>>4281432Yes, it's plenty. Some of my favorite shots were taken with a 300 and I still use it regularly. Having a 300mm is a good idea.
>>4281565>400mm is the lower limitI'd say 300 but you can get away with much less in a lot of circumstances. Really depends on the subject and setting. There have been plenty of times where even 300 was too confining, let alone 400. The last thing you want is having too much focal length to get closer when you can just get closer. It's happened to me plenty of times, and is a really good argument for a zoom. I just don't like most zooms because they get dirty.
>>4281567You can take those photos with anything though. Pic rel is 105mm f/2.8 taken to prove a point about muh bokeh not being exclusive to long focal lengths. It's all about distance to subject. I have shot moose, deer, and fox with the same lens wide open and people assume it's 400mm+ stopped down. In reality, it just looks stopped down because of the greater distance.
>>4281570>this is what happens when you dare to shoot a snowy owl with a mere 300mmIt's not a good shot and they have much better shots with the same gear. You could also get this same shot from farther away with more focal length, or closer with less. So it's obviously not gear related. Most Snowy Owls don't like to move much, you can get close if you're not an idiot. I've shot them with 70-200. These people appear to shoot in packs though, like casuals. No wonder shit flies away. Even if I could get closer to that, I wouldn't want a photograph of a bird sitting on broken concrete and rebar. Why aren't they in the wildnerness?
>400mm is fine. I wonder if 600s are more for people trying to bokeh out the zoo enclosures?100mm is fine. I wonder if 300s are more for people trying to bokeh out the zoo enclosures? Yes, your comment is this coming across this stupid. Why would you make such a comment if you know anything about cameras?
