What lens(es) besides a super telephoto is essential for wildlife

[Stephen Berger]

I know this is probably an endless/ongoing topic but outside of a 500 or 600mm f/4 (or some other way to get to that focal length or beyond) what lens(es) do you consider essential for shooting wildlife? 70-200 f2.8? 300 f2.8 or f4? Something off beat like a Zeiss Milvus 135 f/2? To be clear I’m thinking about what would be on a 2nd body if the super telephoto is on the first.

 

[JANuser]

You can get some very interesting wildlife shots with a wide angle, but I think I'd steer clear of bears with one.

 

[DRwyoming]

I know this is probably an endless/ongoing topic but outside of a 500 or 600mm f/4 (or some other way to get to that focal length or beyond) what lens(es) do you consider essential for shooting wildlife? 70-200 f2.8? 300 f2.8 or f4? Something off beat like a Zeiss Milvus 135 f/2? To be clear I’m thinking about what would be on a 2nd body if the super telephoto is on the first.

That depends a lot on your subjects and typical working distances but FWIW if I'm shooting with the 600mm f/4 I usually have something in the 200mm to 400mm range on a second body. For a lot of years that was a 200-400mm f/4 ready to go on a second body but these days it's usually my 300mm PF on the second body or more recently the 500mm PF but that's getting pretty close to the focal length of the big lens.

I have other lenses in my kit and like to have a 70-200mm in my wildlife kit but if I'm shooting with the 600mm I'll usually need something longer than 200mm as a backup for situations where things get closer than I expected. The exception is working from the car where you never know when a large critter like a Bear, Moose or Bison might step out of the woods right next to the road. I've gotten enough eyeball shots of griz because I only had my big lens mounted up that I keep both the 300mm and the 70-200mm within reach when driving around the national parks.

 

[Replytoken]

I think that a lot of this answer will depend on how close you can get to the wildlife you plan on photographing. There are some folks on other forums where I post that will go out in all kinds of extreme weather and sit and wait for their subjects to approach at close range for hours at a time. And then there are folks who do not have that option or choose not to devote that much time and effort for a shot for a variety of reasons. But, if you do devote that kind of time and energy, I suspect that a shorter focal length zoom like the 70-200 could be a good choice. Also, if you do decide to work in close range, a mirrorless body may be preferable for its quiet or silent shutter options.

--Ken

 

[JAS]

I will often go with the Nikkor 200-500 on one body and the Nikkor 28-300 on the other body for wildlife. Typically carry D750 and Z6. Sometimes, in good light, the second body will be D3500 (DX) giving me an effective field of view of 42-450 which is a good complement to the 200-500.

 

[Andy Work]

I use a 70-200mm 2.8, sometimes with a 2x TC, when I'm not using the 150-600mm.

 

[gordon_g]

Right now I use a 70-200 as a 2nd setup. someday I will likely add a 300.

 

[Callie]

@Stephen Berger ~ What @DRwyoming ` Dave said above. Except, I use the 80-400 as it allows you, especially from the car, to still frame large animals. And often the animals are too close for the long lens so it is useless. It is also easier to maneuvre a shorter lens in a car than a long lens. I love the versatility of a zoom, having also had the 200-400 for many years. And the 200 mm end is often too large/big to capture the whole animal. If I had a 3rd body, I would use the 24-120 F/4. This allows you a quick landscape and also getting large animals like elephants and giraffe in the frame when they are near. It also depend on FX or DX body what you get in or cut off of the model. Over many years, I seldom used the 70-200 f/2.8, it is just too small and focuses too far. Maybe the newer generation focuses closer. I am talking expressly from shooting from a car. In hides, (blinds) normally anything from 300 mm onwards works. For birds, very seldom anything under 400 mm is adequate. Again, this the the situation here. Over in your side of the woods, it may work differently. I used the 70-200 with a 2X TC and did not like the results all the time. The 80-400 gives be better results over 1000's of images.

 

[will139]

Normally I'll have a Canon 500mm w/1.4 ext on a gimbal setup. On a second body I will sometimes use a Tamrom 150-600 G2 next to me if moving via a car, or sometimes Canon 70-200 w/2.0 ext. next to me. The one thing that is a constant is that no matter how I try to set up, it will be wrong for the situation.

 

[DRwyoming]

The one thing that is a constant is that no matter how I try to set up, it will be wrong for the situation.

Aint it the truth

 

[Stephen Berger]

You can get some very interesting wildlife shots with a wide angle, but I think I'd steer clear of bears with one.

I was thinking that. My 24-70 is my usual 2nd lens cause I I like to shoot landscapes while nothing else is going on and I like shots with wildlife in their larger environment (of course I like those as long lens shots too).

 

[Stephen Berger]

That depends a lot on your subjects and typical working distances but FWIW if I'm shooting with the 600mm f/4 I usually have something in the 200mm to 400mm range on a second body. For a lot of years that was a 200-400mm f/4 ready to go on a second body but these days it's usually my 300mm PF on the second body or more recently the 500mm PF but that's getting pretty close to the focal length of the big lens.

I have other lenses in my kit and like to have a 70-200mm in my wildlife kit but if I'm shooting with the 600mm I'll usually need something longer than 200mm as a backup for situations where things get closer than I expected. The exception is working from the car where you never know when a large critter like a Bear, Moose or Bison might step out of the woods right next to the road. I've gotten enough eyeball shots of griz because I only had my big lens mounted up that I keep both the 300mm and the 70-200mm within reach when driving around the national parks.

Thank you! That's helpful. Seems like 70-200 was mentioned more than anything else. Not that it means I'm gonna run out and buy one this instant but it's food for thought.

 

[Stephen Berger]

I think that a lot of this answer will depend on how close you can get to the wildlife you plan on photographing. There are some folks on other forums where I post that will go out in all kinds of extreme weather and sit and wait for their subjects to approach at close range for hours at a time. And then there are folks who do not have that option or choose not to devote that much time and effort for a shot for a variety of reasons. But, if you do devote that kind of time and energy, I suspect that a shorter focal length zoom like the 70-200 could be a good choice. Also, if you do decide to work in close range, a mirrorless body may be preferable for its quiet or silent shutter options.

--Ken

I'v always been a run and gunner and am trying to become a sit and be patient type. We'll see...

 

[Stephen Berger]

@Stephen Berger ~ What @DRwyoming ` Dave said above. Except, I use the 80-400 as it allows you, especially from the car, to still frame large animals. And often the animals are too close for the long lens so it is useless. It is also easier to maneuvre a shorter lens in a car than a long lens. I love the versatility of a zoom, having also had the 200-400 for many years. And the 200 mm end is often too large/big to capture the whole animal. If I had a 3rd body, I would use the 24-120 F/4. This allows you a quick landscape and also getting large animals like elephants and giraffe in the frame when they are near. It also depend on FX or DX body what you get in or cut off of the model. Over many years, I seldom used the 70-200 f/2.8, it is just too small and focuses too far. Maybe the newer generation focuses closer. I am talking expressly from shooting from a car. In hides, (blinds) normally anything from 300 mm onwards works. For birds, very seldom anything under 400 mm is adequate. Again, this the the situation here. Over in your side of the woods, it may work differently. I used the 70-200 with a 2X TC and did not like the results all the time. The 80-400 gives be better results over 1000's of images.

Thanks. Yeah, if I do invest on something I new (used) I'm pretty sure now it'd be between the 70-200 or 80-400.

 

[Stephen Berger]

Thanks so much for the replies/advice. It's much appreciated!

 

[Demodave]

I'm using the 70-200E on a D500. 300PF on a Z6 sometimes with the 1.4TC, 500PF on a 2nd Z6, and 600 on the D850. All for mammals. In and around the NP's. 2nd D500 is at Nikon, but it will typically have a 70-300E on it.

I'll switch one of the Z's to a wide angle if a scenic pic comes along.

The 70-200 has produced a ton of images, and sharp. Couldn't live without it. That and the 500 are my top producers. But I'm typically spotting and then stalking....

The 70-200 also works really well with the 1.4

 

[Nikondale]

The more patient I get the less gear I carry. I try to select one lens and go with it. Ps my 70-200 is also in a pouch on my belt, just in case.

 

[Yezdi]

I don't own a 600mm f4, so I use my 500 PF on my D500 for most of my shooting. I usually carry my 300 PF on my D850 and my 70-200 FL with a TC 1.4iii. is always in my bag. Thats covers most of the range required for wildlife. Now my beloved 200-500 f5.6 stays at home most of the time. I have taken some great pictures with it and still it is a very versatile lens but avoid using it with TC's.

 

[Laurent Dieu]

I'm using my 500 f4 with converters.
And most of the time I use my 100-400 or my 300 f/4.
70-200 f2.8 is an option but i almost always take the 100-400 instead.

Laurent.

 

[Hermann]

One body + one lens, that's it. Usually the D7500 with the AF-P 70-300 FX, my standard walk-around lens, or with something longer such as the Tamron 100-400. I'm not a wideangle guy, so if I ever take a second lens it's the 2.8/55mm Micro Nikkor, one of my favourite lenses of all times. That lens doesn't meter on the D7500 though, but there are several workarounds.

That said, I'm first and foremost a birdwatcher, so I always carry binoculars and most of the time a scope+tripod as well. Keeping the weight down is important for me ...

 

[DougC]

My old 80-200 f2.8 came in handy on safari back in 2003.

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

 

[OohMatron]

600/4, 300/2.8 or 2-400, sometimes a 200/2 if I am looking for a particular shot and a 24-70. Three bodies to minimise dust ingress.

 

[sinewsworn]

D500 with my 500 PF attached. Second I willtake my D850 with a Micro Nikkor 105G. Going to a park where many shore birds along with geese, ducks and other migratory birds stop over. Some come very close if one stays still for a bit. Otherwise I connect my 200-500 to my D850.

 

[Viathelens]

I know this is probably an endless/ongoing topic but outside of a 500 or 600mm f/4 (or some other way to get to that focal length or beyond) what lens(es) do you consider essential for shooting wildlife? 70-200 f2.8? 300 f2.8 or f4? Something off beat like a Zeiss Milvus 135 f/2? To be clear I’m thinking about what would be on a 2nd body if the super telephoto is on the first.

In the past, when shooting at wildlife refuges looking for action shots, I'd carry one camera with the 200-500 to use on the tripod and another camera with an 80-400mm handheld. Using both cameras I could cover most any distance needed to get the shot. Various sizes will work for the second camera/lens combination, depending on what gear you have and what shots you want. I'd have the D500 on the tripod and a D800 in hand, since that was the gear I owned. Most recently I purchased the 500PF and if this stupid Covid ever leaves our world then I'll shoot with that on the D500 and something else on a second camera, not the D800 since I think I've worn it out!

 

[Woodpecker]

I know this is probably an endless/ongoing topic but outside of a 500 or 600mm f/4 (or some other way to get to that focal length or beyond) what lens(es) do you consider essential for shooting wildlife? 70-200 f2.8? 300 f2.8 or f4? Something off beat like a Zeiss Milvus 135 f/2? To be clear I’m thinking about what would be on a 2nd body if the super telephoto is on the first.

As for many questions, also for this one thea answer starts with "It depends..."
My occasions to go out shooting are probably rare and occur very randomly compared with may be most the people here. So I am often in a "get what you can" situation.
If I can be stationary in a dedicated spot to wait for something in particular I usually have something big on the tripod with one body and have a second body with some shorter and lighter lens that I can handhold in order to get whatever is happening around me. That usually means

• 500mm f4 or (with TC) 700mm f5.6 on the tripod (--> 500 f4 G)
• 300mm f4 or (with TC) 420mm f 5.6 handhold (--> 300PF)

If I am just going for a hike I usually carry my 500 PF with body one in my hand most of the time and the shorter version with the other body in my bag including a shorter lens and some extension rings. My 70-200 stays at home most of the time, because in most cases it turns out to be too short and there is no point using it with a TC if you have a proper 300mm lens.

For additional reach I may swap one FX body against DX, but that pretty much depends on the lighting conditions.