Taking pictures of wildlife....300mm a must?

[Xander]

We've been taking TONS of pics of wildlife, especially deer. It seems that our 200mm isn't cutting it. Would a 70-300mm zoom be something that would be better? We would like to have VR since we are on the move and not stationary. But would the extra 100mm be worth the money and what lens would be best?

 

[tsaraleksi]

What 200mm lens are you currently using?

 

[Xander]

What 200mm lens are you currently using?

Nikon 55-200 VR on my D40

 

[table1349]

The generally accepted minimum for true wildlife, not zoo or captive animal stuff, is 400mm with 500mm to 800mm being preferred. It is easier to stay a little farther away from wildlife than to get too close.

Since you mentioned VR I am going to make a guess that you are a Nikon shooter. I don't have any real experience with Nikon longer glass with the exception of the 400mm f2.8 which is an outstanding performer at an equally outstanding price. My Canon 400mm f2.8 is the same in both regards.

You might see if Nikon has something similar to Canon's 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L. It is a bit on the slow side but a lot cheaper than the $7000.00 I paid for my 400 prime and is a well regarded lens in the Canon lineup.



Edit: Ok, no fair posting you gear while I am typing a response. Now I know for sure you shoot Nikon.

 

[anubis404]

For wildlife, I would recommend the Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR. Its fast, long, and sharp.

 

[manaheim]

You can use a 50mm if you are vewwwwwwwy vewwwwwwwwy quiet...huhuhuhuhuh...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've heard a lot of nature boys say that a 400mm is pretty much critical in nature shots, and I believe it. Animals go way out of their way to avoid people crashing through the woods (though generally avoiding crashing through the woods would be good... see earlier Elmer Fudd reference)

If you have time and patience setting up as a hunter would is pretty much going to be your best way to get shots. Basically camoflaging you and your scent, sitting in an area where animals are likely to roam by, and waiting.

Watch out for red

 

[kundalini]

I've got the 300mm f/4 and can add Nikon's 1.7TC to reach 510mm. It has to be bright conditions, mounted on a tripod and the subject remain still. The max aperture turns into f/6.7.

 

[table1349]

You can use a 50mm if you are vewwwwwwwy vewwwwwwwwy quiet...huhuhuhuhuh...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've heard a lot of nature boys say that a 400mm is pretty much critical in nature shots, and I believe it. Animals go way out of their way to avoid people crashing through the woods (though generally avoiding crashing through the woods would be good... see earlier Elmer Fudd reference)

If you have time and patience setting up as a hunter would is pretty much going to be your best way to get shots. Basically camoflaging you and your scent, sitting in an area where animals are likely to roam by, and waiting.

Watch out for red

Roadkill no longer counts as wildlife. Just game for dinner. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

[manaheim]

You can use a 50mm if you are veewwwwwwwwwwy vewwwwwwy quiet! huhuhhuh...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I've heard 400mms are pretty key for getting animal shots. I've also heard the best way to get shots of animals with a camera is to use many of the same principles used by hunters who are trying to get shots with a gun. Such as camoflaging yourself and your scent and waiting in an area where animals are likely to walk by.

Watch out for red squirrels though. A hunter friend of mine always tells me stories about the occasional one that figures out that he is not, in fact, just a large bush with eyes and then proceeds to bark at him and drop things on him in an attempt to either scare him off or alert other animals to his presence. I guess they're unrelenting. Quite funny, actually.

 

[davebmck]

I agree. I think 400mm is the minimum needed to do wildlife shots. I wish I could afford a 500 or 600mm prime lens. Use standard hunting techniques like camo clothing and blinds to get the best shots.

 

[Xander]

We are on a budget, so that kinda sucks. Here are some that we have taken at 200mm....

 

[BTilson]

I've compared a 200mm lens to a 300mm side by side, and while the 300 is obviously longer, I found it surprising just how little the difference really was. I'd say that for good wildlife shots you'd wanna go on up to 500mm or more, or if you've got good light, maybe attach a 2x TC to your 200mm.

 

[christm]

I upgraded from a Sigma 55-200mm to a Sigma 70-300mm I use it pretty well all the time especially for my sport pictures - powerboat racing etc.

I certainly noticed the difference.
If you would like to see the quality of this lens - at the time on a 350d (I now have the 50d) then check out the following album:

- Boxing Day powerboat race (50D)
- OCR Salcombe or Torquay or Teignmouth (350D)

My Photos

 

[ILovePlaya]

I've compared a 200mm lens to a 300mm side by side, and while the 300 is obviously longer, I found it surprising just how little the difference really was. I'd say that for good wildlife shots you'd wanna go on up to 500mm or more, or if you've got good light, maybe attach a 2x TC to your 200mm.

Noobie here.
What is a 2x TC?
Price?
Thank's Craig.

 

[Overread]

Right here are my thoughts - the zooms - 70-200mm or 50-200mm are great for captive animal photography and are also good generalist focal ranges - so its a good range to have. For wildlife things very much come down to 2 things

1) how good you are with field craft
2) how much cash you got!

Your first 3 deer shots are very good for 200mm range so its clear that you are adapting to your limits - you might try a hide as well - though it does mean sitting in one spot you might be able to get closer to the animals. One tip I have read is to not wash your clothing for when your in the hide - that way the smell will (over time) cover over part of the human scent that you have.

As for the best focal range - there aint one. Generally many wildlife enthusiasts have a 300mm are the minimum range though;

300mm f4 - this is a good lens if your on budget, offering a good focal range and the quality of a prime lens. It will also work well with a 1.4 teleconverter (TC) - nikon also have a 1.7 TC, with that you would probably get reasonable results. A 2*TC is not really suitable; on canon cameras once a lenses max aperture gets smaller than f5.6 auto focus is disabled, though Nikon don't have this feature after f5.6 accuracy and speed take a noticable drop.

300mm f2.8 - heavier and much more costly, but this is a fantastic lens (nikon or canon) since it offers a lens that is light enough to handhold all day (though you might need a bit of breaking in first) and it will work very well with teleconverters - 1.4, 1.7 and 2* = thus allowing you to get a 600mm f5.6 lens out of the deal. I know a few that use this along with teleconverters instead of options like the canon 100-400mm due to the increased image quality. Its a very pricy lens, but well worth saving for.

400mm - 500mm - 600mm == getting far more pricy here - though each of these will give you top results at the respective focal lengths, they are a different breed of lens. They tend to be much heavier and 500-600mm varients don't tend to be the best for handholding and a good support (monopod, tripod, beanbag, fence) is often considered essential to comfortable all day shooting.

Sadly wildlife photography is very demanding on the wallet - the good news is that at least a lens has a decent chance of lasting a lifetime (if you buy pro quality and don't drop it) so its a safe investment.

TC - teleconverter - teleconverters extend the focal range of a lens by a factor dependant on the converter -- however as they are adding more glass to the lens assembly they take away light and also affect image quality.

1.4TC - probably the best TC there is, this offers you an increase in focal length (1.4 times the length) with a very minior reduction in image quality and only one stop of light lost. Combined with high end glass the quality loss is hardly noticable in the field.

1.7TC - Nikon make this sort and I really can't comment much on it - no experience. It does rob you of 1.5 stops of light though

2TC - this is a more difficult TC - whilst the increase in focal length is considerable (double) the quality takes a very noticable hit (even on highend glass) and you lose 2 stops of light, so best suited to bright days only. Using a mid or higher range camera will give you better image quality with this TC (its due to pixel densities and sizes and such) than when used on a lower end camera - however a highend prime lens should be able to deliver acceptable results (course this all depend on how sharp you want things)