens still be able to get great shots (like below), even with cropping to get nice and tight photos of wildlife?
 
The answer is sometimes, if you can get close enough. But there is a good reason many wildlife photographers have shelled out for the 150-600mm zooms. Mainly reach, as often 300mm just isn't long enough. But thise 3rd party zooma from Tamron and Sigma are pretty good and lenses are an investment which could last you years. So yeah its a lot of cash, still a lot cheaper than the primes and makes thise big lenses affordable. Mind you you allways want more reach with wildlife
 
One thing you can do with a 300mm is take wildlife environment shots. That is where you show a good deal of the location with the critter in it. Check out some of tom Manglesens's work he does a lot of that. Here's a couple of our examples

IMG_2523.JPG


IMG_0338%252520adj%252520corr.JPG
 
Keep in mind also that on a d5500 a 300mm lens will give a field of view similar to 450mm on a full frame, or the 450mm equivilant on your own camera. You could set your own camera to this a take a walk around. This would give you an idea of what you can expect if you go down this road
 
I'm just really torn, because I really like the added quality that a DSLR can bring to the table, but the long reach of my point-and-shoot is amazing, but there are many situations where the camera falls flat on its face. It seems silly to carry two cameras on a nature hike.

IMG_1483.jpg

Beautiful picture of a Cedar Waxwing. ISO640 f/5.6 613mm equiv. focal length

IMG_4430.JPG

Nice autumn shot, muddled detailsr. ISO100 f/4 22mm equiv. focal length
 
I'm just really torn, because I really like the added quality that a DSLR can bring to the table, but the long reach of my point-and-shoot is amazing, but there are many situations where the camera falls flat on its face. It seems silly to carry two cameras on a nature hike.

The difference you would see between a DSLR with a decent lens on that Waxwing will amaze you!
 
The super zoom P&S is much lighter than any of the DSLR lenses that reach to 600mm, so if you are really more landscape and just like to record some birds you see along the way then I would try the D5500 and the P&S. If you really want to spend more time on wildlife then add a lens for the D5500 that goes to 500mm to 600mm.
 
Remember that a DSLR is something you can grow over time so sure you might start out with a decent but not fantastic lens now; you can work on growing your skills, getting better and still use the point and shoot when you need to - whilst putting a little aside every so often toward one of those big super lenses.


There is no denying that a DSLR will generally resolve more detail and give you far greater range in overall quality compared to a point and shoot - the cost is size and weight and price of course.


I would also say that when it comes to big telephoto lenses sometimes its not actually a bad thing that you can't jump right in with the 400mm f2.8 etc... Those big lenses take time to learn how to use and also time getting your body used to just holding a weight let alone shooting with it. It's a learning and physical curve for most and thus not leaping in at the deep-end is a good thing. I've known a couple of people jump on BIG lenses very early on and they got overwhelmed with them - yes the lens performed fantastically when used right but it was very hard for them to appreciate that for the costs in carrying and using it and a couple sold their big lenses in favour of lighter ones (although still good quality ones of course).

One even when back and rebought the big lens a few years later and got on a lot better the second time around.




Upshot is I'd say go for the DSLR - then again most of us here would too ;)
 
I really appreciate all the responses so far, it's given me some things to think about that I hadn't considered much before (additional complexity, and greater size and weight, or differing composition opportunities).

So I guess my only outstanding question is; on the P&S, I can't really crop and zoom very much before the picture really starts to look like garbage.

How much could I crop and zoom with an image from an DSLR without losing too much detail and quality? Surely there must be a little bit more wiggle-room here, and maybe enable me to at least enlarge some photos to better frame my subject.
 
How much could I crop and zoom with an image from an DSLR without losing too much detail and quality? Surely there must be a little bit more wiggle-room here, and maybe enable me to at least enlarge some photos to better frame my subject.

Yes and No

It's a hard question to answer because a lot depends on the lens used, the lighting and thus settings used, how you intend to display the photo, the distance to the subject and - finally - your own standards.

This latter part is often the most subjective and most variable; see sometimes getting something that can produce to a higher quality means your standards go up. As a result its possible that whilst you could crop heavily your own standards might rise to consider that not an option.

But really its hard to say how much nor how little you could crop something.

The display medium also changes things a lot. Show thigns online and you've got a lot of wriggle room to crop and adjust things; show them on posters and you have less. So how your view and your destination output (and how good you are at editing of course) all add together.



As a general answer though, yes you should be able to crop results more so from a DSLR than a point and shoot.
 
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Owner of a D5500 with 55-300 lens here. Was actually wondering about adding a super-long p/s camera for the extra reach. Honestly, I think I'd be money ahead to just save for the 150-600.
 
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Owner of a D5500 with 55-300 lens here. Was actually wondering about adding a super-long p/s camera for the extra reach. Honestly, I think I'd be money ahead to just save for the 150-600.


No question about it. A sig or tam 150-600 will amaze you. But be prepared for the weight, and the need for higher shutter speeds when handheld at max focal length.
 
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Owner of a D5500 with 55-300 lens here. Was actually wondering about adding a super-long p/s camera for the extra reach. Honestly, I think I'd be money ahead to just save for the 150-600.
I like this post. Will make me feel less crazy should I decide to dual-wield cameras :D

You like the d5500 with the 55-300 otherwise though?
 
How much could I crop and zoom with an image from an DSLR without losing too much detail and quality? Surely there must be a little bit more wiggle-room here, and maybe enable me to at least enlarge some photos to better frame my subject.

Yes and No

It's a hard question to answer because a lot depends on the lens used, the lighting and thus settings used, how you intend to display the photo, the distance to the subject and - finally - your own standards.

This latter part is often the most subjective and most variable; see sometimes getting something that can produce to a higher quality means your standards go up. As a result its possible that whilst you could crop heavily your own standards might rise to consider that not an option.

But really its hard to say how much nor how little you could crop something.

The display medium also changes things a lot. Show thigns online and you've got a lot of wriggle room to crop and adjust things; show them on posters and you have less. So how your view and your destination output (and how good you are at editing of course) all add together.



As a general answer though, yes you should be able to crop results more so from a DSLR than a point and shoot.

Thanks a bunch. Interesting point about changing standards, I can totally see that happening to me :D

No question about it. A sig or tam 150-600 will amaze you. But be prepared for the weight, and the need for higher shutter speeds when handheld at max focal length.
Newb question, and maybe I should ask this separately, why would it need a *higher* shutter speed at max focal length? My inclination is to think it would need a slower shutter, because of a smaller aperture. Obviously I'm wrong but curious why
 
Last edited:
How much could I crop and zoom with an image from an DSLR without losing too much detail and quality? Surely there must be a little bit more wiggle-room here, and maybe enable me to at least enlarge some photos to better frame my subject.

Yes and No

It's a hard question to answer because a lot depends on the lens used, the lighting and thus settings used, how you intend to display the photo, the distance to the subject and - finally - your own standards.

This latter part is often the most subjective and most variable; see sometimes getting something that can produce to a higher quality means your standards go up. As a result its possible that whilst you could crop heavily your own standards might rise to consider that not an option.

But really its hard to say how much nor how little you could crop something.

The display medium also changes things a lot. Show thigns online and you've got a lot of wriggle room to crop and adjust things; show them on posters and you have less. So how your view and your destination output (and how good you are at editing of course) all add together.



As a general answer though, yes you should be able to crop results more so from a DSLR than a point and shoot.

Thanks a bunch. Interesting point about changing standards, I can totally see that happening to me :D

No question about it. A sig or tam 150-600 will amaze you. But be prepared for the weight, and the need for higher shutter speeds when handheld at max focal length.
Newb question, and maybe I should ask this separately, why would it need a *higher* shutter speed at max focal length? My inclination is to think it would need a slower shutter, because of a smaller aperture. Obviously I'm wrong but curious why


Because you are 'magnifying (narrowing the FOV) the causes a magnifying of any movement as well. In other words your shake is amplified proportionate to the focal length. remember the old adage.saw. rule of thumb about shutter speed should be at least 1/focal length? Well that;s Why you can shoot a 50mm at about 1/40 of a sec with no movement blur. Now apply that to 600mm...you get 1/600. And on a crop frame camera your better off with 1/1000. My experience has been that even with the better lens image stabilization is not as effective above about the 500mm range. Maybe me, but that is what I have found.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top