Help me decide which wildlife lens to buy - choice of two

Messages
1,531
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks,

I have a D7100 and I'm looking to get my first proper wildlife lens. I normally shoot landscapes, but I've had the itch to shoot foxes, squirrels and deer etc for a while now. The longest lens I have at present is a Nikon 55-200mm VR which just isn't long enough and I've never liked the image quality.

Because of my budget, I've narrowed my lens down to either a Tamron 70-300mm VC or an old Nikon AF 300mm ED (the Nikon is going to be a little more expensive). I expect the Nikon will be the better of lens, but I've read that the auto focus is slow and it's also very heavy.

Thanks
 
That's a little over my budget I'm afraid. I have to many other hobbies to dedicate £500-600 on a lens at the moment.

The Tamron can be had for around £200 used and I'm currently looking at a 300mm f4 for £280, which I think is cheaper than they normally sell for.
 
That's a little over my budget I'm afraid. I have to many other hobbies to dedicate £500-600 on a lens at the moment.

The Tamron can be had for around £200 used and I'm currently looking at a 300mm f4 for £280, which I think is cheaper than they normally sell for.
Given those choices I'd be going for the Nikon 300
 
To be honest a 300mm lens isn't really going to make that much difference if it's reach you are looking at.
Have you tried putting the camera into the 1.3 crop as opposed to the 1.5 to give you an idea of what you will get
for the extra 100mm
 
I would get a new grey from e-infin instead of used lenses or UK models. The sigma 18-300 £339 or tamron 16-300 £344. They cost more but brand new counts for a lot, used zooms are risky. I have had a few bad ones
 
I'd keep saving.
I changed a 200 lens for a 300 and it didn't make enough of a difference.
 
Last edited:
You could get a sigma 150-500 I have never used one as I opted for the 150-600c. Which is great and I would recommend highly
 
Like others say on here, 300mm is probably the bare minimum for wildlife although you would probably be ok with deer especially ones in deer parks.
 
I'd keep saving. I changed a 200 lens for a 300 and it didn't make enough of a difference.

:agree:
For wild life I use the 200~400 ƒ4 and the 600mm ƒ4.
Both in combo with the D850 so to avoid using a TC.
 
You do really need a 150-600mm to appreciate wildlife images, a 300mm may do but it really needs a 1.4tc with it.
I'd save a bit more and get a 150-600 of either tamron / Sigma, perfectly capable lenses for amateur use ... and you will appreciate the longer reach
Or save a bit more for the better ( imo, Nikon 200-500mm )
 
I would agree you need the reach. I don’t like tc’s if you have a crop body then you really don’t need a tc. It also limits focus points.
 
I'm a Canon not a Nikon guy but I have swapped between zooms and fixed and always end up with the fixed due to the image quality and find that I prefer the images (even if I have to crop in PP) from the fixed. Always invest in the best quality glass you can afford....

A
 
As said above a 300mm ain’t going to make much difference at all coming from a 200mm,
200mm on that D7100 will be equivalent to 300mm with the drop factor and a 300mm around 450mm,
I have the tamron 70-300mm Di VC and it’s not a bad lens,
But for wildlife I invested last month in a Tamron 150-600 G2, and that’s equivalent to 900mm on my D7500,
I’d think first before buying a 300mm for wildlife,
But if the budget is a 300mm then that’s what it has to be I suppose,
Or wait save the extra and get a 150-600,
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day the 300mm will do. It's all about working within your limitations. Most of these animals can be found in parks and so you would be able to get closer than if they were fully wild animals. I have even seen people feeding squirrels by hand in the park.
 
I'd like to have something like the lengths that have been mentioned above, but because of budget, and also size and weight (I take 90% of my images on walks), I'm also limited to 300mm. Have you looked into the Nikon 70-300? I got a second hand one for reasonable money and it's a big upgrade on the 55-200. Reach might not be huge but it is 50% greater than what you already have and image quality is much better as well.
 
An alternative would be to find a Sigma 120-400mm, I owned one and it was a good wildlife lens. I came into money and got a Canon 100-400mm or no doubt I’d still be using it
 
I would like to suggest go for the telephoto Zoom 70-200 mm as per your requirement. This is one of the most used lenses among the wildlife photographers for their arsenal, offering flexibility to compose portraits of wildlife. The f/2.8 is the most coveted version and it will take higher price ($2000) but secondhand a sightly older version f/4 will be a lot cheaper so, think about the f/4 version.
 
I would like to suggest go for the telephoto Zoom 70-200 mm as per your requirement. This is one of the most used lenses among the wildlife photographers for their arsenal, offering flexibility to compose portraits of wildlife. The f/2.8 is the most coveted version and it will take higher price ($2000) but secondhand a sightly older version f/4 will be a lot cheaper so, think about the f/4 version.


Seriously?
 
Seriously?
Depends on the wildlife and the extent of the photographer's fieldcraft. I find my 300 mm lens ideal for some wildlife - insects in particular - where I can get closer easily. Sometimes with birds 600 mm gives too great an angular magnification and I end up zooming back to 300 mm or so.
 
I would recommend, either of the Sigma or Tamron, 150-600 or, if you could stretch to it, the Nikon 200 - 500.

Another option, is to get the used 300, to see if it fits your needs. Most likely, if you decide not to keep it, you'll get about the same as you paid for it and you'll be wiser for the experience.
 
Possibly a little late to the party, but, what is it you feel you are currently missing and what wildlife are you shooting? Taking shots of birds is very different to shooting deer (with a camera). If it is light gathering and sharpness, then the 300 f4 would be better, however you will need to work on your field craft to enable you to get closer. The general opinion with wildlife is that whatever you have it isn’t long enough. All this being said, my first “wildlife” len was the Sigma 150-500 OS and I loved it, was sharp, af was fairly decent, all in all a great lens for the cost, an alternative is it’s smaller sibling the 120-400 OS, some preferred this due to it being slightly lighter. Another alternative, albeit a little dated now, was the Sigma 50-500. I’ve never owned one but I have only heard good reports
 
I'd keep saving.
I changed a 200 lens for a 300 and it didn't make enough of a difference.

I agree. 100mm is nothing in wildlife. 200-500 or 150-600 or leave wildlife alone I would say.
 
This may or may not help but I recently bought a 70-300 for my Canon.

And it’s too short to get the types of shots I’ve seen other people achieve.

It’s all very well saying work on your field craft, but when birds are in the air, unless you can fly, you’re not going to get much closer.

I don’t really do much wildlife stuff so
I’m probably going to keep hold of the lens until I go on Safari later this year and see how I feel about it after. It’s too short for wildlife and too long for anything else I shoot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sto
Back
Top