Even though my longest lens is a 70-200mm f/4, I’m still a big fan of wildlife photography. What’s not to like? Sitting around for hours without any luck, cursing your autofocus system, getting acquainted with mosquitos and other bugs while you wait…
Well, it’s not all perfect. But when everything goes right, and you do get that shot, the reward is amazing. Not to mention that wildlife photography can be done almost anywhere in the world, since there are animals everywhere.
The only problem is that supertelephoto lens.
While lens manufacturers have done a good job in recent years making less expensive supertelephotos, even the cheapest 400mm+ lenses are going to set you back several hundred dollars. That’s why I made this video. With some creativity, it’s possible to take good wildlife photos without a supertelephoto lens – even without a telephoto at all. You may have to limit the types of subjects you can shoot, but there’s no limit to the quality of the photos you can get.
As you can see, I took the photos above at everything from 24mm to 200mm, mostly at 105mm. Not that there’s anything wrong with using a supertelephoto if you have one – but if you don’t, be assured that you can still take good wildlife shots!
I hope that you enjoyed this video. If you liked it and want to follow my future videos, you can subscribe to my Youtube channel here. I’m posting weekly videos as I try to grow my channel, and there’s more good content like this coming soon.
Terrific pictures. The birds are so beautiful
I loved your video. Funny and true at the same time!!! I am still waiting for a 70-200 for my mirrorless. Nikon. In the meantime I’m using my DX 50-250 /4.5-6.3 on my full frame Z7.
As one of those people who owns and shoots with a pile of that big heavy glass – the 70-200mm is always a part of the mix – it’s too good and there are many more environmental shots that the big glass is the wrong tool for. And – if we celebrate and save the habitat, then we will have a place for the wildlife.
One other key point. Having big reach does not require big heavy and expensive lenses – unless you only choose from Nikon or Canon gear. I have recently been exposed to AND invested in quite a bit of gear from Olympus – and the image quality is comparable to what I have been shooting for the last fifteen years using Nikon FF and DX cameras and lenses – but the cost, size, and weight is a fraction. And, as best as I can tell – shooting it all side by side, the only real difference is in lower light – and in truth, not all Nikon gear is created equal there either – the Olympus gear, for example shot better in low light than did my venerable D500. Most that shoot birds and wildlife with Olympus gear forego tripods, as you can shoot FOV of 600-800 fairly easily handheld – if you have the skill because the image stabilization in the bodies and pro lenses IS that good. Monopod or tripod is best for longer focal lengths – and I can fit a kit in a small backpack that covers 14-1200mm – could never do that with my FF Nikon gear. It is game changing for this wildlife shooter. And there is a new lens coming out that no one – not Nikon, Canon, nor Sony have the equivalent for, FOV 300-800mm with a 1.25 TC built in, so up to 1000mm f/4.5 constant – images from it are amazing. Costs less than any of the big Nikon glass – which I have much of it – and it weighs less than most of it, too. Amazing options I am discovering. Only wished I had learned about this part of the gear options sooner.
I do agree a lot but I think wildlife photography can’t be reduced to t”elelens-photography” at all. So instead of asking if you can do wildlifephotography without a telephoto lens, whats certainly possible, the question should have been “can you get the same pictures as from a tele lens without using a tele lenslens. I think no. And one more think. Just because there are animals of some kind everywhere, it doesn’t mean there is wildlife everywhere.
Hi Spencer,
I think it’s a great idea to post this article, not only because it is indeed possible to make good wildlife photos without having 4.5 kilo of gear sitting in front of you camera body, but also because it is a good reminder to trying first to make the best of the things you already have and ACDUALLY GET get some nice shots rather than thinking about new gear and DREAMING about getting some nice shots with. I have have a super tele myself but because I don’t have the time to go out shooting very regularly, I spend some time in my girl friend’s garden from time to time, which is more a bit like a bonsai jungle :-) Then I have my D4S with the 500 f4 with or without TC sitting on the big tripod waiting for the primary targets while having a D7200 with the 70-200 f4 +TC sitting on my laps for the things that happen around me while waiting and that might not be accessible with the big gun because of the angle or being too close to focus.
In another forum I saw picture of someone shot with the 70-200 f2.8 FL – the lens Nasim claims to be a tele zoom on steroids :-) – some of even with the TC20E III added, giving an equivalent of 600mm f5.6 and the images were gorgeous. So I think for travelling – relatively – lite it is a really good alternative to go this way.
Total surprise to receive this DISCONTINUED notification from BH Photo:
Dear Xxxxxxxxxxx
Thank you for your interest in the following item:
Nikon AF-P NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR Lens (Refurbished by Nikon USA)
(B&H # RBN7030045)
You are receiving this message because you asked to be notified when this item becomes available. We regret to inform you that this item has unfortunately been discontinued. Please check back on our website for similar or possible replacement items.
We apologize for this inconvenience and appreciate your understanding.
As a super telephoto user, I obviously recommend getting a focal length that fits your needs, but I fully understand the argument being made in this article. That said, the Sigma and Tamron 150-600’s make a LOT of sense for people in this position (as well as the 200-500 from Nikon). The contemporary version is actually significantly less than any camera manufacturer’s 70-200.
However, using a 70-200 or shorter is definitely an option as mentioned, but only for those with it currently. I would never suggest getting one with this use in mind. Granted, the author didn’t suggest that, but I just wanted to say it outright.
It’s all fun and games until you slap a 500pf on a D850 (or D500) – probably the most portable and enjoyable combo I have had in my 35 years of wildlife photography. It’s not perfect (a Canon R5 with a 600f:4 would be very close to perfection at this stage), but once you have tried it, it’s hard to talk yourself into the “200mm is enough, I just have to work harder at it” mantra. That said, the provocation is 100% right, as a whole wildlife photographers aren’t creative enough in how they think about the topic – after all, every species has been photographed in perfect light and detail already; artistic creativity is what will make the difference.
I so agree with this. A couple weeks ago I got to use a 500pf on my D500. What a revelation!
Years ago I sold off my higher end super teles and gimbal. I just wasn’t using them. I always found myself reaching for a D500 with an 80-400 or (lately) the heavier 200-500. This was just fine as I was satisfied with the quality. No, it couldn’t keep up with a 500 f4, but the tradeoff was fine. Then I tried the 500pf. Really want one, but probably wait until I upgrade to Z wildlife camera. I hope they create a Z version of this lens, but if it’s not on the roadmap, will get the F mount and use the adapter. It’s so light and so good I thought I was in heaven!
Not only are super telephoto lenses expensive, but they’re very cumbersome to use and carry around. I love my Nikon 200-500 f/5.6 but man oh man is it a pain and hassle to carry around, let alone use properly. With the Z mount I’m actually looking forward to the 100-400 S lens. I think with it’s rather compact size it will be an excellent wildlife lens.
Nikon has announced this 100-400 S lens will be an f4-f5.6. This is very good news, as it appears Canon is trying to make the new standard F7.1 at the long end.
I love the 200-500 and it is light compared to what I used before…it’s still heavy :)
Love that crab’s expression!
The 70-200/4 takes the TC1.4 very well (280mm), which on a DX body like the D500 gets you 420mm, and in the 1.3 crop mode you have 560mm, which is fine and not too heavy. Alternatively, have some fun with manual focus and get a 500/8 mirror, which makes the 500/5.6 PF look bulky!
Thank you! And good point. You do give up some image quality with the cropping and smaller aperture of that method, but nothing terrible if you’re shooting in daylight.
I’ve wanted to try a mirror lens for a while now. I’ll need to see if I can find a cheap one somewhere.
I can seriously recommend the 500/8 mirror for situations when the subject isn’t moving back and forward. Otherwise, focusing is very difficult as the DoF remains about 10cm no matter what your subject distance.
Currently I use it on a tripod to video a nest of collared doves about 20m away, using a D4 in it’s no pixel-binning 2.7x 1080p crop mode. I can’t think of another 1350mm lens that is so handy and gives solid results.
I would love to try it handheld on a Z5/6/7 to see how effective the IBIS is.
I’ve been considering the legacy Nikon 500mm ƒ/8 Reflex lens to use for solar and lunar photography. In your experience, are these “easy” to focus on objects at “infinity”?
I would expect so yes because the focus ring is very low geared and smooth, and whilst the infinity marking corresponds to about 500m, there is about an inch of further movement available past infinity. As it’s essentially a Cassegrain reflector, the aberration performance should also be good. I’ll check it out when the clouds depart.
To follow up having finally got some clear skies, yes focusing the Nikon 500 f8 mirror lens on the moon is easy, particularly if you use the focus peeking option on the Zs. The required setting on mine was a fraction past the marked infinity level.
My son bought an inexpensive 500mm mirror lens from Amazon a few years ago, for his D800. I must say that I didn’t think much of its capabilities. It didn’t produce very good pictures.
Yes, you definitely need to be careful with the Samyang etc recent versions. The Nikon versions date from the 70s, which whilst not going to resolve modern sensors, were at least made for professional use in their day and are certainly sharp if you have a tripod and are aware of the ultra thin DoF.