Lenses/Focal Lengths for Wildlife Shooting

[bleirer]

One thing that can be an eye opener is to noodle about in a field of view calculator like the one linked below. It has a lot of options that make it useful but it takes some getting used to. You can quickly see that if you are 50 feet away with a 600mm lens and a full frame camera your frame will be 2 foot high and 3 feet wide. But if you are 100 feet away it is 4 feet high and 6 feet high. You quickly see the challenges of tiny birds, even 25 feet away the frame is still a foot high and 1.5 feet wide.

Camera Field of View Calculator (FoV)

Calculator of Field of View of camera and lens, both the dimensional size of the Field Of View seen at a specified distance, and also Angle Of View.

www.scantips.com

 

[fcotterill]

I drew up this graphic a while ago to try and rationalize an optimal set(s) of lenses for wildlife photography.
It's quite clear why one usually needs a very tight FoV for small birds i.e. significant reach. Yes this often equates to 800mm as minimum on FX, and I often have a TC14 - so 1120; or 600 on DX.

The budget decision then becomes 'How to get to 800?' A Used 500 PF with TC14 III has become one of the more affordable solutions on a Zed ILC

In contrast, as mentioned above, one can get away with much less reach on larger mammals subjects.

Maximum Reach?

I've been trying to shoot nesting owls. The nest is 80' up in a tree and the closest I can get (or would want to. I don't want to injure them) is @80 yards away on a hillside. There's a fire road with hikers and mountain bikers between us, so I'm sure i'm not bothering them. The nest was...

bcgforums.com

 

[jerrylwatson]

The 100-400 was my first purchased Z lens. I love this lens. It is very sharp and I never leave home without it. I also have the 400 f/4.5 and 600pf which I only take one or the other. I have used the 400 with the 1.4 tc with good results (mostly sea BIF and whales). I seldom shoot tiny birds because I can't find them . I have not used the 600pf long enough to give comments but found it to be very sharp.

 

[NorthernFocus]

There's another thing in favor of a zoom lens that I should have mentioned in my previous post. If you're just getting started with wildlife that likely means that you haven't yet settled on a preferred style of image. Some people like to shoot wider and/or include the background as a significant element of the image. Other people(myself included) prefer to isolate the subject and (mostly)exclude surrounding/background detail. A zoom lens allows you the opportunity to do either for a given scene and decide what appeals to you.

 

[Steve]

It's funny - I was just working on a instagram reel talking about my most common focal lengths the other day that I'll be posting soon Here's a breakdown over the last 10 years:

• 300mm lens: 5.63%
• 400mm lens: 6.01%
• 500mm lens: 7.38%
• 800mm lens: 33.32%
• 600mm lens: 47.66%

Obviously, this is anecdotal since the sample size is exactly 1 photographer. However, I would venture to say that if you shoot the same kinds of things I do, this should give you an idea of the focal lengths you want to use. When I told my wife I was going to post a reel about this, she boiled it down rather succinctly, "Just get a 600mm and start shooting!" And I agree with her 100%. I've been at this for decades and traveled all over and 600mm really seems like the sweet spot for most (not all) photographers.

Also, between just 600mm and 800mm, here are my percentages.

• 800mm lens: 41.15%
• 600mm lens: 58.85%

(Note that all FLs are rounded - so 800mm is 840/800, 400mm is 400/420, etc).

 

[PhotoLover]

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.

This is pretty much where I'm at, up to and including the gear (500 pf + 1.4 on a D500 or sometimes my backup D7500). For birding, especially smaller birds, the reach, AF and IQ of a good prime is very very hard to beat. With the 1.4 on my gear, AF speed suffers a lot, but IQ not much. So I throw the 1.4 on when doing things like trying to get close shots of small perched birds, staying with just the 500 for big birds, BIF, etc. Anyway, for birds ... big prime is my solution. And that lens combination will work on a Z8/9 per reports. Don't know how well it works on a Z7 (I also don't know how well the Z7 AF works for birds). Note that while you probably want a Z lens, you can get a 500 pf used ... a lot cheaper than I paid for it new. You can walk around with the 500 pf all day; it's quite light.

On the other hand, sometimes the big prime is too much. I found at the zoo, for example, the 500 is not ideal. You are often too close for that lens. I have a Tamron 100-400 I use a lot in "general" wildlife situations with the D500 or D7500. It is not as good as the 500 pf, but stopped down to f8 sharp enough (and good for pseudo macro, more below) and AF is solid as well. I can get larger/closer critters with it, or take more "environmental" shots. Though, let's be honest, usually an environmental shot means "I couldn't get close enough."

I mentioned the "pseudo-macro" use of a long lens. What I, and a lot of people do, is take shots of insects and spiders, etc with long lenses. My 100-400 will focus as close as 5 feet. At 400mm on a crop-sensor camera, that's 12x magnification at five feet. Pretty close if that's a wasp or bee. For many small critters, you can get some rather nice shots with that combination. The 500 pf has 15x magnification, but you have to be at least 9 feet away. Many a time in the summer I've been out birding, not seen much, and amuse myself by taking shots of insects (I also have a true macro lens, but the 100-400 is pretty nice for things like butterflies flitting about).

 

[NorthernFocus]

It's funny - I was just working on a instagram reel talking about my most common focal lengths the other day that I'll be posting soon Here's a breakdown over the last 10 years:

• 300mm lens: 5.63%
• 400mm lens: 6.01%
• 500mm lens: 7.38%
• 800mm lens: 33.32%
• 600mm lens: 47.66%

Obviously, this is anecdotal since the sample size is exactly 1 photographer. However, I would venture to say that if you shoot the same kinds of things I do, this should give you an idea of the focal lengths you want to use. When I told my wife I was going to post a reel about this, she boiled it down rather succinctly, "Just get a 600mm and start shooting!" And I agree with her 100%. I've been at this for decades and traveled all over and 600mm really seems like the sweet spot for most (not all) photographers.

Also, between just 600mm and 800mm, here are my percentages.

• 800mm lens: 41.15%
• 600mm lens: 58.85%

Interesting data, Steve. Are these numbers simple lens length or effective focal length based on post-crop FOV?

 

[PhotoLover]

It's funny - I was just working on a instagram reel talking about my most common focal lengths the other day that I'll be posting soon Here's a breakdown over the last 10 years:

• 300mm lens: 5.63%
• 400mm lens: 6.01%
• 500mm lens: 7.38%
• 800mm lens: 33.32%
• 600mm lens: 47.66%

Obviously, this is anecdotal since the sample size is exactly 1 photographer. However, I would venture to say that if you shoot the same kinds of things I do, this should give you an idea of the focal lengths you want to use. When I told my wife I was going to post a reel about this, she boiled it down rather succinctly, "Just get a 600mm and start shooting!" And I agree with her 100%. I've been at this for decades and traveled all over and 600mm really seems like the sweet spot for most (not all) photographers.

Also, between just 600mm and 800mm, here are my percentages.

• 800mm lens: 41.15%
• 600mm lens: 58.85%

My immediate question is about what "percentage" of your shooting is birds? Based on those usage percentages, I'm guessing that whether you are shooting birds or buffalo, you are typically using the big (600 and 800) primes.

In my more limited "non bird" wildlife shooting (I mostly do birds) I've found the big primes often the best choice even for many larger critters (exception being places like zoos).

 

[MrFotoFool]

... 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 had to wait over two months to get mine from a small local dealer. Just order now and wait for it to come. I need a zoom because if an animal moves closer and I have a fixed 600mm I will not be able to get the entire body in (or will not be able to include more of the scene for an environmental portrait). If you only do songbirds then a fixed lens like the 600PF or 800PF makes sense, but if you do deer or other large and medium size mammals, you will want a zoom (at least I do).

 

[stlsailor]

One thing that can be an eye opener is to noodle about in a field of view calculator like the one linked below. It has a lot of options that make it useful but it takes some getting used to. You can quickly see that if you are 50 feet away with a 600mm lens and a full frame camera your frame will be 2 foot high and 3 feet wide. But if you are 100 feet away it is 4 feet high and 6 feet high. You quickly see the challenges of tiny birds, even 25 feet away the frame is still a foot high and 1.5 feet wide.

Camera Field of View Calculator (FoV)

Calculator of Field of View of camera and lens, both the dimensional size of the Field Of View seen at a specified distance, and also Angle Of View.

www.scantips.com

Thanks. I'll take a look at it!

 

[stlsailor]

I drew up this graphic a while ago to try and rationalize an optimal set(s) of lenses for wildlife photography.
It's quite clear why one usually needs a very tight FoV for small birds i.e. significant reach. Yes this often equates to 800mm as minimum on FX, and I often have a TC14 - so 1120; or 600 on DX.

The budget decision then becomes 'How to get to 800?' A Used 500 PF with TC14 III has become one of the more affordable solutions on a Zed ILC

In contrast, as mentioned above, one can get away with much less reach on larger mammals subjects.

Maximum Reach?

I've been trying to shoot nesting owls. The nest is 80' up in a tree and the closest I can get (or would want to. I don't want to injure them) is @80 yards away on a hillside. There's a fire road with hikers and mountain bikers between us, so I'm sure i'm not bothering them. The nest was...

bcgforums.com

That's quite a graphic. I'm going to spend some time with that!

 

[Butlerkid]

It's funny - I was just working on a instagram reel talking about my most common focal lengths the other day that I'll be posting soon Here's a breakdown over the last 10 years:

• 300mm lens: 5.63%
• 400mm lens: 6.01%
• 500mm lens: 7.38%
• 800mm lens: 33.32%
• 600mm lens: 47.66%

Obviously, this is anecdotal since the sample size is exactly 1 photographer. However, I would venture to say that if you shoot the same kinds of things I do, this should give you an idea of the focal lengths you want to use. When I told my wife I was going to post a reel about this, she boiled it down rather succinctly, "Just get a 600mm and start shooting!" And I agree with her 100%. I've been at this for decades and traveled all over and 600mm really seems like the sweet spot for most (not all) photographers.

Also, between just 600mm and 800mm, here are my percentages.

• 800mm lens: 41.15%
• 600mm lens: 58.85%

So......the 800mm in over just a few years has equaled the usage of the 600mm over 10 years?

 

[stlsailor]

The 100-400 was my first purchased Z lens. I love this lens. It is very sharp and I never leave home without it. I also have the 400 f/4.5 and 600pf which I only take one or the other. I have used the 400 with the 1.4 tc with good results (mostly sea BIF and whales). I seldom shoot tiny birds because I can't find them . I have not used the 600pf long enough to give comments but found it to be very sharp.

How would you compare the 100-400 vs the 400 since you have both? I've read that the 400's strength is exquisite bokeh along with excellent sharpness, but to shoot birds I find a zoom can be pretty helpful to locate them before I zoom in. I've read that the 100-400 is reasonably close to the 400 in sharpness. When would you use one vs. the other?

 

[stlsailor]

I'm getting some very insightful and useful information. I realized from some comments it might be helpful for you to see what I've been able to shoot to date, and the strengths (not too many of those, I'm afraid) and weaknesses, to give you some idea of the starting point. So I put together a quick website with a few images. It is here. Just click "Work" and the "Wildlife". Everything there was shot with with a 70-20mm f/2.8 S (possibly using a 1.4 or 2.0 TC) or less.

 

[jerrylwatson]

How would you compare the 100-400 vs the 400 since you have both? I've read that the 400's strength is exquisite bokeh along with excellent sharpness, but to shoot birds I find a zoom can be pretty helpful to locate them before I zoom in. I've read that the 100-400 is reasonably close to the 400 in sharpness. When would you use one vs. the other?

I use the 400 mainly with the 1.4tc. That is why I purchased the 600pf. The bokeh oh the 100-400 is also great. Below is an example oy its bokeh.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[stlsailor]

There's another thing in favor of a zoom lens that I should have mentioned in my previous post. If you're just getting started with wildlife that likely means that you haven't yet settled on a preferred style of image. Some people like to shoot wider and/or include the background as a significant element of the image. Other people(myself included) prefer to isolate the subject and (mostly)exclude surrounding/background detail. A zoom lens allows you the opportunity to do either for a given scene and decide what appeals to you.

I'd have to say that's true. I've done only a very few outings solely to shoot wildlife. Most of my wildlife shooting has come from what presents itself where I am, which of course is very limiting, I think. Per the message above, I put together a quick website while ago since seeing where I am at the moment might be useful. It is here. I think it will demonstrate I've got quite a ways to go to become a good wildlife shooter. Most of these include a fair amount of background. That's not necessarily because it's a style I've developed, but because I've had to shoot within the reach of the lenses I have.

 

[stlsailor]

It's funny - I was just working on a instagram reel talking about my most common focal lengths the other day that I'll be posting soon Here's a breakdown over the last 10 years:

• 300mm lens: 5.63%
• 400mm lens: 6.01%
• 500mm lens: 7.38%
• 800mm lens: 33.32%
• 600mm lens: 47.66%

Obviously, this is anecdotal since the sample size is exactly 1 photographer. However, I would venture to say that if you shoot the same kinds of things I do, this should give you an idea of the focal lengths you want to use. When I told my wife I was going to post a reel about this, she boiled it down rather succinctly, "Just get a 600mm and start shooting!" And I agree with her 100%. I've been at this for decades and traveled all over and 600mm really seems like the sweet spot for most (not all) photographers.

Also, between just 600mm and 800mm, here are my percentages.

• 800mm lens: 41.15%
• 600mm lens: 58.85%

I'd have to say those numbers are very revealing! Just based on those I can see why your wife said what she did. Thanks for sharing this.

 

[CoyoteCreationsNW]

Lightroom can provide powerful insights. I recently did the same thing as @Steve looking at the last 18 months of images. More than 80% of my shots were at either 400 or 560 mm. Some at 800 mm and a few between 80 and 350 mm. I tend to have more large mammal images, bears, elk, deer and Sea Lions. For me, the 400 TC 2.8 is a perfect destination lens. I went with the Tamron 150-500 mm as my walk around and hiking lens. The Nikkor 180-600 would have been just as good, maybe better but a little larger if it was available. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

 

[stlsailor]

I had to wait over two months to get mine from a small local dealer. Just order now and wait for it to come. I need a zoom because if an animal moves closer and I have a fixed 600mm I will not be able to get the entire body in (or will not be able to include more of the scene for an environmental portrait). If you only do songbirds then a fixed lens like the 600PF or 800PF makes sense, but if you do deer or other large and medium size mammals, you will want a zoom (at least I do).

That seems to be a good argument for something like the 180-200. I thought of ordering one and waiting, but some friends invited us down to their place to watch the eclipse. I thought if I was going that far, I wanted a good lens from which to shoot the eclipse. I've been mulling this over for a while, but that gives me a sense of urgency.

 

[stlsailor]

I use the 400 mainly with the 1.4tc. That is why I purchased the 600pf. The bokeh oh the 100-400 is also great. Below is an example oy its bokeh.

View attachment 83699

That bokeh is certainly acceptable! Thanks for posting.

 

[stlsailor]

Lightroom can provide powerful insights. I recently did the same thing as @Steve looking at the last 18 months of images. More than 80% of my shots were at either 400 or 560 mm. Some at 800 mm and a few between 80 and 350 mm. I tend to have more large mammal images, bears, elk, deer and Sea Lions. For me, the 400 TC 2.8 is a perfect destination lens. I went with the Tamron 150-500 mm as my walk around and hiking lens. The Nikkor 180-600 would have been just as good, maybe better but a little larger if it was available. As the saying goes, your mileage may vary.

I did the same thing a couple of days ago. I found that 9% were shot a 200mm or less, 50% were shot between 200 and 400mm, and 41% were shot at 400mm. At that point I was lens constrained so your information is more useful than mine. I've read the 400 TC 2.8 is a great lens, and it's easy to see why. I am thinking that the 180-600 would give me coverage for what I've been shooting plus extending it. A lot of people seem to like it.

 

[Hobbzz]

I can only add a few things that I didn't already see here from my skimming. Assuming that you probably like to fill the frame like most people, If you're considering something like an 800 because your subjects are small birds that you're trying to fill the frame with that's one thing. But if you need an 800 because you can't get close enough and are shooting things far away, you'll have to deal with atmospheric conditions regardless of temps. Heat haze/shimmer can happen at 100 degrees and -20 degrees, and currently no software can help with that. The longer the lens, the more it will be a problem.

Other than that it really depends on how close you can get, as others have said. If you want to fill the frame go for a longer lens. I don't fill the frame, and the first time I went to yellowstone I only brought my 400. Second time I rented a 70-200 and only brought the 400 out for bears.

 

[stlsailor]

I can only add a few things that I didn't already see here from my skimming. Assuming that you probably like to fill the frame like most people, If you're considering something like an 800 because your subjects are small birds that you're trying to fill the frame with that's one thing. But if you need an 800 because you can't get close enough and are shooting things far away, you'll have to deal with atmospheric conditions regardless of temps. Heat haze/shimmer can happen at 100 degrees and -20 degrees, and currently no software can help with that. The longer the lens, the more it will be a problem.

Other than that it really depends on how close you can get, as others have said. If you want to fill the frame go for a longer lens. I don't fill the frame, and the first time I went to yellowstone I only brought my 400. Second time I rented a 70-200 and only brought the 400 out for bears.

I hadn't thought of atmospheric conditions with an 800, but I see the point. So far as filling the frame, yes and no. To me that depends on the composition and what's around it. A quick look at a site I quickly put together this afternoon , since several had asked about style here I think shows that at different times I like to do both. When I do fill the frame, though, with the lenses I have, it's often with heavier cropping than I like and then enlarging with Photoshop or Topaz Gigapixel. Since you didn't take a long lens to Yellowstone, I wondered what kind of shooting you did, so I looked at your site, and it became clear. Outstanding photos of wildlife, especially birds, with context. I like it! I don't think at this point I'll go above 600 because that's more weight and expense than I'm ready for at the moment.

 

[Steve]

Interesting data, Steve. Are these numbers simple lens length or effective focal length based on post-crop FOV?

They are rounded to the nearest actual focal length numbers (i.e, 800 covers 800 and 840).

 

[Steve]

My immediate question is about what "percentage" of your shooting is birds? Based on those usage percentages, I'm guessing that whether you are shooting birds or buffalo, you are typically using the big (600 and 800) primes.

In my more limited "non bird" wildlife shooting (I mostly do birds) I've found the big primes often the best choice even for many larger critters (exception being places like zoos).

It's ten years worth of wildlife from all over the world - birds, mammals, and some reptiles / amphibians as well (not many at those FLs though). However, I do tend to shoot more birds than mammals and birds tend to generate higher numbers since I like to get 'em when they are flying.