Wildlife Lens

[Beauty Through a Lens]

What type of lens have you used for wildlife and what is your opinion on it? Would a 300mm lens be a good length or should I go higher? I'll most likely be doing bigger animals so something the size of a deer or a large dog. Edit: I am thinking of buying the DX NIKKOR18-300mm f/3.5-6.3G for my Nikon D5100 I am not willing to spend more than 1,000 before tax.

[rpcrowe]

It would depend on your tracking skills or if you are shooting from a blind (especially with bait set out)... It would also depend if you were shooting with a crop or full frame camera.

IMO, one of the very best focal length combinations (on either a full frame or crop camera) for virtually all sorts of wildlife (except macro wildlife) is the Canon 100-400mm zoom, either the Mk-1 or Mk-2...

I am seriously considering selling my 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L prime lenses to fund the 100-400 Mk-2....

[Manfred M]

What type of lens have you used for wildlife and what is your opinion on it? Would a 300mm lens be a good length or should I go higher? I'll most likely be doing bigger animals so something the size of a deer or a large dog.

I have two lenses the we tend to use when we are out doing serious wildlife photography; the Nikkor 80-400mm and the Sigma 150-500mm. Both are not particularly fast lenses, but have decent reach.

I would say that the minimum focal length I would consider is 400mm FF equivalent; and a bit longer is certainly better. The following photos are uncropped.

This shot is at 400mm on a DX body.





380mm on an FX body




The main issue is that the lens price really starts to go up once you pass the 300mm maximum focal length.

[rpcrowe]

I totally agree with Manfred when he states, "The main issue is that the lens price really starts to go up once you pass the 300mm maximum focal length."

Another consideration is the accuracy and speed of the autofocus. Both my 300mm f/4L IS and my 400mm f/5.6L lenses have exceptionally quick and accurate autofocus. The 300mm f/4L IS lens still retains decent autofocus speed and excellent autofocus accuracy when paired with a 1.4x Canon TC (I use the oldest one but, it still works quite well).

However with most zoom lenses that have a long side of 300mm cannot be used with any extender and still retain autofocus.

[Krawuntzel]

What type of lens have you used for wildlife and what is your opinion on it?

I use for MY wildlife photography a Sony 70-200mm/2.8, a Minolta 300mm/2.8 and a Tamron 150-600mm/5-6.3 lens on Sony A900 and/or Sony A77. I am very pleased with all lenses. From elephants and giraffes "down" to mice they do nice pictures (this is to say, when I - the photographer - use them according to their built-in quality).

Would a 300mm lens be a good length or should I go higher? I'll most likely be doing bigger animals so something the size of a deer or a large dog.

If you aim at deer (which I do) or large dogs (which I do avoid ) in my opinion 300mm is "big" enough. Go for the "fastest" "prime" lens you can afford (f/2.8). To be more "versatile" also consider a good zoom.
It all depends on your vision.
Erwin

[JR1]

There is no such thing as a "wildlife lens", the choice of lens is as personal as the person, you need to say how much you can afford, what make of camera etc

I use 70-200, 80-400, 150-600 (SIGMA S), and 24-120 depending on WHAT I shoot, how close etc

I never have and never will own a prime lens except fisheyes

[chauncey]

What type of lens have you used for wildlife and what is your opinion on it

I use a 300mm f/2.8 simply because that was the limit of my budget and it was a reasonable size.
As hindsight, it does do exceptionally well with a 2X TC attached.

If ya want the best, be prepared to cough up the big bucks. Go prime!

[Donald]

Yep. What kind of camera body and what you're wanting to shoot, are going to be the main criteria governing choice. That plus how deep your wallet is.

I've seen a few comments along the lines of the Canon 7DMkII with the Canon 100-400 f4-f5.6 L IS MkII, being a 'killer combination' for wildlife. I've got that combination ... but I don't do wildlife. Maybe I need to start!

And, of course, if you're a Nikon, Sony, etc., user, the above is useless information.

[JR1]

Yep. What kind of camera body and what you're wanting to shoot, are going to be the main criteria governing choice. That plus how deep your wallet is.

I've seen a few comments along the lines of the Canon 7DMkII with the Canon 100-400 f4-f5.6 L IS MkII, being a 'killer combination' for wildlife. I've got that combination ... but I don't do wildlife. Maybe I need to start!

And, of course, if you're a Nikon, Sony, etc., user, the above is useless information.

This is the problem, it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to answer half a question

What camera
What exactly will I shoot
How much can I afford
FF, Crop, 4/3 and so on

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Adrian,

As you can see, it would have helped if you had given your camera make and model in the initial question, perhaps even the thread title.

I know you have a Nikon D5100, which is a DX body.

I believe AF is quicker on the 70-300mm (which I have), than on the 55-300mm or 18-300mm lenses by Nikon, although I've never used either of the latter and it isn't easy to compare such a thing from published specifications alone.

Yes, I do find 300mm is 'a bit short' on occasions, but the prices of Nikon glass above 300mm was just too much for me to justify for a hobby. Having previously had a bad experience with Sigma zoom in 2009, I won't buy from them again, which leaves Tamron - I had one of their zooms back in the seventies/eighties ona film camera and it really wasn't great image quality, but technology and production has made great advances since then, so they may be worth considering.

For example; we may find people here recommending the new Tamron 150-600mm, it is about 900 GBP, which may take it slightly over your budget though in CDN $. Also, it may leave you with a 'gap' between whatever focal length your current lens(es) finish and the 150mm where this starts. I haven't read anything bad about it yet and even I am tempted. It is heavy though, at nearly 2 kg.

Talking of gaps - that's why I wouldn't recommend a 'prime' telephoto for you (e.g. a single focal length of say, 400mm) since you will undoubtedly find yourself too close to get all of some wildlife subjects 'in' with just the one focal length. Plus even a Nikon 400mm is going to be too much, I suspect.

BTW remember (from the other thread), if Nikon, it must be an "AF-S" lens, the Tamron I mention above has a "USD" focus motor in, so that should be ok for AF on your camera.

I would also recommend a lens with Image Stabilisation ("VR" in Nikon terminology) over one with out.

Cheers, Dave

[JR1]

Ah then perhaps the better lens for you none are perfect would be the Sigma 120-400, not expensive, great from pre owned reputable dealers

[KHarmon]

I have seen some really good reviews and some really good work from the Tamron 100mm - 600mm lens that was released fairly recently. I have heard that the auto focus is a little slow but the image quality that I have seen is really superb for a "non-prime" lens. I am considering an upgrade to this lens in the future. A macro comes first, but I will probably add that lens and retire my Sigma 120-400.

[JR1]

I have tried the Tamron lens a lot and prefer the Sigma 150-600, personal choice

[Bobobird]

... but I don't do wildlife. Maybe I need to start!

Admit it - that is what you will be doing or you would not have got this combination.

[Donald]

Admit it - that is what you will be doing or you would not have got this combination.

Well .... the thought had crossed my mind. I need to move out of my comfort zone and test myself in other situations.

[Adrian]

We have the Tamron 150-600 and it is a good lens but can be tricky to aim at birds in flight at the long end and is slow and somewhat awkward to zoom. We bought this before the new Sigma 150-600 came out, We tried that lens for a week and it is pretty much indistinguishable in terms of image quality in real world shooting, but it is a big and bulky thing which neither of us fancied carrying about much, so we didn't buy it.

The trouble with wildlife shooting is that to get those award winning shots (not that I ever have - this is based on doing courses with professionals) you need to be as close as possible. This takes work, time and patience. And luck. Getting close (in effect) is easier with a longer reach lens, so I would probably not take a 300 with me for any serious wildlife shooting. That said, for moving birds or animals, tracking the movement with a long lens and keeping it focussed on what you want is harder. A lot of it comes down to technique not equipment.

[JR1]

We have the Tamron 150-600 and it is a good lens but can be tricky to aim at birds in flight at the long end and is slow and somewhat awkward to zoom. We bought this before the new Sigma 150-600 came out, We tried that lens for a week and it is pretty much indistinguishable in terms of image quality in real world shooting, but it is a big and bulky thing which neither of us fancied carrying about much, so we didn't buy it.

The trouble with wildlife shooting is that to get those award winning shots (not that I ever have - this is based on doing courses with professionals) you need to be as close as possible. This takes work, time and patience. And luck. Getting close (in effect) is easier with a longer reach lens, so I would probably not take a 300 with me for any serious wildlife shooting. That said, for moving birds or animals, tracking the movement with a long lens and keeping it focussed on what you want is harder. A lot of it comes down to technique not equipment.

WHICH Sigma, there is a massive difference between the C and S version, I have had the S from day one before general availability even now it is massively hard to get hold of and in a comparison with the Tamron I choose the Sigma but it is more expensive and many won't be able to pay it

[Beauty Through a Lens]

There is no such thing as a "wildlife lens", the choice of lens is as personal as the person, you need to say how much you can afford, what make of camera etc

I use 70-200, 80-400, 150-600 (SIGMA S), and 24-120 depending on WHAT I shoot, how close etc

I never have and never will own a prime lens except fisheyes

I know there is not such thing and that it's a personal choice but by getting other peoples opinions I can decide if I'll get a 18-300mm or save up for something more powerful.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

This is the problem, it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE to answer half a question

What camera
What exactly will I shoot
How much can I afford
FF, Crop, 4/3 and so on

Nikion D5100
Deer mostly
nothing over 1,000 excluding tax
Crop factor is 1.5

[NorthernFocus]

Adrian, one thing I can say about wildlife shooting, it is a rare thing indeed to have too long a lens. If you've already decided that the cost and quality of the Nikkor 18-300 fits your needs, then I'd suggest you consider the longest glass you can get in that price range. The Tamron 150-600 or Sigma 150-500 are very close in price and provide you with a lot more reach. And they will likely produce sharper images across the range due to being much lower zoom ratio.

Once you get involved in shooting wildlife, you will almost surely also shoot birds. For one thing, they are typically more readily available. Secondly, it is very challenging. And with birds, you definitely need as long glass as you can get.

But my first and probably best bit of advice is to get something and get out and shoot. Life is short.