Lenses/Focal Lengths for Wildlife Shooting

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

S

stlsailor

New member
Member's gallery
I've occasionally shot wildlife but would like to get into it more regularly. So I'm considering what focal length and lens should be my next acquisition. I shoot currently with a Nikon Z 7 and for wildlife I use a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 S, occasionally with teleconverter. I'm considering the following lenses, and giving a few comments based on the reading I've done.
  • Nikkor 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S. A good lens for both wildlife and travel. Do the others have significant advantages over this one for wildlife?
  • Nikkor 400 f/4.5 S. Seems to have the best IQ of the three, but doesn't beat the one above by a lot. The best IQ when using a TC.
  • Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3. Least IQ but still good, widest focal range, heaviest, not recommended to use a TC.
The IQ on the first two is better. All of them suffer to some degree when using TCs as is expected, though it's hard to tell how much. I'm wondering about two things:
  1. Does the variable focal length give the 100-400 any significant advantage for wildlife shooting?
  2. I can get an acceptable image at 560 with TC with the second option, therefore it looks like possibly the best to me.
  3. If I choose not to go with the 180-600 because of weight and that the others have better IQ, would the extra focal length be a huge loss? I'm thinking if I can get an acceptable image at 560 with the 400 then that gets me close to the 600. And I read that using a TC to go beyond that doesn't work well on this lens, not to mention lower light.
I'd like to get some thoughts from some of you more experience with wildlife shooting. What would I shoot? Hard to say. I've mostly shot birds at marinas or an wildlife area or lake to this point.

Dale
 
Member's gallery
Depends on what you are shooting..

I find I often need to shoot at 800mm in order to get enough reach for some wildlife especially birds. The 800mm pf is my current favorite lens.

I like the combination of the 400 f4.5 and 800 pf.
 
Member's gallery
I used the 100-400 for quite awhile. It is a very good lens for large animals like bear, deer, elk, sea lions, whales and similar. These tend to move from to move from far to near and back away quickly and the zoom helps a lot with composition. Easy to use. If you shoot in low light, like a closed canopy forest the aperture can be a real drawback. 400 mm will be short for most bird images.

I only tried the 400 4.5 for a few hours borrowed from a friend for an outing together. It was easy to handle. I have the TC 14 and used it with this lens. Image quality was OK with the teleconverter. I think most people would be happy using it at 560 mm on a brighter day. With the TC it was low light limited.

I have not tried the 180-600 but all lenses with this large a zoom range make some compromises in image quality in favor of versatility. If you shoot varied subjects, the wide zoom range can make it much easier to start getting keepers. The images I have seen shared certainly show this can be a capable lens used in the right conditions. The weight may be an issue on longer days out but this varies by person. Hold one for some time and determine your own limits.

Mostly my advice is pick one and start using it regularly. You'll come to love and enjoy any of these lenses.
 
Member's gallery
If you plan to do birds, get the longest lens you can afford. Personally, if I were just starting out and had the funds I’d pick the 100-400 and either the 600 or 800PF.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
wotan1 said:
Depends on what you are shooting..

I find I often need to shoot at 800mm in order to get enough reach for some wildlife especially birds. The 800mm pf is my current favorite lens.

I like the combination of the 400 f4.5 and 800 pf.
Click to expand...
I'd love to have the 800. And I can see why it would be necessary for some bird shots. At the price point, I need to be sure that I'm going to get into wildlife in a big way. I can see how the combination of the 400 f/4.5 and 800 pf would be a dynamite combination. That might argue for me starting with the 400 f/4.5 and seeing how it goes. I like to shoot primes, but Woody and CoyoteCreations comments below are one of the reasons I've been considering zooms as well.
 
Member's gallery
CoyoteCreationsNW said:
I used the 100-400 for quite awhile. It is a very good lens for large animals like bear, deer, elk, sea lions, whales and similar. These tend to move from to move from far to near and back away quickly and the zoom helps a lot with composition. Easy to use. If you shoot in low light, like a closed canopy forest the aperture can be a real drawback. 400 mm will be short for most bird images.

I only tried the 400 4.5 for a few hours borrowed from a friend for an outing together. It was easy to handle. I have the TC 14 and used it with this lens. Image quality was OK with the teleconverter. I think most people would be happy using it at 560 mm on a brighter day. With the TC it was low light limited.

I have not tried the 180-600 but all lenses with this large a zoom range make some compromises in image quality in favor of versatility. If you shoot varied subjects, the wide zoom range can make it much easier to start getting keepers. The images I have seen shared certainly show this can be a capable lens used in the right conditions. The weight may be an issue on longer days out but this varies by person. Hold one for some time and determine your own limits.

Mostly my advice is pick one and start using it regularly. You'll come to love and enjoy any of these lenses.
Click to expand...
Interesting comment about the large animals. That's good information as I've not typically shot large animals. I can see how zoom helps with composition. The birds I've shot have been at marinas or lakes and so close enough that I could get a shot with the 70-200 with TC, and of course my lens length has limited to that. But even then I find difficulty often in finding the target and have to zoom out to locate it before zooming in again. My concern with both the 100-400 and 400 is the limited range. I think Wotan1's comments tha the 400 f/4.5 and the 800 pf would make a good pair is probably correct. Just a little more pricey than I'm ready for at the moment.
 
Member's gallery
DougC said:
If you plan to do birds, get the longest lens you can afford. Personally, if we’re just starting out and had the funds I’d pick the 100-400 and either the 600 or 800PF.
Click to expand...
That's helpful. That seems to be the message that's coming through. And it makes sense. Out of those three lenses you mention, it would be the 100-400 at the moment, until I see where wildlife shooting takes me.
 
Member's gallery
Woody Meristem said:
Zoom lenses are always my choice; I gave up fixed focal length lenses over 20 years ago. If you do what I do for wildlife you'll seldom know where wildlife will be and a zoom gives you flexibility to frame it to your preference.
Click to expand...
Yes, one of the things I've wrestled with is that primes generally give you more light, but less ability to frame. And, as I mentioned in a reply above, sometimes I have trouble finding the target without a zoom, though more practice might alleviate that.
 
Member's gallery
Mark Garfinkel said:
I have the 180-600 and like the lens more than my 100-400 which I sold. I've used the 180-600 with TC1.4 with good results. Would never use the TC2 with the 180-600.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that information. Based on reviews I've read, that seems to track on the TC2 as it didn't seem to go well. On the TC1.4 they were a bit more ambiguous. I'm curious, what was it that you liked better about the 180-600, or didn't like as well about 100-400? EDIT: I might add I haven't been able to find the 180-600 in stock anywhere but Amazon, and I'm reluctant to buy a lens from them.
 
Member's gallery
stlsailor said:
Thanks for that information. Based on reviews I've read, that seems to track on the TC2 as it didn't seem to go well. On the TC1.4 they were a bit more ambiguous. I'm curious, what was it that you liked better about the 180-600, or didn't like as well about 100-400? EDIT: I might add I haven't been able to find the 180-600 in stock anywhere but Amazon, and I'm reluctant to buy a lens from them.
Click to expand...
Simple answer, 600/840, since it will be a while before I can afford the 800mm. I could only afford to keep one or the other in my collection. f/4.5-5.6 VS f.5.6-6.3 doesn't brother me.
Allenscamera.com is taking preorders, I'd stay with Nikon authorized dealers.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have always preferred primes. The 400mm f4.5 is wicked sharp and also works well wit tc's.

I have found that if you work with a super sharp lens you can get more reach through cropping or dx than you can with a lesser lens.

This lens will get you out to 800 but once there you will need to fill the frame.

The800mm pf is an incredibly sharp lens. It does so well at 800 that I almost never bother with a tc.
 
Member's gallery
From what I understand, the 100-400 does NOT have better IQ than the 180-600; it is the same or even a little worse (in spite of being S series). The so-called variable aperture is only 1/3 stop, so the difference is hardly worth mentioning. 400 f4.5 S is outstanding IF you can live without a zoom (I cannot). I recently got 180-600 and it is fantastic. Do not listen to people who say it is not sharp; I can guarantee you it is. For wildlife you will love being able to go to 600mm and this is the one I would recommend.
 
Member's gallery
stlsailor said:
I've occasionally shot wildlife but would like to get into it more regularly. So I'm considering what focal length and lens should be my next acquisition. I shoot currently with a Nikon Z 7 and for wildlife I use a Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 S, occasionally with teleconverter. I'm considering the following lenses, and giving a few comments based on the reading I've done.
  • Nikkor 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 S. A good lens for both wildlife and travel. Do the others have significant advantages over this one for wildlife?
  • Nikkor 400 f/4.5 S. Seems to have the best IQ of the three, but doesn't beat the one above by a lot. The best IQ when using a TC.
  • Nikkor 180-600 f/5.6-6.3. Least IQ but still good, widest focal range, heaviest, not recommended to use a TC.
The IQ on the first two is better. All of them suffer to some degree when using TCs as is expected, though it's hard to tell how much. I'm wondering about two things:
  1. Does the variable focal length give the 100-400 any significant advantage for wildlife shooting?
  2. I can get an acceptable image at 560 with TC with the second option, therefore it looks like possibly the best to me.
  3. If I choose not to go with the 180-600 because of weight and that the others have better IQ, would the extra focal length be a huge loss? I'm thinking if I can get an acceptable image at 560 with the 400 then that gets me close to the 600. And I read that using a TC to go beyond that doesn't work well on this lens, not to mention lower light.
I'd like to get some thoughts from some of you more experience with wildlife shooting. What would I shoot? Hard to say. I've mostly shot birds at marinas or an wildlife area or lake to this point.

Dale
Click to expand...
With a FF camera, I would not settle for anything less than a 500 mm lens. In your case the only Z lenses I would consider would be the 600 mm pf, 180-600 or the 800mm. From that choice, in your situation I would go with either the 600 or the 180-600 zoom. I know from my perspective that I would probably be shooting almost always at 600 so the 600 PF would be my choice. The image quality is outstanding and you can’t beat the ease of use. If you want more versatility and don’t mind the extra weight than go with the 180-600.
 
Member's gallery
MrFotoFool said:
From what I understand, the 100-400 does NOT have better IQ than the 180-600; it is the same or even a little worse (in spite of being S series). The so-called variable aperture is only 1/3 stop, so the difference is hardly worth mentioning. 400 f4.5 S is outstanding IF you can live without a zoom (I cannot). I recently got 180-600 and it is fantastic. Do not listen to people who say it is not sharp; I can guarantee you it is. For wildlife you will love being able to go to 600mm and this is the one I would recommend.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to hear that information. I was just reading a link I found in another thread to a blog that said the same thing. On the other hand I'd read a Photography Life review that was very complimentary of the lens, but put it behind the others if I recall correctly. Your comment causes me to take a second look, as I like both the price and the focal range. This is the one at which I at first looked. One problem is I can't seem to find it in stock now anyplace but Amazon. Why is it you can't live without a zoom? I may learn something from that as I've only shot wildlife with a zoom (70-200) so have nothing with which to compare it.
 
Member's gallery
Ralph said:
With a FF camera, I would not settle for anything less than a 500 mm lens. In your case the only Z lenses I would consider would be the 600 mm pf, 180-600 or the 800mm. From that choice, in your situation I would go with either the 600 or the 180-600 zoom. I know from my perspective that I would probably be shooting almost always at 600 so the 600 PF would be my choice. The image quality is outstanding and you can’t beat the ease of use. If you want more versatility and don’t mind the extra weight than go with the 180-600.
Click to expand...
I've looked back at the images I've shot, and I've shot most of them between 280 and 400. Of course that's because I had only a 70-200 lens and TCs so that's all I could shoot. Still, as I think about the images I've shot, most of them I'd like to have shot closer. I often have to crop, and then use Photoshop or Gigapixel to enlarge, not my preference, of course, so I can see why I might shoot mostly at 600. I hadn't thought of it that way.
 
Member's gallery
Mark Garfinkel said:
Simple answer, 600/840, since it will be a while before I can afford the 800mm. I could only afford to keep one or the other in my collection. f/4.5-5.6 VS f.5.6-6.3 doesn't brother me.
Click to expand...
If you think you will eventually get the 800 then the 600 pf is not in my opinion the best choice.

On the other hand if the 600 is your only birding lens than it will be a good one.

The 400mm f4.5 is a super sharp lens and will work quite well with the 1.4 tc. At that level you are at 560 and you will still have the ability to crop if you need to reach farther. You can even use a 2x tc and get up to 800mm although you will not want to crop much from there. In short the 400 will cover out to 800mm.

The 600mm pf is a great lens and you can get out to 840 and still have some cropping room.

Keep in mind however that with the 600 you will be at F9 at 840. By contrast the 800mm is a significantly sharper lens at 800 than the 600 at 840 . In addition it is F6.3 at that length and it will also render backgrounds. You have a lot of room to crop or go dx and you never lose the F6.3.

In other words the 600 is too close to 800. It will only cover between 600 and 800.

I had the 400, 600 and 800mm. The 600 did not get that much use once I got the 800 and I finally decided to sell it.
 
Member's gallery
stlsailor said:
I've looked back at the images I've shot, and I've shot most of them between 280 and 400. Of course that's because I had only a 70-200 lens and TCs so that's all I could shoot. Still, as I think about the images I've shot, most of them I'd like to have shot closer. I often have to crop, and then use Photoshop or Gigapixel to enlarge, not my preference, of course, so I can see why I might shoot mostly at 600. I hadn't thought of it that way.
Click to expand...
I’ve been shooting birds 100% of the time with my 500 pf married to a 1.4 tc. My camera body is a D500. Even that is not enough for me at times. When i first bought D500, I was going to purchase the 200-500 zoom but when i really gave it some thought i realized that i would probably have buyers remorse because I would probably have it set at 500mm most of the time. And the weight turned me off as well. So instead of purchasing the zoom I purchased the 500 pf and never looked back. If you are going to shoot birds most of the time , especially with a full frame camera, the 600 pf is the way to go. Of course, if you have the 800 in your plans, than that creates a tougher decision. Good luck.
 
Member's gallery
There are many personal preferences involved in choosing equipment. Zoom or prime? Lightweight & smaller maximum aperture, or larger maximum aperture & heavier? Hand-held, tripod or monopod? Minimum focus distance, cost, focus speed, TC compatibility, how well does it integrate into your existing system, and does any of this matter?

I could tell you what my choice is but that would be suitable for my preferences, style and skills, not yours.

The focal length question depends on your subjects, your location and your field skills. 600mm is a good place to start but in some locations and subjects it's much longer than necessary, other locations it's nowhere near enough. Patience and good field skills can often substitute for a lot of focal length.

Keep in mind the drawbacks of longer focal lengths: camera shake increase, with the greater distances implied by a longer focal length the chances for atmospheric distortion increase, and a narrowed field of view will make it more difficult to find the subject in the viewfinder. There are many things to consider and my choices might or might not be suitable for you. Consider renting a few different lenses and try them for yourself.
 
Member's gallery
Seems like you are over complicating this decision. Since you're just starting out and not sure where wildlife shooting may take you it seems like the logical thing to do is ease into it. The vast majority of people start with zoom lenses for two reasons. 1) it's easier to learn with variable focal length 2) it's the least expensive way to get long focal length. Bar none the biggest bang for the buck in the Z series is the 180-600. And I think if you do a bit more research you'll find multiple reviews out there that show it matches or outperforms the 100-400 for IQ. Plus the 100-400 costs way more and 400mm isn't enough lens if you plan on shooting birds. For starting out it's an easy decision IMO.

Not sure what your hesitation is buying a lens from Amazon. Assuming it's coming directly from them and not a third party they've got the simplest, most liberal return policy of anyone. I've bought multiple lenses, camera bodies, etc, from them in the past.
 
Member's gallery
My eventual lens setup will be the 180-600 and 800pf. I don't feel like the 600pf is worth it to me, and the 400 is too short. The 100-400 is also not worth it for me since I mostly shoot birds, though if you shoot larger mammals this can be more worth it provided the distance isn't extreme.
 
Member's gallery
Lots of great points being made. I've been shooting nature and wildlife since the early 1980's. There was a hiatus in that time as I was building a career and family which limited my photography experiences to vacations (which some years I was not able to get away from the office more than a couple days). Since retirement, I've re-entered the field.

Along with the rest of us here, I would like to offer a warm welcome to a life of perpetual poverty. OK, joking on the life of poverty.... kind of. Wildlife gear can climb up there in price unless you were born with a big trust fund or something and if that is the case, Uncle Jeff's birthday is coming up... haha.

You mentioned birds in marinas. I assume you're talking about Egrets, Herons, Pelicans etc. The 100-400 would work there. Also, a lot of this depends on what style of photography you wish. Even though I have longer glass, I have been leaning more toward environmental shots recently. For me, seeing some of the surrounding area where the beautiful creatures live is more engaging than a frame full of the creature. I do still take many portraits but don't overlook the value of the wider view too.

My thoughts on your lens questions:
1) no matter how long your longest telephoto is, you will wish you had longer. If you have 400, you will want 600. If you have 600 you will want 800... it goes on and on.
2) 100-400 size is a great walk about range and will work for many wildlife situations. It would be a good way to ease in but I believe you will quickly want a longer lens. The good news is the 100-400 range is still a valid lens and you wouldn't be throwing money away with it even when you get something longer you would still use the 100-400 a lot.
3) Prime vs. Zoom. Personally, I prefer zoom for general use. IT is not always possible to "zoom with your feet" and frequently with wildlife, by the time you change lenses, the scene you wanted to shoot is long since gone. Things happen fast. Sometimes, by the time you zoom the lens out, things have changed. I would recommend zooms for someone just getting into wildlife.
4) Look at a lot of images others have taken and get a general idea of which images appeal to you. That will give some idea of the style you will start off with. In time, you will develop your own style.
5) Look at minimum focus distance for the various lenses you're considering. Not all wildlife is out in the hinterlands. Some of it is right at your feet (butterflies, insects, spiders, some small birds can be very close. The close focus / "near macro" shots can be quite interesting. I shoot a lot of this type of photography. Enough, in fact, that many years ago I invested in true macro lenses.

I would close by saying have fun and enjoy the journey. Spend time learning field craft (how to find the creatures you want to photograph and how to position yourself for the shot). Just enjoy being out in nature. Honestly, the photograph is secondary to the experience of being out there with the creatures. What other hobby can you be hot, cold, hungry, thirsty, wet, dry, muddy, dusty, have enough bugs on you to suck your blood dry, and enjoy every moment of it while having photographs of the memories to reflect upon after you get home? Welcome to the insanity club.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top