Why are people saying that a 300mm is too small for wildlife photography

D

Dragonfly

Banned
Been reading reviews of the 200-500 Nikon lens and I keep reading over and over in reviews and messages that a 300mm is too small to be a good wildlife lens. Why? seems ridiculous to me.
 
M

mauckcg

Senior Member
Dragonfly said:
Been reading reviews of the 200-500 Nikon lens and I keep reading over and over in reviews and messages that a 300mm is too small to be a good wildlife lens. Why? seems ridiculous to me.
Click to expand...
Or you could go on flickr, look at wild animal shots, and look at the focal length
 
Scott Murray

Scott Murray

Senior Member
Try getting a black necked stork with a 300mm?! Even a 600mm is no good if they spot you and they are a BIG stork, also getting finches to fill the frame is hard at 600mm let alone 600mm. But sure 300 is great for big game that is not skittish, it all depends on the wildlife you are shooting, getting that elusive Siberian tiger in Siberia I know what lens I would be packing :)
 
S

salukfan111

Senior Member
I really like 300mm but always want more range. I do endangered species work with the state DNR and cropping an Osprey shot at 1000 yards on the other side of a river or lake (they are always on the other side) with a 300mm just doesn't cut it. I'm desperately looking for a 600mm f/4 to carry in the car but when hiking, the 300mm f/4.5 edif hard to beat with an extension tube and tc16a available in the bag. I am sure that a weekend with 150-600 or 200-500 would provide the same level of satisfaction without all the fooling around with lens.
 
Top