Photographing Wildlife with the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR

In this article, I will approach the specific advantages and disadvantages of the older Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR lens when photographing wildlife. Photography Life already has an in-depth review on the lens by Nasim, as well as a review of the newer AF-P version as well. In the article below, we shall look into exploiting the pros and managing the cons of the lens on the field.

NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/400, f/5.6

Since its launch back in 2006, this has been a popular choice among hobbyists moving up the ladder from kit lens. Recently, Nikon has come up with an update to the lens, fixing most of its limitations. But the older version still has plenty to offer, as you will see below.

Focal Length

All wildlife photographers crave the 600mm and the 800mm primes for the obvious reason that they are the benchmarks of corner sharpness, contrast, bokeh, and autofocus. Above that, they have the reach, and they work much better with teleconverters.

I have also seen many photographers say a 300mm is too short for wildlife, especially for bird photography. Is it really true? To a certain level it is, but not always. When primes excel in image quality, tele-zooms excel in versatility. I once had a Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 on the field with a 2xTCII. There is no doubt that the lens is razor sharp and the 2x teleconverter works great with that lens, as it was pretty much built for it. But I had missed so many shots just because of the fact that I had to switch adding or removing the TC. This is obviously the biggest annoyance most have with primes. Sometimes we are either too short or too long, and unmounting the lens from the camera is a risky affair, especially in dusty or even worse humid conditions. This is where a tele-zoom comes into play.

If your intent is to photograph small birds that are shy of humans, and you don’t have a hide, the longest possible focal length is the obvious choice. On the other hand, if you intend to photograph larger mammals, a focal range between 70-400 becomes more preferable. For example, if you have ever tried to photograph tigers in a wildlife reserve like Bandhavgarh, where tigers are used to humans and safari routes are close to the watering holes, you will know that an 800mm prime lens is not always ideal. The below picture is uncropped:

NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/400, f/5.6

The takeaway here is that getting close to the subject (of course without threatening it) can be just as good as getting the same frame with a longer focal length, if not better. There always seem to be more contextual details with the former. This is not to say that more affordable lenses are better than primes. Making a head-to-head comparison with something like the 300mm f/2.8 and the 70-300 4.5-5.6 will be similar to comparing a commuter road car with an F1 car. Both are built for different purposes on different scales, and the cost difference is close to 10x.

NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/800, f/6.3

Another advantage of a zoom lens like the 70-300 is when you try to get habitat shots, or when you seek to get creative with lighting. Too close of a crop sometimes adds too much restrictions on composition, and you can be more flexible with a wider lens. The bottom line is that you can take good pictures with the 70-300mm range. That’s what makes zooms like the 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 such practical options, especially if you are just venturing into the realm of wildlife photography from basic gear.

Of course, Nikon were to sell its benchmark lenses like the 600mm f/4 FL for $300, none of us would even look at anything else. Jokes aside, in reality, our budget is what decides what we own, and as a matter of fact plays a big role in the photographs we make. There would be gadgets that we feel too expensive, and some that we feel are a steal deal.

The 70-300 4.5-5.6 G VR falls into the latter category. It sure is a good deal for what we pay. If you are going to mount it on a D850 and pixel peep, this is definitely not the lens for you. But practically, not many would mount a $300 lens on a $3000+ camera. Most of you who would be thinking of this lens would possibly be mounting it on a semi-pro body, something like a D7xxx series or may be a D610. The lens might not hold its ground with high resolution cameras, but it definitely holds up well with semi-pro bodies. Apart from very decent sharpness, the lens boasts amazing contrast and color saturation.

Below are a few tips to get sharp images out of this lens:

Lesser Adjudant Stork NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/320, f/5.6
Royal Bengal Tiger NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/200, f/5.6
Mt.Chaukamha NIKON D7000 @ 70mm, ISO 100, 1/200, f/8.0

It can be a very sharp lens with good light, static subjects, lower focal lengths, and its sweetest spot of f/8.

Snow Partridge NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 800, 1/4000, f/5.6
NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/60, f/5.6
Greater Spotted Eagle NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 1000, 1/3200, f/5.6
Bearded Vulture NIKON D7000 @ 300mm, ISO 400, 1/800, f/8.0

Last but not the least, the biggest advantage of this lens apart from its value for money is its weight. It has been my go-with travel lens for about 5 years now. Especially for wildlife, this lens serves well as a secondary option, when tagged along with something like the stunning Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 E VR.

Apart from wildlife, this is a multi-purpose lens that can be used all the way from architecture and landscapes to portraiture and to a certain level, even macro. It does have its limitations as well, but at the end of the day, what we want and what we are ready to compromise on eventually decides our gear. Every lens, starting from kit stuff all the way to the flagship ones, has its own advantages and disadvantages.

In this article, I have covered most of the pros and cons of the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens on the field when it comes to wildlife photography. If there is anything that you feel has been missed out, please put it on the comments section below.

Exit mobile version