Lens choices for "animalscapes"

[Wade Abadie]

I'm trying to narrow down the best lightweight zoom lens for my preferred style of "animalscape" photos. Specifically, I'm referring to having a second body/lens that would accompany me when I'm out with my 500mm F/4 prime. The goal of this second lens is to be able to capture wide to mid-range landscape photos showing an animal in a beautiful setting. I'm also referring exclusively to larger mammals, deer sized and up, at a distance of 100 to 300 feet away on average.

Of the choices available, what lens would you choose for this type of photograph, and why? I'm curious to hear everyone's opinions. Keep in mind, this lens will be attached to a Nikon Z8. Additionally, I know many photographers would choose a 70-200 f/2.8 or the Z 100-400mm for this type of shot, but those are both too heavy and expensive for what I have in mind.

 

[fcotterill]

I've used my 24-120 f4S with African buffalo, giraffe and elephants, but also have a 100-400 S and 70-180 f2.8 if needed, and either is with me in the camera bag.

Take a look at Brad Hill's portfolio for his lenses with examples of Animalscapes.

 

[Edward Cusick]

Agree I'd probably fall into the Z 70-200 f/2.8 camp on something like this. Haven't used this particular lens but seem to have run across a few fairly positive reviews on it, that being the Z 70-180 f/2.8. Thom Hogan was one that seemed positive on its performance. Weight-wise pretty light at 1.7 +/- lbs. Doesn't have IBIS but Z8 can take care of that. And I would think you could throw on a TC for extra reach if needed without paying too much of a price in image quality. Here is Thom's review.

Nikon 28-400mm f/4-8 VR Lens Review | Thom Hogan

Review of the Nikon 28-400mm f/4-8 VR lens for the Z-mount

www.zsystemuser.com

 

[DsD]

Hi Wade. I don't have solid experience here. Hard call with distance between 30-100 yards: If consistently at 30 yards then the 24-120 toward the wide end would be my choice, on the other hand if subject is normally around 100 yards I would probably lean toward the 70-180. Weight is similar and stopped down would negate the advantage of the 2.8 aperture.

Elk are 3-4x times the body mass of a typical deer, do you know the exif data of the above photo?

 

[bsinc1962]

Not on your list but lately I've been using the Tamron 35-150. If I had to pick from the above it would be the 24-120

 

[DRwyoming]

Any of the lenses you list are potentially fine for figures on a landscape type wildlife shots but for general versatility I'd go with something in the 70-200mm (or 70-180mm) range as it's a great range for all kinds of other work including portraiture and near but not quite macro work with its 0.48x maximum magnification.

But for a lot of approachable wildlife in a scenic setting anything covering the 70mm to 100+mm range or thereabouts can work depending on the specific scene. Personally I prefer a lens I can open up to at least f/4 if not f/2.8 even if it's stopped down a bit further most of the time for the kind of shots you're describing.

If weight is the deciding factor then sure one of the slower but smaller lenses covering that range could be great but optically and for versatility I'd pick the last entry on your list.

 

[Larry S.]

Lots of variables here Wade…. I have the Z 24-200 which I like as a general travel lens w/Zf. It is very compact and worth consideration for the scenario you have described. For animalscapes I’m thinking you want distinguishable background that enhances the overall scene. You don’t need (or want as you said) fast glass that’s heavy. The f/4-6.3 24-200 would be my choice for the Z8 here…..

 

[BillW]

Depends, of course, on the animals and how close you are.

I’ve shot animalscapes with African mammals in Botswana using the Z 24-120 and Z 100-400. Mostly the Z 100-400.

I’ve shot animalscapes in Alaska (brown bears) with a Z 70-200 and sometimes a 1.4xTC. This was before I had the Z 100-400. Still a good choice.

I’ve shot animalscapes in Yellowstone in the winter (bison, wolves, coyotes, fox, elk, moose, eagles) with the Z 100-400.

I‘ve shot animalscapes in coastal British Columbia (grizzlies, whales, other marine mammals, eagles) with a Z 24-120, Z 70-200 and Z 100-400.

Overall, I’ve probably shot more animalscapes with the Z 100-400 than any other lens I use, given the size of the animals and the distance from them. These days I usually have both the Z 24-120 and Z 100-400 with me on wildlife trips and outings. They pair well with the longer or bigger lenses I tend to bring (Z 400 TC, the Z 600 mm PF and/or the Z 800 mm PF).

 

[DsD]

Not on your list but lately I've been using the Tamron 35-150. If I had to pick from the above it would be the 24-120

This would be my choice but Op is weight sensitive and this lens is about 1# heavier than either the 24-120 or 70-180. Plus the 70-180 has the highest magnification of those listed and would be handy for those semi macro shots that present themselves in the field.

 

[Wade Abadie]

This would be my choice but Op is weight sensitive and this lens is about 1# heavier than either the 24-120 or 70-180. Plus the 70-180 has the highest magnification of those listed and would be handy for those semi macro shots that present themselves in the field.

Actually the Tamron 50-400mm has the best magnification of those listed (0.5x)

 

[pomkiwi]

Often I find the Nikon 100-400 works well - my 'animalscapes' typically involve the animal a fair way off in the landscape.

 

[DsD]

Actually the Tamron 50-400mm has the best magnification of those listed (0.5x)

Gotcha, guess I was down to the 2-3 most recommended. The 70-180 is close behind at .48x.