Prime 300mm vs 70-200 zoom for wildlife

maddog

Senior Member
I am a hobbiest who wants to upgrade from my very slow 55-300mm. I have been reading article after article about prime vs zoom lenses and I am leaning towards the 300mm but want to make sure that it is worth the extra $600. Thanks!
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
A good prime should be sharper and possibly have a wider aperture but at 300mm its on the short side for wildlife,if its some thing like the Nikon 300mm f4 prime then it will work well with the 1.4 converter and become a 420mm 5.6.then though you are in the price range of the sigma and tamron zooms that are even longer.

Welcome to the forum
 

Scott Murray

Senior Member
I am a hobbiest who wants to upgrade from my very slow 55-300mm. I have been reading article after article about prime vs zoom lenses and I am leaning towards the 300mm but want to make sure that it is worth the extra $600. Thanks!
Ok which 300mm are you talking about???

[h=1]Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Prime Lens[/h]

[SIZE=+4]Nikon 300mm f/4 AF
[/SIZE]
[h=1]Sigma 300mm f2.8 EX APO DG (Nikon F Mount)[/h]
But in any case a prime will be much better than your current 55-300mm, but so will the 70-200 F2.8. But it will all depend on what 'wildlife' you want to shoot.



 

maddog

Senior Member
I would get the f/4 300mm or the f/4 70-200mm. I generally like birds but I will photograph anything. I am a college student that is broke though so I want to make a purchase that it worth it.
 

hrstrat57

Senior Member
My solution is half way home.....

Mint used 80-200 F/2.8 AF ED 2 ring appeared unused done and in the bag. It is just amazing!

Nikon AF 300 F/4 AF-S with Nikon 1.4 TC awaits....I've been told by my LCS they expect numerous mint trade ins once the new Nikon 300 F/4 VR arrives.....so I will buy used. The 1.4 TC is always avail on Nikon USA refurb. Would like the new 300 F/4 VR of course but a $2000 lens will never be in my budget as an amateur.

That's my plan and sticking to it! Luckily I still have an outstanding copy of Nikon 70-300 AF-S VR so I am in the position of being very patient to hunt the best deal.
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
I have the 300mm f/4 arriving in a few days and sometime this week a teleconvertor 1.7. I also have the 55-300mm and 70-300mm. I will be able to shoot all and compare. I could post up examples this coming weekend if you have the time.
 

hrstrat57

Senior Member
I have the 300mm f/4 arriving in a few days and sometime this week a teleconvertor 1.7. I also have the 55-300mm and 70-300mm. I will be able to shoot all and compare. I could post up examples this coming weekend if you have the time.

Look forward to seeing these!!

re OP do we know what camera is being used?

if a high ISO cam like D700 for wildlife vs sports the Tammy suggested by Scott could be best value!
 

maddog

Senior Member
So I think I am convinced on the 150-600mm but do I have to upgrade to the 7100 before I get the lens or will it perform well with my current 3200?
 

T-Man

Senior Member
I'm a budding wildlife photographer, so take this for what it's worth.

I have both the 70-200 f/4 and the 300 f/4D, along with the TC14-II teleconverter, and I use the 300+TC14 for wildlife shots, along with a monopod. I plan to replace with the new 300 f/4 PF VR once available due to the significant weight and size reduction and the VR. I think the best answer to your question depends heavily on a couple things:

1. What is your definition of "wildlife?"
2. How do you prefer to setup for wildlife photos ( sitting in blind vs. sneak as close as possible)?
3. Will it be a dedicated wildlife lens or serve double duty?

If your wildlife interest is large mammals like deer, elk, bear, etc. then the 70-200 can work, if you accept you'll be doing a lot of cropping and/or you're using it on a DX body. The "naked" 300 will be much better for frame filling shots as long as you're able to get within 75 yds or so of your subject. The 300 with 1.4X teleconverter gives you the most ideal reach, but since you have max aperture of f/5.6 with the tele attached, it's not the best in low light, and you will be taking a lot of ultra high ISO shots, as the best times for wildlife sightings are early morning & late afternoon. For that reason, I wouldn't personally go above the 1.4X tele, as you're already very compromised on light transmission as-is.

If you're mostly into bird photography or small animals that don't allow you to get close, IMO, the 70-200 simply doesn't have enough reach most of the time, and even the 300 is barely adequate at best. The 300 + tele is o.k. as long as you're able to get fairly close.

If you typically like to take wildlife photos from a blind, you can get away with less focal length than if you prefer to try to "sneak up" on critters or just snap photos as opportunity arises. If you do the latter, I would definitely wait and get the new 300 f/4 with VR so you will be carrying a much lighter, more compact rig, with less dependence on a tripod. Even so, I like to take a telescoping monopod with me when I go looking for wildlife, especially once light levels get lower.

If your "wildlife" interest is mostly large mammals and you also want to use your lens for, say, portraits, the 70-200 is more flexible, and you can attach a teleconverter for wildlife as needed.
 

T-Man

Senior Member
I was typing my response while you stated you were leaning toward the 150-600, so I was responding to the two lenses in the thread title.

You will definitely have enough reach for just about any wildlife photography with 600mm. I've never used that lens, but I don't know of any other way you can get that kind of reach for the price of that lens. I would prefer to have wider aperture at 600 than f/6.3, but you're not going to get that without a significant increase in money and bulk.
 

jay_dean

Senior Member
Weary of third party lenses. Will this lens last me a while?
Weary or wary? I'll take it you meant wary. They'll last as long as any other lens. I know pros who only use Sigmas, and Siggy and Tammy seem to be really upping their game of late to boot.
 

SkvLTD

Senior Member
@maddog 7100 won't be miles above and beyond 3200 in image quality, so you might as well go ahead with the lens. With any wildlife, the longer the better almost always, so I'd aim for the 150-600 or the 300 prime for utmost image quality.

I had a similar debate with upgrading my tele zoom, but I also do sports, indoor events, etc where 70-200 proves much more versatile, especially being a 2.8. I've only managed some grasshoppers with it since getting it, and I had to crop 20% of the whole image for those little guys, so the reach for wildlife is mediocre at best. I'm also a bit hesitant to drop money on a teleconverter since a more suitable older lens would cost about as much.
 

Woodyg3

Senior Member
Contributor
I have the Nikon 300 f/4 and a 1.4x tele converter. I also have the Tamron 150-600. The Tamron gets used 90% of the time for wildlife for the extra reach and the versatility of the zoom. The Nikon 300 f/4 is a great lens, is very sharp, and I have no plans to get rid of it. The Tamron is just more practical for the kind of shooting I do.
 

aroy

Senior Member
I think that the 300/F4 is the optimum. I use D3300 (same MP as D3200), and the longest lens I have is the 16-85, hence most my shots are cropped aggressively, to 800x800 pixels. This is fine for most NET postings and for upto 6x4 prints. With 300mm + TC1.4 and the D3200 you will get decent shots even if you crop to 3000x2000.

That said for small birds, as they say nothing is too long.
 
Top