Is 300mm Long Enough For Wildlife?

P20

P20

Messages
197
Edit My Images
Yes
I struggle with wildlife photos using my 70-300 VR lens. I'll admit that i'm not camped out waiting for them, its far more opertunistic, if it wanders in front of me i'll have a go:)
The latest attempt is blurry when blown up to a viewable size. So is it the limitation of the lens or more likely the idiot behind the camera?:thinking::LOL:
I'm thinking of the Sigma 150-500 allow a bit more length, as i seem to use the 300 mainly at the 300 end

Feel free to prove your point with any shots taken on a 70-300 VR Nikkor(y)
 
I guess my question would be, why was it blurred? Camera shake, AF speed, moving subject, lack of shutter speed, noise, pixel count......
Remember that generally when increasing local length you do so at the expense of light reaching the sensor, or very expensive glass, thus making your shot possibly more blurred, depending on the answer to the first question. Hope that makes sense written down LOL.
 
I do struggle with technique. I find it hard to brace my arms into my chest to steady my self. The conditions yesterday were overcast and windy. I had the ISO upped to 500 which seemed fine for the majority of the photos taken that day. The shots were in Program mode at F5.6 at 300mm. The bird that i'd taken was initially against the sky, then with a sand dune back drop as it came down. You can clearly see the colours and markings when you zoom in, but its not in focus. :(
I'll try and get some pics up.

BTW is F5.6 at say 400 going to be softer than F5.6 at 300 or have i picked that up wrong...:thinking:
 
Can you post up pics? ISO 500 is rather high for a D80, especially if cropping also (I've a D200 brother) so noise may well be part, if not most of the problem. I presume you have tried with VR on and off (with enough shutter speed to discount this/tripod mounting) to eliminate each possibility. I've no experience of the 70-300VR myself, but I'm sure MANY here have, and can offer more specific advice relating to that lens's strengths and weaknesses. As with all zooms, being right at one end or the other is never its sweetest place to be, but seeing pics taken would help to pin down your problem I think
 
I'll start by saying i'm no expert... but here's what Iv'e found so far.
I have only got experience snapping birds with up to 200mm. first with a point and shoot with 10x zoom and now with a 18-200 lens . its possible to get great shots with both but... and heres the thing. I need to be close and/or lucky. In some ways I think this is the only way. ie fieldcraft and patience. some of my fave shots (from other people) were taken with 200mm or less... my guess is they are better at being in the right place and time than me...
Alex
not great but 200mm
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=106226&highlight=thorny
point and shoot 10x zoom
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=105912&highlight=hummingbird
 
Broadband is acting up so having to use my mobile broadband, not ideal for uploading photos:bang:
Anyway, photos are coming.....

I'm still learning big time. I've only recently started getting to grips with ISO levels, now you tell me 500 is too high:thinking::LOL:

Anyone starting to think bad workman and tools....:D
 
Not necessarilly, I'm saying that ISO500 could be adding a noticable amount of noise, especially if cropping. It depends what you call blurry I guess LOL. I'll wait to see a shot you have taken before passing judgement.
 
300 is OK for wildlife. Granted, you are going to struggle if you just like to wander round pointing your lens at anything that moves....that was the 500/600 f4s are for ;) :LOL: There was a head on photo of an osprey in the Wildlife Photographer of the year competition last time round...shot with a 300 2.8, and the wings had been clipped off! So reach is evidentally only a small part of the story :)

Wildlife photography is very little photography, and very much field craft..spend time studying the birds/animals, and learning how to conceal yourself, then eventually...your targets will come to you :)
 
Right here we go. 100% crop, no processing
3248752884_190852e95f_o.jpg


Taken from this (click for original size):



100%:
3248771826_85b53d21cf_o.jpg


from, (click for original)


100%:
3247953241_a32e58af71_o.jpg


from, (click for original)


Hope that makes it a bit clearer what i'm getting at.
 
purpleclouds said:
Wildlife photography is very little photography, and very much field craft..spend time studying the birds/animals, and learning how to conceal yourself, then eventually...your targets will come to you :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but on the bright side, with this very lens and a lot of time and patience I managed to get this.
 
purpleclouds said:
300 is OK for wildlife. Granted, you are going to struggle if you just like to wander round pointing your lens at anything that moves....that was the 500/600 f4s are for ;) :LOL: There was a head on photo of an osprey in the Wildlife Photographer of the year competition last time round...shot with a 300 2.8, and the wings had been clipped off! So reach is evidentally only a small part of the story :)

Wildlife photography is very little photography, and very much field craft..spend time studying the birds/animals, and learning how to conceal yourself, then eventually...your targets will come to you :)
Click to expand...

So an argument to spend some money :D
I only really go out to take landscapes, thats more my thing, but i've always been fascinated my wildlife, birds in particular. Hence anything more than landscapes tends to be 'snaps' i guess. I guess i don't have the patience of most wildlife photographers. That and i have a love/hate relationship with my SLR as i can't give it the time it needs:|
 
Ahh, here we are should work this time. Sorry about the watermark, but you get the picture (no pun intended) ;)

1322838807_3fd479daed.jpg
 
You don't need a great lot of patience for most of our small birds...if there is a local nature reserve nearby, find out if they've got a hide...and throw some bird seed out of the window...once the message gets out there will be birds coming and going constantly, especially at this time of year!

My fave hide in Manchester, can be deadly silent when I arrive...within no more than 5 minutes of putting out some food I'm getting returning visits from 6 or 7 species at least :)
 
I wish I could do stuff like wildlife photography more, but the cost of lenses increases exponentially the further away you want to be it seems (or the closer/wider, lol)

What I'd give for a fast tele
 
purpleclouds said:
My fave hide in Manchester, can be deadly silent when I arrive...within no more than 5 minutes of putting out some food I'm getting returning visits from 6 or 7 species at least :)
Click to expand...

It's amazing how popular you can become. I do the same thing with the local squirrel population.
 
Thank you, my only advice to you would be to take your ISO down as low as you can and be patient. Sit as still as you can and learn to brace the camera. This lens isn't so good for impromptu on the move shots!
 
Looking at your shots it si technique not length you need more of.
The second two are 1/80th of a second. Perfectly possible with VR but only with good technique - the thing to do is find a subject that won't run/fly away and practise. Keep practising until you are comfortable you can get that slow.
Up the ISO. 500 may seem fine but if you have to go to 1600 to avoid blurry shots then do it - ISO noice can (to a degree) be recovered in post. Camera shake cannot.

What AF mode were you using?
 
Phil, I would love to see you get near enough the Sika up here with a 300..........:D
 
Amythyst said:
Ahh, here we are should work this time. Sorry about the watermark, but you get the picture (no pun intended) ;)
Click to expand...


Captive bird?
 
For photographing birds in particular I'd try and go with a 500mm for that extra reach. A problem you'll encounter is that the slower lenses will result in slower shutter speeds, and birds flit about. You can up the ISO a bit but faster lenses are better.

Once you get the bug I can see you single handedly ending the recession. Be careful - it gets expensive!
 
Any lens is long enough if you can get close enough to your subject, and you can certainly get bird shots with 300mm, although you'll need to get closer. I rarely take bird shots without a tripod though, whether the lens has IS or nor not.
 
Amythyst said:
Ahh, here we are should work this time. Sorry about the watermark, but you get the picture (no pun intended) ;)

1322838807_3fd479daed.jpg
Click to expand...

could u show the orginal, just to see how close u where and what u cropped. sorry to be a knob but im interested thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top