Is 300mm (on Apsc) good for wildlife photography?

I'm trying to decide between a few lenses and I'm just wondering if 300mm is a good focal length for what I'm trying to do, or if I absolutely NEED a longer lens than that.

Borteese wrote:

I'm trying to decide between a few lenses and I'm just wondering if 300mm is a good focal length for what I'm trying to do, or if I absolutely NEED a longer lens than that.

It depends on the type of wildlife photography you’re doing.

If it’s bird photography it’s definitely not enough. Many say to use 400mm on an APS-C body for bird photography.

If you’re shooting things that are larger and a little closer than birds, like elephants and rhinos, then it maybe it might be enough, but even then many shoot with a 70-200mm, and a 1.4X teleconverter. The ability to zoom is especially useful when you’re in the car.

I shoot bird photos and I use a SIGMA 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary on an EOS 7D and it works well.

Borteese wrote:

I'm trying to decide between a few lenses and I'm just wondering if 300mm is a good focal length for what I'm trying to do, or if I absolutely NEED a longer lens than that.

You need to give us a clue what sort of wildlife your after photographing .

If it's little birds , it's not very good .

If it's a big bird like an ostrich , not a bad choice .

Elephants it'll work with and for beetles a 100 mm macro lens would be better .

Or if it's small wildlife then the Canon 1-5x macro lens would be better suited .

Care to be a bit more specific about your requirements before any more suggestions are made ?

Borteese wrote:w

I'm planning to photograph more average in size animals, comparable to sizes near cheetahs.

Comparable in size to a cheetah , or an actual cheetah ?

(Are you going to greyhound racing ?)

In the wild or a safari park or zoo ?

In the wild on foot , you'll be quite a distance away from large carnivores .

On a jeep with a guide on such as an African safari , you'll be much closer .

At a zoo , you'll be closer still .

If your in a safari park , where you drive through the enclosure , they might be jumping on top of your car , and a wide angle lens would be needed !

If you want help or advice you need to state what your doing , what your photographing , and how far away from it you are expecting to be .

Being as cryptic as possible just means people have to guess what you may or may not need , and end up suggesting unsuitable gear .

As it is I would suggest a selection of lenses ranging between an 8mm fisheye lens to a 600mm lens , and probably a 2x teleconverter , depending if your shooting on a full frame or crop sensor camera .

Although that range could be narrowed down a bit if you give us some information .

Without getting into details, 300mm is a good start.  Better to add a 1.4x, or go to a 400mm.  I don't do much wildlife so I make do with a 300/2.8 and 2x on a 50 MP full frame camera.

In a rush I shot a fairly distant moose with just a 300/4 and 21 MP full frame.  Cropping down to about 20% of image area still yielded sharp eyes.

Using an easily handholdable prime lens with teleconverters does provide flexibility and still very good image quality.

I use a 200mm on m43. works out to 400mm equivalent. It's perfect for me.

If I had apsc, I'd be using a 300mm lens, or 400mm on ff. I usually find a spot and wait, birds get so close, They often get too close, as they don't see me as a threat.

I shoot APS-C (for now) and have owned both the 70-300 IS USM II and the 300L f4 IS.

I primarily shoot wildlife and they have been adequate in most situations.  I visit Yellowstone and Grand Teton often and yes, a longer lens there is preferred.  I've since upgraded to the 100-400L IS II (amazing lens!).

But in regards to your question, either lens I mentioned will work well with an APS-C body.

Here's a couple of shots with both.

60D and 300L f4 IS

77D and 70-300 IS USM II

When you can get close (safely) and when animals cooperate.