# Does anyone use a 70-300 mm for bird photography?



## Lonnie1212 (May 3, 2020)

Went bird watching for the first time today.  Took a 24-120 mm Nikon lens.  Left the 70-300 mm lens at home.  That was probably a mistake.  Looking forward to next weekend.   Will try the 70-300 mm next weekend.   Jim Edgar Park is 16,500 acres of lakes, ponds and forest.  The perfect place for wildlife photography in Illinois.


----------



## RowdyRay (May 3, 2020)

Always take the longest lens you have for birds. Even if it's not the best. Learn to use it to it's fullest potential.


----------



## K9Kirk (May 3, 2020)

Take both when you go so you aren't without either.


----------



## Jeff15 (May 4, 2020)

For wildlife photography, you will soon discover that 300mm is not enough....


----------



## weepete (May 4, 2020)

I've used one in the past when I didn't have a longer lens. Quickly found out that I could use a longer focal length and I've been much happier using my 150-600mm. I shot some red kites last year at a feeding station and they came very close to the hide, a 300mm would have been fine for that. I did go up to an osprey hide as well, but could've used an 800mm then, so it really just depends on how close you can get.


----------



## Original katomi (May 4, 2020)

Even sat in the back garden I found that my 100 400 was better for capturing small birds
Adding a converter was a waste of time as it pushed the f stop so high that I could get the shutter speed up enough


----------



## Lonnie1212 (May 5, 2020)

Jeff15 said:


> For wildlife photography, you will soon discover that 300mm is not enough....



I think you are right Jeff.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (May 5, 2020)

Original katomi said:


> Even sat in the back garden I found that my 100 400 was better for capturing small birds
> Adding a converter was a waste of time as it pushed the f stop so high that I could get the shutter speed up enough



Good information!  Thank you for sharing this Katomi.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (May 5, 2020)

weepete said:


> I've used one in the past when I didn't have a longer lens. Quickly found out that I could use a longer focal length and I've been much happier using my 150-600mm. I shot some red kites last year at a feeding station and they came very close to the hide, a 300mm would have been fine for that. I did go up to an osprey hide as well, but could've used an 800mm then, so it really just depends on how close you can get.



Thank you Wee Pete


----------



## Braineack (May 6, 2020)

>= 600 or bust


----------



## JoeW (May 6, 2020)

If you're going to set it up on a tripod, pre-focus, and shoot with a wireless trigger, then a 200mm will be fine.  A 300mm?  Well, maybe birds (like cardinals) in your backyard.  I use a 600mm when I'm shooting birds away from my backyard.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (May 6, 2020)

You guys are right about the 600 mm focal length.  I went to a wildlife sanctuary this morning and took pictures of small birds.  This 70-300 mm is not going to cut it.  I was thinking a Nikon 200-500 mm might do the trick.


----------



## Derrel (May 6, 2020)

Birders often like 500 and 600s...the longer  lenses make up for distance. The 150-600 third party brands are popular. The Nikon 200 to 500 is also popular and is quite a value. Nikon also has a 500 mm PF ( PHASE FRESNEL) which is quite light.

If you really want to get into bird photography, then I think it would be wise to get a lens that is at least 500 mm.


----------



## SquarePeg (May 6, 2020)

I had a 70-300 and even in my very small yard it was not close enough.  i found the 70-300 was great for softball and for portraits.


----------



## JoeW (May 7, 2020)

Also, if you're going to shoot with a 600mm, you're going to want to get a great tripod.  Not a monopod, a tripod.  It doesn't matter if you've got strong muscles.  For starters, you'll be shooting great distances so any jiggle or breath will create issues.  For another, good bird photography requires patience.  When I'm shooting hummingbirds in person (rather than with a remote trigger) I'm often waiting 30 minutes for one of the little buggers to show up.  And sudden movement (like pulling a lens up to your eye) will startle them.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (May 7, 2020)

Derrel said:


> Birders often like 500 and 600s...the longer  lenses make up for distance. The 150-600 third party brands are popular. The Nikon 200 to 500 is also popular and is quite a value. Nikon also has a 500 mm PF ( PHASE FRESNEL) which is quite light.
> 
> If you really want to get into bird photography, then I think it would be wise to get a lens that is at least 500 mm.



What would you think about a 300 mm lens with a 1.4x converter ?  Found one for sale with a lot of accessories for $475.00.  The article says excellent condition.


----------



## Braineack (May 7, 2020)

I bet you could get a 150-600 Tamron SP VC for around $600 right now on ebay.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 7, 2020)

Lonnie1212 said:


> What would you think about a 300 mm lens with a 1.4x converter ?  Found one for sale with a lot of accessories for $475.00.  The article says excellent condition.



A Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 with dedicated 1.4x would be a fine match ... though I am guessing that is not what you found ?


----------



## Derrel (May 7, 2020)

The 300 f/4 AF-S + The Tc14e or tc14e-II would give you a 420mm f/5.6. But ONLY the 300 AF-S is worth  buying....i think a 150-600 or Nikon 200-500 would be better options.Previous models of Nikon 300mm telephoto lenses are not that good.

I owned the Nikon 300 millimeter -f/4 AFS and when paired with the 1.4 TCe from Nikon it is an okay pair, but your limit is still F / 5.6 and your focal length is 420 mm.  the zoom options give you focal length flexibility and also about the same aperture.


----------



## SquarePeg (May 7, 2020)

If you’re going with used, check out the buy/sell/swap groups on Facebook for your specific camera mount.  Great deals and no middle man taking a cut.


----------



## Mikhal (May 7, 2020)

I found out previously that my 70-300mm while decent was just not good enough for capturing wildlife away from a feeder.  I purchased the Nikon 200-500 and absolutely love it.  It has great vibration reduction.  The lens is like 5 pounds alone, I found my normal camera strap just wasn't going to cut it as that is a lot of weight around your neck.  Also check the weight limit on your tripod, with camera you are pushing 6 pounds and with that money in lens and body sitting on it you don't want to find out the hard way that it can't handle it.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (May 7, 2020)

Braineack said:


> I bet you could get a 150-600 Tamron SP VC for around $600 right now on ebay.



You are probably right about the lens and the price.  I found a 200-500 Tamron for $400.00.  Haven't made any purchases yet.


----------



## LightSpeed666 (May 7, 2020)

Jeff15 said:


> For wildlife photography, you will soon discover that 300mm is not enough....



210MM


----------



## photo53 (May 7, 2020)

I always bring my 75-300 with everywhere. Though there a been quite a few times I wish a had something a little longer.


----------



## RowdyRay (May 8, 2020)

Lonnie1212 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you could get a 150-600 Tamron SP VC for around $600 right now on ebay.
> ...




Don't waste your money on the Tamron 200-500. I never could get sharp pictures with it. No VC makes a big difference while hand holding. Look up the reviews and make your own decision. A used Tamron 150-600mm G1 would be a better investment. The Canon mounts are going for about 600.00, but the Nikon mounts are still about 700.00. Go figure. 

Super impressed with the Sigma 150-500mm I recently picked up. Got lucky for 300.00 but, there are some deals out there. Was going to go with the G2 for the D7100 but, not sure it's worth all that money for another 100mm. Even with the tripod foot on, this combo weighs in right at 5 lbs.


----------



## JoeW (May 8, 2020)

Lonnie1212 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Birders often like 500 and 600s...the longer  lenses make up for distance. The 150-600 third party brands are popular. The Nikon 200 to 500 is also popular and is quite a value. Nikon also has a 500 mm PF ( PHASE FRESNEL) which is quite light.
> ...


If you think you aren't going to do much wildlife/bird photography, then that's an okay compromise.  But if you want to shoot a lot of birdies, it's a bad option.  Some of the best shots of birds are going to be in mediocre light (early morning, dusk, in the shadows of leaves).  That teleconverter is going to add a couple of stops to your shot.  You effectively won't be able to shoot a bird that is flying UNLESS it is sunlight.  For instance, it will be way too slow to shoot a hummingbird's wings as they move even if you jack up the ISO.


----------



## RVT1K (May 8, 2020)

I agree with what many have already stated..too much reach is not enough when photographing wildlife. Of course there is always the balance between price, performance, reach, and speed. I guess you could add weight to that list as well. 

I have a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.7x tele-converter that gives excellent results and would give you quite a bit of equivalent reach on a crop-sensor. Both were purchased used on eBay. 

I also have a Tamron 300 f/2.8 and a 2x tele-converter for it. It also performs well but there are situations where I have seen some color fringing on branches that are back-lit by a bright sky. That set-up was "stolen" at an estate sale.


----------



## Raw photographer (May 8, 2020)

I personally love my 70-300mm, it's a higher end 70-300mm. Do you shoot with a crop sensor body, if so you get 480mm from a Canon and 450mm on a Nikon. So there's your 500mm right their. Sure it's 20mm short but if you shoot with a high enough MP body, just crop in to the bird. Although if you are shooting very small birds like chickadees and finches, warblers ect... you will not be able to effectively fill the frame with the bird with only 480mm. Even if you crop it down their won't be enough resolution to get any kind of decently sharp image. But for ducks geese, cranes, hawks ect... in my opinion a good 70-300mm on a crop sensor body works just great. Plus it's way lighter than a 200-500 or 500 f4. Just my $0.02. Hope it helped.


----------



## Winona (May 9, 2020)

I have a 100-400 and it really falls short most of the time. Hard to fill the frame with birds and even deer. Unless you use a blind or they are kind of tame. A lot of people recommend the Sigma 60-600 except the weight. I go between keeping what I have so I can walk around with it or getting a longer zoom but being limited because of its weight.


----------



## James Mitchell CPP (May 15, 2020)

Yes, I still use a 75-300 mm Zoom Lens for Bird Photography on Flamingos, etc. only, & indeed!!!


----------



## Jeff15 (May 15, 2020)

Hello and welcome, 300mm is OK if you can get close but with wildlife photography, you rarely can......


----------



## RVT1K (May 15, 2020)

Winona said:


> I have a 100-400 and it really falls short most of the time. Hard to fill the frame with birds and even deer. Unless you use a blind or they are kind of tame. A lot of people recommend the Sigma 60-600 except the weight. I go between keeping what I have so I can walk around with it or getting a longer zoom but being limited because of its weight.




I've got a 600mm (Tamron 300mm + 2x tele-converter) and even from 20 feet away, birds don't fill the frame.

I fully believe that I could have a 12,000mm f/4 and at some point STILL wish I had more reach and speed....


----------



## photoflyer (May 15, 2020)

This was shot last month with a 70-300  EF Mark II, albeit Canon, on a very old crop sensor camera.

I have camera / teleconverter combinations that can get me out to over 1200 mm but that is really not usable.  My favorite is the 100-400 on the crop sensor resulting in a max of 640, or with the 1.4 teleconvert in bright light at a max of 896.    Still, if you can get close, as in this case, you can get good results with a 70-300.  I watched the bird, anticipated where it would be, and waited until it came back.  I think true wildlife photographers must be extraorinarily patient.


----------



## RVT1K (May 15, 2020)

photoflyer said:


> I think true wildlife photographers must be extraorinarily patient.




That is the understatement of the year. It sometimes takes years for a 1-hour wildlife documentary to be filmed. I also remember someone taking years and thousands of attempts to get a shot of a kingfisher diving and beak-to-beak with its own reflection in the water. 

I think it is often overlooked, but I feel that having some familiarity with the behavior of the animals you're trying to photograph can have a big impact on your success. 

I'm no pro but the challenge of nature photography, even in my own yard, is a big part of what I like about it.


----------



## RVT1K (May 15, 2020)

Winona said:


> I have a 100-400 and it really falls short most of the time. Hard to fill the frame with birds and even deer. Unless you use a blind or they are kind of tame. A lot of people recommend the Sigma 60-600 except the weight. I go between keeping what I have so I can walk around with it or getting a longer zoom but being limited because of its weight.




I realized I misspoke when I commented earlier. I was thinking of a situation where the birds were quite a bit further up in a tree.

At 20-25 feet from the feeder, I can fill the frame nicely at 340mm.


----------



## Jeff15 (May 15, 2020)

In wildlife photography patience is a virtue......


----------

