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.