What 3-4 lenses would you purchase for Wildlife photography on the Nikon Z system

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).

When I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 Z lens it was primarily for landscape photography. As I also have the 100-400mm it seems worthwhile to experiment with the 70-200mm and the 2x TC that results in a 140-400mm f/5.6 zoom lens. With a 180-600mm or comparable zoom range lens the 100-400mm could be deleted from the kit.
 
I've been watching some reviews on the 150-500 and agree completely. At 4lbs it's pretty much between the 100-400 and 180-600 in terms of both weight and focal range.. definitely a contender

I prefer native lenses, but on a budget the Tamron makes a lot of sense
Regardless if you are on a budget or have no finanacial restrictions, the Tamaron is a very much worth considering.
 
Sharpness for all of the Z mount telephotos appears to be pretty good. I do some traveling by aairplane, boat and car. Total kit weight and volume is a concern for me. The next big consideration is low light capability. Cost is important but not the deciding factor for me. I generally take two cameras, a Z9 and a Z6ii. When I have room I take the Z7ii also. My lenses are Z 400mm TC, TC 2.0, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 and 24-120mm f/4. This allows me to me shoot;

24-120mm at f/4
100-325mm at f/4.5-5.6 (lens is a little softer as it approaches 400mm)
400mm at f/2.8
600mm at f/4
800mm at f/5.6

The kit weight is about the same as the three big primes. Camera plus lens is a little heavier. The total, travel weight is a little less than using the 3 primes. The total cost is about the same as for the three primes. If I expect to be shooting a lot closer and darker (think rain forest conditions) I leave the 400 mm lens home and bring the 70-200mm f/2.8 to get the lowest light capability. A perfect lens kit for me would include a Z 100-300 f/2.8. Maybe it will exist someday. For now, I am very satisfied with the Z mount telephos.
 
Dear Everyone,

I recently purchased into the Nikon Z system for wildlife photography using lighter lenses with the following:

1) Nikon Z9
2) Nikon Z 400 mm f4.5 + 1.4 x TC (for flexibility to get to 560 mm f6.3)
3) Nikon Z 800 mm f6.3

I also have the 180-600 mm f5.6 to f6.3 on order, but this might take a while to arrive (e.g. several months).

I will eventually get a smaller second body, but am waiting to see what the Z6III brings and to see if the Z8 gets the bird detection in the firmware.

Are there any other combinations that people think I should consider?

One alternative, albeit more expensive would be an all prime setup of the 400 mm f4.5, 600 mm f6.3 and 800 mm f6.3.

Thank you in advance for constructive feedback.
If I was starting over…I would get 2 Z8s or one and a Zf but more likely 2 Z8s. 600PF, both TCs, 180-600, and 2-120. Next would be the 14-30 and the 40/.5 after that for days when light was more important than flexibility. For me, the 800 would get used little enough that I would use the much lighter 600 and TC combo. The expensive exotics aren’t for me…partially for budget because I could afford them but the bang for the buck isn’t there…but the size and weight are bigger reasons for me. I might consider a Z6IIi or Z7III for the second body but only if the AF was up to most of what the Z8 does. While I have a Z8 and Z9 now…I would go with the lighter and cheaper Z8 because I don’t care about the grip and I’ve never had a battery capacity issue with my Z8 or the earlier models using t(r same battery.

Next lens up would be the 100-400…it’s still plenty good enough and focuses close enough that with extension tubes serves my limited macro needs.
 
I am just starting to decide what lens to purchase for wildlife photography for my Z8, like yourself the 400/4.5 is a lock, but deciding between the Tamaron 150-500, Nikon 100-400 or the Nikon 180-600. Leaning heavily toward the Tamaron 150-500. Currently own the Nikon 24-120. I hike and travel so compactness and weight are big factors.
Yes, it is a difficult choice. The Tamron is not THAT light TBH. It is quite small but chunky. In its favour is it's price, size and the AF is good too. Optically it is quite good but probably not at the level of the Nikons, it needs to be stopped down to be excellent. It's BIG weakness though is its VR. If you are used to Nikon VR and rely on it for video or slower handheld shutter speeds then you are going to be very disappointed. It simply is not in the same league as Nikon in this regard. The Nikon 100-400 is lighter, better VR and optics, 100mm shorter and nearly twice the price. The 180-600 is heavier, larger, sharper wide open, 100mm longer, slightly more expensive and has much better VR. All these things weighed up, I would still choose the Tamron. I don't use zooms that often and it's set of compromises I can live with, but I wish the VR was a lot better. YMM (will almost certainly) V.
 
Despite ehat I said in the other reply…I could live with that combo easily as well. Heavier than what I would opt for…but not too much and ya never know when a little extra reach will be good.
Wildlife was the listed thing :)

If I was going for a general use set of lenses, 14-30/24-120/180-600 would be a lighter 'do it all' list. My personal setup for z mount only lenses right now is 14-24 2.8, 24-70-f4, 180-600, 105 macro and 50 1.8.

I also have a few f mount lenses for rare things I do that I got for cheap and don't want to sell yet.
 
I have the Z400/2.8 TC with a 2xTC on a Z9 which serves me well for local wildlife. I have a Fuji X-T3 with wide angle options (I love Astro and landscape). So no redundancy but the option to always be shooting something on a trip if a body breaks.

I can carry a lot of weight walking around, but I still don't understand how I could travel with all the large Nikon lenses and multiple bodies (quoted in other's comments) on a trip.
 
I have the Z400/2.8 TC with a 2xTC on a Z9 which serves me well for local wildlife. I have a Fuji X-T3 with wide angle options (I love Astro and landscape). So no redundancy but the option to always be shooting something on a trip if a body breaks.

I can carry a lot of weight walking around, but I still don't understand how I could travel with all the large Nikon lenses and multiple bodies (quoted in other's comments) on a trip.
I run Fuji as well for everything besides birding, and have the same incredulity when I think back to when I lugged around massive Canon EF full frame gear for casual trips and walk-around.

For birding though… I’ll travel with whatever it takes, within reason. Last trip I took the 800PF, 100-400, Z8, so not that bad. Next trip, will probably just be the 180-600 or 600PF.
 
I run Fuji as well for everything besides birding, and have the same incredulity when I think back to when I lugged around massive Canon EF full frame gear for casual trips and walk-around.

For birding though… I’ll travel with whatever it takes, within reason. Last trip I took the 800PF, 100-400, Z8, so not that bad. Next trip, will probably just be the 180-600 or 600PF.
What I want to understand is how folks take all these large lenses and multiple bodies on the plane? Do they all use large hard cases and check the gear?
 
When I bought the 70-200mm f/2.8 Z lens it was primarily for landscape photography. As I also have the 100-400mm it seems worthwhile to experiment with the 70-200mm and the 2x TC that results in a 140-400mm f/5.6 zoom lens. With a 180-600mm or comparable zoom range lens the 100-400mm could be deleted from the kit.
Don't forget that you can use F mount lenses on your Z body with one of Nikon's adapters. I picked up a 200-400 VRii f4 for much less than a new Z mount lens. It work great on my Z9 with fast AF. It's also tack sharp.
 
First I ordered the 180-600, got it quickly through Nikon and found I was not happy with how heavy and long it was. I sold it to someone on this forum right away. Then I got the Nikon 600PF, and I love the lens, and the Nikon 100-400 so I'm covered all around. I also have the 24-120 and an 85mm. I do have a Z TC if I need it. Two Z8 bodies, the Z9 is boxed as I want to sell it. This set of lens has worked out very well so far. I also still have the non-Z Nikon 500PF if I want to use it and a 70-200 f/2.8 that I never actually use as it is so heavy.
How much do you want for the Z9?
 
You have a lot going for you with this setup.

I would question the 100-400. You already have the 70-200, I have that lens and it works well with tc's out to 400mm.

I think both the 400mm f4.5 and 600mm pf are excellent lenses when you want something that is super compact and portable.

I have not used the Tamron 150-500. I have looked one over at my local photo store and it feels heavy.
 
If I think wildlife I think Z8 or Z9 for bodies and none of the other Z mount bodies out there.
There are so many routes to take on the lenses and depending on the subject, style of shooting, ... can you consider these:
70-200mm f/2.8 --> great for the mammals close-by and have your animals in the scene rather than closeup shots
100-400mm --> a relatively light versatile lens for the mammals out there. Also great for close-up shots of flowers, insects, ....
400mm f/4.5 --> beautiful lens that gives insane sharp photos and nicely rendered background
180-600mm --> absolutely very versatile, nicely prices but a bit heavy to be fair. It is also not an S-line lens
600mm PF --> what is there not to like about this lens, sharp, small and light but is "only" f/6.3
800mm PF --> same as the 600mm PF
400mm f2.8 & 600mm f/4 --> well, the best in class, period.

Macro is such a specific field but if you are into that then the 105mm MC is the one to have.
When I travel to Africa for a safari do I take the 100-400 or 180-600 with me along with the 600mm TC. When a buddy travels with me will he take my 24-120mm f/4 lens with my old Z7.
I love this explanation, a pragmatical overview that gets to the point. I'm also considering getting new glass, especially a zoom. I am very spoiled with my 500 f4 FL ED, but it would be nice to have something smaller to pack when traveling and without having to use the FTZ adapter. Do you think the IQ will be similar with the 100-400 or the 600?
 
Planning to return to Namibia in September with this kit:
  • Z8 + 120-300/2.8 (will get me out to 600/5.6, as desired)
  • D850 + 70-200/2.8 VRII
  • Voigtlander 21/1.4 VM
  • Voigtlander 125/2.5 SL (F-mount macro)
  • TC 1.4E III and TC 2.0E III
  • FTZ II
I’ll also pack a Sony RX100VII, gimbal and tilt/pan, travel cf tripod and Gitzo monopod, beanbag, binocs. I’ll be self-driving, and will visit Etosha, a couple of private farms, Naankuse, Sossussvlei, the coast, etc. And Fish River Canyon, if time. I’ll likely be solo but my wife may decide to join me when we get closer and she sees how much planning fun I’m having…

EDIT: My primary interest will be mammals, but will welcome any birds along the way. Temps will be cooler and drier conditions bring more animals to the waterholes, though I have no plans really to sit around and shoot them at the more popular ones like Okaukuejo. (That time also means less tourists.) For me, it’s just as much about wandering the natural geography and small towns as about getting a framable shot.
 
Last edited:
I love this explanation, a pragmatical overview that gets to the point. I'm also considering getting new glass, especially a zoom. I am very spoiled with my 500 f4 FL ED, but it would be nice to have something smaller to pack when traveling and without having to use the FTZ adapter. Do you think the IQ will be similar with the 100-400 or the 600?
I like the 100-400mm lens, it has been with me numerous of times to Africa. It is compact and give me the pictures I am after.
Too early day for my final verdict on the 180-600mm but will know end of April :). I do not own the 600mm PF but the persons that do own one are very happy with it. A friend of mine has also the 600mm TC but will purchase the PF version as well and will use it when he is guiding people in either the Arctics or Antarctica when he is the zodiac “driver” as it is lightweight and super sharp.
 
My 4 lenses which cover a lot of situations:

100-400,
180-600,
600 pf
800 pf

I do most of my wildlife shooting off tripod, carrying two of the lenses mounted on my Z8 & Z9, toted with a Holdfast Gear MM shoulder harness. I chose the pairing based on the outing and anticipated ranges to be covered.
 
My 4 lenses which cover a lot of situations:

100-400,
180-600,
600 pf
800 pf

I do most of my wildlife shooting off tripod, carrying two of the lenses mounted on my Z8 & Z9, toted with a Holdfast Gear MM shoulder harness. I chose the pairing based on the outing and anticipated ranges to be covered.
I like this alignment. 1-4 + 600PF for lighter weight or closer/bigger subjects, and 186 + 800PF for those long reaches and/or smaller targets.

I sold my 100-400, and am considering another copy for this same exact setup.
 
I have both the Z8 and Z9.
Lenses:
24-120 f/4
100-400 f/4.5-5.6
600PF f/6.3
I just got the 1.4 TC.
I also have the FTZ II with various F-mount lenses.
I think I'm covered for what I do.
 
My choice of 3 lens's would be 150-600, 400 f/4.5, 600 f/4
I have reach, versatility, a good light lens, low aperture, etc
You know, if I have unlimited funds I would pretty much choose the same thing except I am not sure exactly which zoom I would take. I kind of like the 70-200mm f2.8 quite a sharp lens and with a 1.4x tc that would carry me up to 400 if I throw in DX or crop. Then that wonderful 400 4.5 kicks in. And EVERYONE needs the 600mm f4 tc vr s.

They should provide a scholarship fund for people who crave that 600. I am a retiree on fixed income and I DESERVE that lens for a lifetime of dedication and hard work.

Does anyone want to contribute to my SCHOLARSHIP FUND!!!!!!!

I am getting no help at all from my wife.

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
 
For wildlife my workhorse is the 600 mm f/4 TC with the 100-400 in second place (my 100-400mm is acceptable sharp the whole range from 100-400mm, I don’t hesitate to take off my 600 mm and shoot the 100-400mm at 400mm if that’s the focal range I ned to get the image). And I use the 24-70 f/4 with auto capture on my Z9. Preferably I would have replaced it with the 24-120, but the 24-70 is so good and so low priced on the used marked that I think I‘ll keep it. About 70% of all my images is shot with the 600, 20% with the 100-400 and 10% with my 24-70 (or 14-30mm f/4) and that tells me I can live without covering the range from 70 to 100mm. But I can get a bad case of GAS and just have to buy the 24-120 😉
 
Back
Top