Lens recommendations for Tetons and Yellowstone for wildlife

[sdloeffler]

which would you go with for wildlife photography, primarily large mammals, and some birding.

600 f/4 TC
400 2.8 TC
100-400
180-600
400 4.5
600 pf

Thanks

 

[Ivan Rothman]

Definitely go with the 600 f4 TC along with the 100-400 along with a wide angle lens for scenics.
If you want to travel more lightly, the 180-600 would also work well. So would the 600 pf along with the 100-400.
I'll be going toe Yellowstone and the Tetons in late September and want to travel lightly as I'll also be going to other non-photographic places. So I plan to leave my 600 f4 TC at home and instead I'll take a pair of Z9s, the 24-120, 100-400 and 600 pf along with a 1.4 TC.

 

[DRwyoming]

Personally I'd shoot with the 600mm TC and either the 400mm f/4.5 (which isn't a PF lens, though it's light like one) or one of the zooms. Up in Yellowstone my 600mm f/4 is my most used lens, often with the 1.4x TC. But when driving around you never know when you'll come across very close subjects including some very close roadside subjects, a wider lens and potentially one of the zooms that goes a lot wider can be useful in those situations.

If you're lucky enough to encounter Bears or Wolves the park has strict setback regulations of 100 yards for those animals so a longer lens is very handy in those situations.

 

[Calson]

In past visits all my images were taken with the 600mm f/4 plus the 1.4x teleconverter or with the 80-400mm zoom lens. For bison and elk the zoom lens has decided advantages over any prime. When these animals are on the move the subject to camera distance can change radically in seconds. For bears a focal length of 800mm is needed to comply with park regulations and to be safe as sows with cubs are very protective and can outrun anyone. Bear spray is a good idea and you can buy it in the park store (not allowed on aircraft).

 

[MrFotoFool]

You seem to be listing every long Z telephoto made (except for the 800PF - why not?). I assume you do not own all of those? If you are planning to rent or buy one just for the trip, above advice is good. You will need a zoom for when bison get close, either 100-400 (best if you are carrying a longer lens with it) or 180-600 (if you do not plan to add a longer lens alongside). If you want bears (or are lucky enough to get wolves within range) then you may want to consider the 800PF even though you did not list it. Otherwise, I think the ideal long combo would be 600 f4 and 100-400. Since I cannot afford or carry the massive 600 f4, I personally use 180-600 for my wildlife shooting.

 

[DavidT]

I spent 2.5 weeks there last September into October and my two lenses I used the most are the 600f4 followed by the 400f2.8. Only once for wildlife was the 400 to much and almost always the 600 was perfect.

 

[RikWriter]

600 and 100-400 is my choice. I've been doing wildlife photography in Yellowstone and Grand Teton for 18 years and I live here now and the two situations I run into are animals and birds far enough away that I need a 600 with a TC or close enough that I want a 100-400.

 

[nmerc_photos]

I've been to Yellowstone/Tetons about 10x in the last decade.

My kit when I was using Canon was the 70-200 + 600 F4.

My kit with Nikon is the 35-150 + 400 F2.8 TC.

In my experience, you can utilize focal lengths as long as 2240mm easily, but past about 800mm most photos aren't going to be great anyways. And lots of the wildlife comes relatively close, which makes a 400-600 perfect. I don't find the 100-400 range to be very useful, but do enjoy having something wider for environmental captures.

I find aperture more valuable than reach, so 400 is my pick. With the Nikon TC built in, you get the benefit of a flickable 600 as well. should you ever need 800 or 1200mm, you have access to it with external TC's.

I own the 800PF and considered bringing it this year (I'll be out there for a week in October), but I don't think it really has a spot in the kit. My 800PF is a dedicated "lightweight" birding lens, and many of the bird species I've photographed out there are large. Owls/hawks/eagles/etc.

 

[bleirer]

It's fairly common for folks to set up at a pullout our a nearby rise where it is no big deal to haul a big tripod and a 600 f4. Still not long enough but oh well. But if you plan on trail walking there can be some challenging uphills so you might want some lightweight handheld options

 

[Calson]

I have used a 840mm focal length for sows with cubs and one osprey nest that is lower than the parking area. Where the 800mm PF would have been useful was in the greater mobility it affords for shooting without a tripod but that would for a minority of the shots taken. It would be OK for sows and marmots and some of the small birds found in the park but not for bison or elk or coyote.

The ability to adjust the focal length for better framing and subject placement is my highest priority when photographing wildlife. I photographed a couple of male bison fighting over a crop of cows and the incident lasted less than 5 minutes and the camera to subjects distances changed second by second. Being able to adjust the focal length of the 80-400mm lens made all the difference in the world in getting the shots.

 

[GregT943]

Two camera bodies. One with a long lens like a 600 TC or the 800 PF, and the second body with the 100-400 on it. That way you can grab either one at a moments notice.

 

[macwalter]

I would take the 100-400mm and the 600pf with both TCs. The 2x wouldn’t see much use but nice to have just in case. I think you will need at least 800mm on the long end and a zoom for close stuff and insects etc. embarrassing to say but I use my iPhone for landscape shots as I’m not trying for perfection here. Or better yet let my wife take those, she is amazing with an iPhone.

 

[NIKONF]

There are some great suggestions here. Thanks from a novice.
I was wondering what you experts suggest for a person with a Sony A7R4.
I have been thinking about purchasing a Nikon Z9 for nature and birding. I am always concerned with the best image quality on my landscapes and macros.
Currently, I only have a Canon EF 100-400mm MK2 and and old Canon 300mm f4 IS.
Would I be disappointed by the Nikon Z 180-600mm? Some photographers on Youtube claim the lens has to be stopped down to f8.
I am really perplexed by the manufacturer claims and the photographers reviews.
Other PROs say the lens must have Fluorite elements to be excellent at the fastest aperture.
Any help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Mike

 

[bleirer]

What body are you using for the EF lenses?

 

[NIKONF]

Hi Bill.
I only have a Canon 7Dmk2 that I used for baseball at Fenway Park and Minor league baseball.
It worked well for prints up to 12x18 inches that I made on my Canon PRO 4000.
I had better Canon bodies, but I became disappointed by their sensors in the 2014-2017 time period,
I found the Sony and Nikon full frame sensors vastly superior in many ways.
Purchased a Canon 5Dsr and returned it bacause of this.
I don't like the idea of using a Sony A7R4 with a 600mm lens on the toy-like body.
Thanks,
Mike

 

[RikWriter]

Hi Bill.
I only have a Canon 7Dmk2 that I used for baseball at Fenway Park and Minor league baseball.
It worked well for prints up to 12x18 inches that I made on my Canon PRO 4000.
I had better Canon bodies, but I became disappointed by their sensors in the 2014-2017 time period,
I found the Sony and Nikon full frame sensors vastly superior in many ways.
Purchased a Canon 5Dsr and returned it bacause of this.
I don't like the idea of using a Sony A7R4 with a 600mm lens on the toy-like body.
Thanks,
Mike

Get a battery grip for it, then.

 

[macwalter]

The Sony a1 is lovely to use with long glass. I have no knowledge of other Sony bodies but I do not like small bodies for wildlife photography where you need long glass. I also got to try the canon R5 with the 100-500 zoom and was impressed. I don’t do video so the overheating issue was not a concern for me. Still I will stay with Nikon.

 

[RikWriter]

The Sony a1 is lovely to use with long glass. I have no knowledge of other Sony bodies but I do not like small bodies for wildlife photography where you need long glass. I also got to try the canon R5 with the 100-500 zoom and was impressed. I don’t do video so the overheating issue was not a concern for me. Still I will stay with Nikon.

I have a battery grip on my A1 that makes if feel fine used with large glass. It's not that expensive.

 

[bleirer]

Hi Bill.
I only have a Canon 7Dmk2 that I used for baseball at Fenway Park and Minor league baseball.
It worked well for prints up to 12x18 inches that I made on my Canon PRO 4000.
I had better Canon bodies, but I became disappointed by their sensors in the 2014-2017 time period,
I found the Sony and Nikon full frame sensors vastly superior in many ways.
Purchased a Canon 5Dsr and returned it bacause of this.
I don't like the idea of using a Sony A7R4 with a 600mm lens on the toy-like body.
Thanks,
Mike

Interesting you would think that about Canon sensors. On objective measures such as dynamic range the R5 is a little better than the A1 and z9, z8, and the rest at lower ISO levels, and they all run pretty much together at higher ISOs.

 

[NIKONF]

Interesting you would think that about Canon sensors. On objective measures such as dynamic range the R5 is a little better than the A1 and z9, z8, and the rest at lower ISO levels, and they all run pretty much together at higher ISOs.

Thanks for the update on the Canon sensors. Perhaps Canon has vastly improved since 2020 or there about. Is the R5 body as robust as the Z9 with long lenses?

 

[bleirer]

Thanks for the update on the Canon sensors. Perhaps Canon has vastly improved since 2020 or there about. Is the R5 body as robust as the Z9 with long lenses?

I like it for its lightness without the grip, but it might feel more solid if one has big hands with the 2 battery grip. The R5 is ancient though, the R5ii is expected to be announced in a couple weeks. That ef 100-400 would be sweet with it (needs an adapter), but in the moderate price range the RF100-500 is a nice match, or the 200-800. The high end of course has $12k f4 telephotos.

 

[PAUL50]

I’ve been living just outside Yellowstone in the town of Gardiner for over a year now and I’m in the park shooting at least 4 days per week and 6 days per week in the most active times of the year. Although not listed, I use the Nikkor Z 800 mm f/6.3 VR S lens with a 1.4 TC almost permanently attached, not just because of the long distances but to bring closer targets closer. There are days and circumstances where atmospherics make that lens unusable but that would also be true for the 600 and usually the 400mm lenses. I carry on a body strap the Nikkor Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 telephoto for immediate access for when the targets move closer but within the permitted distances regulated by the park. In my 4Runner I also carry the Z 600mm f/4 TC, which is the lens I’d prefer to use if I can fill the frame and also carry the Z 400 f/2.8 (which rarely gets any use due to distance and set up time). In my bag I also carry the Z 70-200 or Z24-70, mostly for landscapes. In your situation I would definitely carry the 600 with a 1.4 TC, the 180-600, and the 24-70, or similar lenses. Discounting my 800, these lenses get 98% of the use. The only time I was able to get very effective use of the 400 was during the big horn rut and one occasion with elk along the Old Yellowstone Trail. I‘ve tried every other combination over the year’s+ time and for me, it’s been the most effective combination. I use a tripod extensively with the longer lens to minimize shutter speed as much as possible to decrease ISO which helps me diminish noise and increase detail. Many shots, if not most, end up being taken from the road because of limitations imposed by the park, but I also get into the fields, especially in the Tetons when seeking moose shots, and a light carbon fiber tripod with a fluid head Or Wimberely gimbal is the way to go in my humble opinion.

As far as your concern with the 180-600 having to stop down to f/8, that has not been my experience. It’s a telephoto so it will not be as crisp as the 600 or 400 prime, but it’s one very good lens even wide open. I may go to f/8 if I have the light but that’s only to increase my depth of field.

 

[NIKONF]

I’ve been living just outside Yellowstone in the town of Gardiner for over a year now and I’m in the park shooting at least 4 days per week and 6 days per week in the most active times of the year. Although not listed, I use the Nikkor Z 800 mm f/6.3 VR S lens with a 1.4 TC almost permanently attached, not just because of the long distances but to bring closer targets closer. There are days and circumstances where atmospherics make that lens unusable but that would also be true for the 600 and usually the 400mm lenses. I carry on a body strap the Nikkor Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 telephoto for immediate access for when the targets move closer but within the permitted distances regulated by the park. In my 4Runner I also carry the Z 600mm f/4 TC, which is the lens I’d prefer to use if I can fill the frame and also carry the Z 400 f/2.8 (which rarely gets any use due to distance and set up time). In my bag I also carry the Z 70-200 or Z24-70, mostly for landscapes. In your situation I would definitely carry the 600 with a 1.4 TC, the 180-600, and the 24-70, or similar lenses. Discounting my 800, these lenses get 98% of the use. The only time I was able to get very effective use of the 400 was during the big horn rut and one occasion with elk along the Old Yellowstone Trail. I‘ve tried every other combination over the year’s+ time and for me, it’s been the most effective combination. I use a tripod extensively with the longer lens to minimize shutter speed as much as possible to decrease ISO which helps me diminish noise and increase detail. Many shots, if not most, end up being taken from the road because of limitations imposed by the park, but I also get into the fields, especially in the Tetons when seeking moose shots, and a light carbon fiber tripod with a fluid head Or Wimberely gimbal is the way to go in my humble opinion.

As far as your concern with the 180-600 having to stop down to f/8, that has not been my experience. It’s a telephoto so it will not be as crisp as the 600 or 400 prime, but it’s one very good lens even wide open. I may go to f/8 if I have the light but that’s only to increase my depth of field.

Thanks for the great information! How much better are the primes than the Z zooms? Do you use the 180-600mm hand held or on a tripod? I have always tried to use the lowest ISO for my landscape work, but I suppose I will have to bump up the ISO on the 400-600mm shots?

 

[PAUL50]

Thanks for the great information! How much better are the primes than the Z zooms? Do you use the 180-600mm hand held or on a tripod? I have always tried to use the lowest ISO for my landscape work, but I suppose I will have to bump up the ISO on the 400-600mm shots?

I can tell the difference between photos taken with 400 and 600 and the 180-600 and the 800.The 400 and 600 are truly superbly sharp and produce an incredible bokeh and great detail in the proper light. The 800, particularly because I’ve got the 1.4 almost permanently attached, is slightly less sharp with a less pleasing bokeh particularly when the background is close to the subject. but it’s a great lens that I don’t hesitate to use and expect it will produce great results assuming good light and little to no atmospherics. I use it 95% of the time on a tripod and only hand hold it in extreme circumstances when there’s no time to set up and a possible great shot is developing in front of me. Until recently I almost exclusively shot the 180-600 hand held but now, whenever I can, I’ll use a tripod or monopod because I really want the lowest shutter speeds I can get away with for the decreased ISOs, the least noise, and all that comes with that. It’s not as sharp as the 400 or 600, and it’s perhaps on a par with the 800, but it’s my go to lens when the wildlife gets close or I just don’t have the time to break out the 800. Having said all that, I’m talking about differences in only small degrees and there is little that can’t be fixed, if anything, in Lightroom or Topaz Denoise. My 180-600 is sharper in my opinion than my 100-400, which I hardly use since getting the 180-600. Any way, these are just my opinions based upon my observations with these particular lenses in the field. I have not done any rigorous testing. Others likely have different views.

 

[jimfromno]

I've been out to Yellowstone -Grand Teton Parks four times and I would recommend two cameras. One with a long lens permanently attached to a tripod if you're taking a SUV and can do so. You'll have a lot of encounters when you want to jump out of the car and start shooting. You'll also have a lot of up close encounters some right next to your car as your driving and that's why you need your 100-400 mounted to a second camera. These encounters happen fast and you have to be prepared.