Which lens should you choose for wildlife photography?

Wildlife photography is a demanding discipline that takes preparation, like any other field, but it also often calls for gear that is bulkier and more expensive. In theory, you can get by with relatively simple equipment for “amateur” wildlife photography. But as soon as you want to take it further and really explore the subject, the choices quickly become more complicated and the investment can climb fast. Between camera bodies with fast autofocus (AF) and long-focal-length lenses that rarely offer the wide apertures found on more standard focal lengths, it’s not always straightforward. As we’ll see below, slow lenses can seriously limit your options as soon as the light gets tricky. And that’s before you even think about accessories such as camouflage, hides, and other ways to blend into the environment without scaring animals away.

This article therefore focuses first and foremost on camera gear, especially how to choose your wildlife lens. If you’re looking for more practical advice, especially on settings and how to prepare a wildlife photo session, I’ll be writing a complementary article soon. And you don’t need to fly across the world on safari to photograph wildlife. It can be in the park next to your home, in your garden, or anywhere else nature shows up. In this article, I cover lenses suited to this type of photography, for both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, as well as camera bodies that can be a good fit. At the end, I’ll also mention a few accessories to complete your backpack before you head out in search of our animal friends and bring back your best shots. If you’re into gear guides, you may also want to read my article on lenses for landscape photography.

All the products mentioned in the article are summarized in recap tables in the relevant sections. To make things easier for readers, we now include three online retailers where you can check details, review specs, and compare prices. Everything is in the tables, which you can sort by clicking on the column headers. It’s the easiest way to buy from whichever retailer you prefer at the best price!

First, I wanted to spend a few paragraphs on camera bodies, because they can be crucial in wildlife photography. A camera with a larger sensor will naturally perform better in low light, making it easier to raise ISO before digital noise (the colored speckles that can degrade an image) becomes too noticeable. This helps you keep a correct exposure when you need to use a faster shutter speed, instead of ending up with frames that are far too dark. If you’re new to photography, remember that the three exposure settings—ISO, shutter speed, and aperture—are linked. If your shutter speed isn’t fast enough, you can double the ISO to double your speed. In wildlife photography, you’re often dealing with situations where very short shutter speeds are needed to freeze fast-moving animals. Strong high-ISO performance, helped by a larger sensor, can therefore be very useful.

The downside, of course, is higher price, weight, and bulk. Many wildlife photographers stick with APS-C because, in addition to the “focal length extension” effect (APS-C sensors have a surface area about 1.5× smaller than full-frame sensors), bodies with the best autofocus systems are usually high-end models, and APS-C versions tend to be more affordable. That said, many of the more advanced lenses for this discipline are designed for full frame. This slightly reduces the advantage of APS-C, because these lenses are already bulky enough that your bag may end up almost as big and heavy whether you use an APS-C or full-frame body. To continue learning, you can read my article on how to choose the best DSLR for you!

But APS-C still has the advantage of offering bodies with very capable autofocus without forcing you to spend several thousand euros. For example, you’ll find Nikon and Canon bodies such as the Canon R100, R10, R7, R50 or Nikon Z50 II, Nikon Zfc, Z30, with performance close to full-frame sports bodies costing around €5,000, including high burst rates and buffers large enough to shoot consecutive frames for longer periods.

Today, many mirrorless cameras offer interesting performance for wildlife photography, including recent Fuji X-T models and Sony’s A6700, for example, as well as the OM SYSTEM OM-5 Mark II / OM SYSTEM OM-3 and Panasonic GH7 in Micro Four Thirds format. Sony has also released full-frame sports bodies designed to compete with €5,000 single-grip models. If full frame interests you, don’t worry: recent Sony A7 bodies are also more capable and reasonably competent. However, mirrorless systems are still somewhat limited when it comes to lens selection, even though things have improved a lot. Very long focal lengths are also less in demand overall. Manufacturers first focused on standard lenses, and in most mirrorless systems, this type of wildlife lens has only started to expand more recently.

Most DSLRs in this range are also often more robust, with weather-sealed construction, whereas that won’t always be true on a mirrorless camera, particularly at Sony. In this field, where you may be heading out into morning damp, hiding in the brush, or scrambling around outdoors, a solid build is often preferable. A long-lasting battery, so you don’t have to swap it too often, is also a real plus—and still gives DSLRs an edge.

Below is a recap table of a few bodies I would recommend without hesitation for wildlife photography.

Now let’s get to the heart of the matter. It sounds obvious, but in most cases animals won’t be easy to approach, which naturally means you’ll want to favor long focal lengths. They allow you to stay far enough away to avoid disturbing them while still getting frames tight enough to feel as if you were right next to them. And honestly, when I was photographing a pride of lions on the savannah in Serengeti, Tanzania, I was very glad to have my 300 mm and not a wide-angle!

When choosing lenses for wildlife photography, we therefore tend to recommend focal lengths starting at 300 mm and above, although it’s possible to get close enough to some animals—or use certain techniques—to work with shorter focal lengths. Unfortunately, the longer the focal length, the more expensive, heavier, and larger the lens tends to be. Using cameras with “small” sensors reduces the drawbacks of weight and bulk somewhat, but not so much the price; in these formats, the selection of this type of lens is fairly limited anyway. Also remember that a 300 mm lens on a Micro Four Thirds sensor is not the same as a 300 mm lens on APS-C or full frame. Be careful not to mix everything together when comparing focal lengths across sensor sizes (and the same goes for aperture and ISO, by the way…).

These long focal lengths have another drawback: maximum aperture. It’s difficult to offer a wide aperture at such long focal lengths without increasing the size and weight of the lens. The longer the focal length, the more true this becomes. Beyond certain ranges, you won’t find lenses faster than f/2.8, then f/4 (at 800 mm, you won’t even find lenses faster than f/5.6 at Nikon and Canon). We’re already talking about lenses around 45 cm long, weighing nearly 5 kg, and priced in a league of their own. Some manufacturers therefore offer zooms covering very long focal lengths, such as Panasonic’s 100–400 mm (200–800 mm full-frame equivalent) or Sigma and Tamron’s 150–600 mm lenses, which are even more limited in aperture since they rarely do better than f/6.3 at the long end.

The autofocus of these lenses also needs to be responsive enough. Getting the animal in the frame is one thing; being able to track its movement is another, especially since the more you zoom in, the faster it leaves the frame. Manufacturers know this and pay particular attention to it by integrating strong AF systems and adding focus limiters, which can speed things up by preventing the lens from focusing at distances where you already know the animal won’t be. Of course, the camera body, as mentioned above, also plays a role, since its autofocus module largely determines responsiveness, speed, and tracking.

Finally, most of these lenses are stabilized, and it’s easy to understand why. Stabilization is not only there to reduce camera-shake blur caused by your own movements. Strictly speaking, that’s not always the main issue with fast-moving animals, because they already force you to use such short shutter speeds (for example, 1/1000 or 1/2000) that stabilization won’t always be necessary. But it also stabilizes the view itself, because the longer your focal length, the more your smallest movements affect your framing in the viewfinder. In practical terms, what does that mean? With a 600 mm, for example, the slightest movement can make the animal disappear from your viewfinder, because your angle of view is extremely narrow at this kind of focal length. With mirrorless cameras that have in-body stabilization, you’ll benefit from this comfort even if the lens itself isn’t stabilized; with a DSLR and your eye to the optical viewfinder, only the lens can provide that comfort.

To wrap up this section on lenses, I’d say it will mainly depend on your budget (yes, that again!), the type of camera body you use (mFT, APS-C, or full frame), and how you plan to shoot. You’re not going to buy a €5,000 600 mm lens just to photograph a bird in your garden twice a year, right?!

As with the DSLR lenses mentioned below, you’ll find a recap table with links to three online retailers (comparing prices is always better, right?).

With mirrorless cameras, the choice is a little more complicated because there are more brands. There are also three sensor sizes (mFT, APS-C, and full frame), yet paradoxically, the lens selection remains more limited.

Let’s start with Micro Four Thirds bodies from Panasonic and Olympus. One of their advantages is that they share the same mount, so you can use lenses from both brands.

I’ve put together a selection of telephoto lenses that I find interesting in this mount. For tighter budgets, I recommend:

With a more comfortable budget, Micro Four Thirds now gives you several wildlife options:

Even though Canon arrived well after Sony in the mirrorless world, the brand has caught up, and today you have a decent selection for wildlife photography. That said, the Canon RF-S (APS-C) lens range remains very limited.

Here are the lenses I particularly recommend for wildlife photography:

As you can see, the choice is now fairly broad and interesting. It will mainly come down to your budget and needs.

As with Canon, the lens selection for Nikon Z DX APS-C is still very limited, so you’ll quickly need to turn to full-frame lenses if you want to shoot wildlife on Nikon. Here are a few lenses worth a closer look.

The advantage with Nikon is that third-party brands such as Tamron offer excellent lenses at lower prices.

For the L mount (Panasonic or Sigma full-frame bodies), the selection is also very interesting, with many quality lenses from Sigma.

At Fujifilm, the selection is more limited but still interesting, especially since Sigma entered the system. Here are a few ideas:

Sony is by far the brand with the widest choice for wildlife photography. I won’t list every option because there are too many, but here are already some great references.

For Sony APS-C bodies, however, the choice is much more limited:

On the other hand, full-frame bodies give you a lot more to work with:

For small budgets, I particularly recommend the Tamron 70–300 mm f/4.5–6.3 Di III RXD.

For larger budgets:

Unfortunately, at the time of updating this article, many DSLR references were no longer available at all, as a large share of photographers have moved to more recent mirrorless cameras.

For APS-C DSLRs at Nikon and Canon, a good starting point is an entry-level 70–300 mm f/4–5.6 lens, which gives you a 105–450 mm equivalent and remains very affordable (around €400 to €500). Sigma and Tamron offer cheaper lenses of this type for these DSLRs (from about €150–200). However, make sure you choose the mount that matches your camera brand (it would be a shame to buy a Sigma lens in Canon mount for your Nikon, right?). These 70–300 mm lenses also exist in full-frame versions, which are compatible with APS-C bodies and have the advantage of being reusable if you move to full frame later. Still in the full-frame category, but compatible with APS-C bodies, you’ll find 100–400 mm f/4.5–6.3 lenses from Sigma and Tamron (around €800), with better quality than 70–300 mm models but also a higher price and larger dimensions. One step up in price, Canon offers a very nice 100–400 mm version II. Finally, among zooms, you have the 150–600 mm f/5–6.3 lenses that reach even farther and have proven themselves (from Sigma and Tamron), but again with slightly higher prices (close to €1,000) and larger dimensions. Nikon also offers a very nice 200–500 mm f/5.6, priced close to the 150–600 mm lenses and delivering very good quality. I personally own the Canon 70–300 mm L-series (a pro lens, then), but with a price to match that range (again, around €1,000).

For primes, the selection is not so much limited as it is difficult to finance. Basically, it can quickly cost an arm and a leg—or both—which makes things difficult when you still have to handle your camera! There are still 300 mm f/4 lenses (Canon / Nikon) that are “relatively affordable” (around €1,000–1,200), but unless you turn to the used market, you’ll struggle to find 300 mm f/2.8, 400 mm, or 500 mm f/4 options within a reasonable budget. I won’t go into detail on 600 mm and 800 mm lenses, which are priced out of reach for most people. Finally, still in the very expensive category, there are fast-aperture zooms such as Sigma’s 120–300 mm f/2.8, 200–400 mm f/4 lenses, and even Sigma’s completely wild 200–500 mm f/2.8, at about €20,000 (yes, that’s the price, not including the sherpa or donkey rental to carry its 15 kg…).

Rather than adding a recap table full of lenses that are no longer widely available, I’d rather point you to our lens-choice photo quiz.

All this gear can end up weighing a lot, so a tripod or monopod can be a very useful ally. This is especially true if you use hide techniques, because you may have to stay in the same place for a long time with your camera ready and ideally aimed toward where the animal(s) will appear. A monopod makes it easier to follow animals as they move. It obviously won’t stabilize your camera as much as a tripod, but it gives you more flexibility. Some tripods even have an integrated monopod, meaning you can remove the center column. Don’t hesitate to invest at least a little in this gear: tripods and monopods that look affordable are often not very stable and rarely last. You’ll find good references from Manfrotto, Sirui, Benro, Gitzo…

Sometimes you won’t have the budget for lenses that reach a certain focal length, or you may simply already own a 70–200 mm f/2.8 and not want to add another large zoom to your kit. In that case, you can look at teleconverters, which are adapters that increase focal length. There are three main types in particular.

• TC14s let you “multiply” your focal length by 1.4. Your 70–200 mm therefore becomes roughly a 100–300 mm. Be careful, though, because you lose one stop of light, which simply means you’ll no longer be able to shoot at f/2.8 but at f/4, and that can matter depending on the situation;
• TC17s, as you’ve probably guessed, multiply your focal length by 1.7, but you lose 1.5 stops, turning your f/2.8 into f/4.8;
• Finally, TC20s, more commonly called doublers, “double” the focal length and turn your 70–200 into a 140–400 mm. This time, however, you lose 2 stops, meaning an aperture of f/5.6 instead of f/2.8.

If you do the math, you’ll see that the smaller your lens’s maximum aperture, the more a teleconverter will limit what you can do, potentially to the point of losing autofocus. For example, Nikon’s 200–500 mm f/5.6 becomes a 400–1000 mm f/11, while AF often needs a lens that opens to at least f/8 to work properly on DSLR systems. Teleconverters also reduce image quality. That’s why they’re better suited to high-end lenses with a maximum aperture of at least f/4. In fact, this quality loss is one reason TC17s don’t have a great reputation; TC14s and TC20s are often less destructive. Camera brands offer their own TCs, but you’ll also find good options from Sigma and Kenko, among others.

Other accessories are useful for wildlife photography, especially when working from hides. You’ll find blinds that help you stay hidden from animals, making you more discreet and allowing you to approach them more easily; some animals may also come closer on their own. There are also camouflage accessories for your camera, and some lenses are even sold with a camouflage cover. You can also buy covers designed for specific lenses, such as the EasyCover model for Sigma’s 150–600 mm Contemporary.

For mirrorless users, the limited number of these lenses in some brands may require using a mount adapter to attach DSLR lenses to your body. But be careful: adapters can also make you lose functions such as autofocus or create compatibility issues. You’ll need to research their limitations carefully before buying.

There you go—this article on lenses for wildlife photography comes to an end. Don’t forget that even though gear matters, technique and preparation are at least as important. So don’t hesitate to read the associated article with my shooting tips (coming very soon) and ask me your questions in the comments. In the meantime, if you’re interested in landscape photography, you can take a look at how to choose your wide-angle lens.

See you soon,

Written by Sylvain PONS

I've been passionate about photography since 2010, learning as I went along. Today, I dedicate myself to guiding others in their choice of camera gear and sharing a variety of tips to improve their photography skills.

Despite our care, a mistake may have slipped into this article. If you find any, please don't hesitate to let us know so we can correct it as soon as possible and keep our information up-to-date!