How about Nikon 300mmf4E shooting birds?

300mm is a little short. I usually use Nikon D700+ Sigma 150-500. But 300mm is not useless. Last year, the new Nikon micro-single Z6+ Nikon 28-300 played well.

You have to use 300F2.8 plus 1.7 rangefinder!

It's a little short. Use 80-400 640.

It can be used, but it is not very comfortable to use. It's like a China man married a Russian girl 165. You know that feeling.

At least 400 birds were shot, which I took with the lens of 100-400.

Nikon 340 can shoot birds on tripods, fight guerrillas and hide some waterfowl, but it is a bit difficult to shoot a few hairs.

300 shooting birds is really a bit weak, and shooting chickens may be ok. The problem is that the aperture of f4 is also small, and the imaging will not be the best. I think the aperture of F4 at the same level should be at least 400. Of course, if it is equipped with an aperture of 400mm 2.8, it will be awesome. 300 is really tasteless. Isn't it said that photography is an art that runs out? Playing telephoto bird photography is jokingly called "the art of burning money". Don't take it seriously! I used to beat swans with 400 dozen chickens and give some to everyone. thank you

Taken in Dongzhai, Henan Province-White-crowned Long-tailed Pheasant

Add a magnifying glass, no problem!

The first focal length is not enough. Although the second aperture is constant f4, the maximum aperture of f4 is basically discarded.

Depending on the shooting environment, in some places, if you use a full-frame camera, you may feel that 300mm is shorter. There is no problem if the shooting distance is close. The picture quality is ok. Attention is possible.

In short, it costs a lot to shoot birds and get high marks. Big head, professional fuselage, even shelves and Yuntai are expensive.