Nikon 70-300 VR for wildlife (Safari)

Rafiki

Rafiki

Messages
91
Name
Bhav
Edit My Images
No
Nikon AF-S VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens

I'm thinking of getting this lens for wildlife pics when I go on safari later this year.
Once I'm back, I'll be using it for motorsport events.

I know that for wildlife, the animals are more active during the early morning and late evening where I might require a larger aperture. Unfortunately I can't afford the larger aperture lens.

My question is, would I be OK with using this lens and bumping the ISO to 800 for the early morning/late evening shots?

Also will I be OK with using this for motorsport photography?

I've read on many threads here about the IQ of this lens which is great and seen many fantastic pics taken with this lens.

Thanks
 
Having owned one I'd suggest, if you can afford an extra £150 or so, getting a secondhand 80-200 f/2.8. You'll lose a bit of reach, but the difference in image quality is worth it and you can always add a teleconverter to the 80-200 and still have a faster lens than the 70-300 with almost the same focal length (a 1.4x tc giving 280mm f/4 on the 80-200)
 
I don't mind putting in the extra £150 for the 80-200 f2.8, however the only used ones I've seen are the old push-pull ones, not the two-ring ones.
I'll be using this on the DX camera which would make this into a 120-300 on it (I think).

Also not sure of taking a heavy lens like this on a wildlife trip
 
Last edited:
Flash In The Pan said:
Having owned one I'd suggest, if you can afford an extra £150 or so, getting a secondhand 80-200 f/2.8. You'll lose a bit of reach, but the difference in image quality is worth it and you can always add a teleconverter to the 80-200 and still have a faster lens than the 70-300 with almost the same focal length (a 1.4x tc giving 280mm f/4 on the 80-200)
Click to expand...

+1..;)

FYIF, Nikon 80-200 f2.8 are £825 on Amazon which is not a bad price, I'v just got the 80-400 f4 for £1169.
 
Last edited:
but the difference in image quality is worth it
Click to expand...

sorry chaps, cant agree the 70-300 is tack sharp, and the VR helps massively, I would take that on safari any day, the 80-200 is much bigger and heavier, and the f2.8 wouldnt be required
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Having owned one I'd suggest, if you can afford an extra £150 or so, getting a secondhand 80-200 f/2.8. You'll lose a bit of reach, but the difference in image quality is worth it and you can always add a teleconverter to the 80-200 and still have a faster lens than the 70-300 with almost the same focal length (a 1.4x tc giving 280mm f/4 on the 80-200)
Click to expand...

May I ask if the 80-200 is equipped with VR?
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Having owned one I'd suggest, if you can afford an extra £150 or so, getting a secondhand 80-200 f/2.8. You'll lose a bit of reach, but the difference in image quality is worth it and you can always add a teleconverter to the 80-200 and still have a faster lens than the 70-300 with almost the same focal length (a 1.4x tc giving 280mm f/4 on the 80-200)
Click to expand...

May I ask if the 80-200 Is equipped with VR?
 
scottthehat said:
no vr, but i dont think you will need it in afica its ruddy bright.
Click to expand...

There's a problem with my phone I send in 2 replies sigh..thanks for the answer. Anyways, I think the 70-300 is a decent telephoto lens. Quite sharp at 300mm on f8.
 
Rafiki said:
I don't mind putting in the extra £150 for the 80-200 f2.8, however the only used ones I've seen are the old push-pull ones, not the two-ring ones.
I'll be using this on the DX camera which would make this into a 120-300 on it (I think).

Also not sure of taking a heavy lens like this on a wildlife trip
Click to expand...

There's one of the older push-pull versions on the TP sales fora for £300 - that's just 70-300 VR money. Pro glass for the price of a plastic consumer lens? I know where my money would be going....
 
Yes, I've seen that push-pull one and it's very very tempting to go for it. Good lens that one.. However I'm not sure whether the AF speed would be up for wildlife.

I'm considering the weight of the lenses and I think I'll have to compare both these lenses (70-300 and 80-200) on my camera to see how well they sit during use.
 
Rafiki said:
Yes, I've seen that push-pull one and it's very very tempting to go for it. Good lens that one.. However I'm not sure whether the AF speed would be up for wildlife.

I'm considering the weight of the lenses and I think I'll have to compare both these lenses (70-300 and 80-200) on my camera to see how well they sit during use.
Click to expand...

I had the newer 2-ring 80-200 on my D80 (and the D300) and it was fine most of the time for motorsport use. The older lens might be slightly slower, but then most of the animals you'll be photographing will be slower than 600cc race bikes :naughty:
 
The 80-400 is quite out of my price range, unfortunately.

I'm seriously considering the 80-200 !

Only thing to consider is the weight of the lenses now. And do some camera tests.
 
For safari 300mm is far better than 200mm and the VR more than makes up for the slower aperture. 70-300mm is a very fine lens indeed.... there's nothing wrong with Nikon's 'plastic' lenses. Both the 70-300mm and the 55-200mm get cracking reviews.
 
DekHog said:
For safari 300mm is far better than 200mm and the VR more than makes up for the slower aperture. 70-300mm is a very fine lens indeed.... there's nothing wrong with Nikon's 'plastic' lenses. Both the 70-300mm and the 55-200mm get cracking reviews.
Click to expand...

Both of those lens are "okay", but optically the 80-200 is in a different league. I couldn't believe the difference in the vibrancy of my images when I changed from the 70-300 VR to the 80-200.

The lack of VR isn't really an issue, personally I'd rather have the larger aperture and better quality glass.
 
scottthehat said:
no vr, but i dont think you will need it in afica its ruddy bright.
Click to expand...

But it's fairly dim early morning and late afternoon - which are the times you go out looking for animals. I've never tried using a non-stabilised lens on Safari, and I never will.
 
Another point to bear in mind is the actual location. In East Africa you're more likely to be restricted to the roads and the landscape is very open, which means the animals are more likely to be a long way off. In Southern Africa there's more likelihood of being able to go off-road and you're more likely to be close to the animals.

So a 200mm lens may be suitable for Southern Africa, but is almost certain to be too short for Kenya or Tanzania. And if you want to shoot birds, then 400 is really a minimum.

As for ISO - don't be scared of ramping it up as high as is needed. You can fix noise to some extent. Motion blur is unfixable.
 
scottthehat said:
so you need a low light lens and vr then better buy a 70-200mm vr, mpb have some for under £1000 at the mo.
Click to expand...

I've seen that lens on mpb and it's a good lens but out of my price range.


hollis_f said:
Another point to bear in mind is the actual location. In East Africa you're more likely to be restricted to the roads and the landscape is very open, which means the animals are more likely to be a long way off. In Southern Africa there's more likelihood of being able to go off-road and you're more likely to be close to the animals.

So a 200mm lens may be suitable for Southern Africa, but is almost certain to be too short for Kenya or Tanzania. And if you want to shoot birds, then 400 is really a minimum.

As for ISO - don't be scared of ramping it up as high as is needed. You can fix noise to some extent. Motion blur is unfixable.
Click to expand...

Not going to be shooting birds that much.
Hence my reason for thinking about the 70-300 VR and bumping the ISO upto 800 or 1000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top