Every wildlife photographer has a “lens journey.” Mine started with humble beginnings, filled with compromises, missed shots, and a lot of trial and error. And honestly? That’s what makes it interesting.
From Kit Zooms to Super-Telephotos: A Lens Evolution
I started out with a Nikon 70-300mm DX. It was light, cheap, and just good enough to give me a taste of reach. But it was also frustrating. I remember trying to photograph a red deer through the trees during golden hour, only to end up with soft images and a jittery autofocus that couldn’t lock on. The lens simply didn’t perform in low light, and I knew I’d outgrown it.
So I upgraded to the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8. Now that was a lens. Fast, sharp, beautifully built—and a dream for portraits and low-light forest scenes. But for wildlife? Still short. I was constantly cropping my shots and missing the intimacy that longer focal lengths bring. That’s when I started to realize: wildlife photography isn’t just about reach, it’s about compression, background control, and distance.
One from the archives. Nikon D850 with 500mm f4
Later I got the Nikon 500mm f/4, and it changed everything. Suddenly, I could isolate my subject, separate it from messy backgrounds, and shoot from a distance without disturbing anything. I loved that lens—it taught me what a super-telephoto can really do. But when I switched to Canon in 2022, the game changed again.
I started building out a new system with the Canon RF 600mm f/4, RF 100-500mm, and the 70-200mm f/2.8. At one point, I even added the 400mm f/2.8—incredible for big cats in soft light or closer subjects on foot. Now I’m about to add the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8, which with a 1.4x teleconverter becomes a magical 140-420mm f/4 lens. Bright, flexible, sharp—it might become my go-to for many future shoots.
Why the 600mm f/4 Is Still King
Let’s talk about the 600mm f/4, though. It’s heavy. It’s expensive. It’s not for casual walks in the woods. But when you’ve got the space, and you want separation, nothing beats it. Not even the 400mm f4.
The biggest advantage? Shooting from a distance. I’ve often found that the further you are from an animal, the more natural its behavior remains—and that distance helps compress the background into soft, buttery blur. It’s not just about reach; it’s about clean angles and visual storytelling. That’s why I reach for the 600mm when I’m set up at a waterhole, waiting for elephants to come in, or when I’m perched in a vehicle near open plains.
You also tend to get better compositions. When you can’t move much—say you’re in a hide or locked into a safari vehicle—600mm forces you to see differently. You’re not zooming in and out; you’re waiting for the moment. It disciplines your eye.
But I don’t always use it.
Canon R3 + 600mm f4
Why the 100-500mm Is My Workhorse
For all its power, the 600mm is also rigid. That’s where the Canon RF 100-500mm comes in. It’s lighter, more flexible, and incredibly sharp across the range.
This lens lives on my second body, but honestly, it sees the most use on safari. Why? Because things happen fast. A lion walks out of the bushes at 50 meters, then suddenly appears five meters from the vehicle. A cheetah climbs a termite mound, then bolts after prey. You can’t always follow that with a prime. With the 100-500, I can adapt.
Another huge plus? Framing flexibility. A wider focal length allows me to include more of the environment when I want to tell a bigger story. I love zooming out a bit to show animals in their context—the dust, the sky, the vegetation. That’s something a fixed 600mm can’t offer.
With the 100-500mm I can include more of the environment.
The 400mm f/2.8: The Portrait Specialist
I carried the 400mm f/2.8 for a few months, and wow—what a lens. The depth of field is razor-thin, and the subject separation is dreamy. I found it especially good for predator portraits, like tight headshots of leopards or lions at dusk. It’s shorter than the 600mm but offers incredible image quality and slightly more flexibility when working from ground level or on foot.
That said, I eventually let it go. It filled a niche, but with the 100-500 covering mid-range and the 600mm for ultimate reach, I wasn’t using it as often. Still, I think about it whenever I see a beautifully lit, tight portrait.
The Exciting New Arrival: 100-300mm f/2.8 + Teleconverter
Now this is the lens I’m most excited about: the Canon RF 100-300mm f/2.8. It’s a unicorn—fast aperture, internal zoom, excellent handling, and with a 1.4x teleconverter, it becomes a 140-420mm f/4. That’s near-perfect versatility for fast-paced fieldwork.
This lens could replace my 70-200mm in some cases and work alongside the 100-500 as a brighter, sharper option when I’m not sure what kind of conditions I’ll face. Especially in forest environments or overcast situations where every stop of light matters.
When Focal Length Shapes the Story
Focal length isn’t just about distance. It’s about how you tell a story. A 600mm compresses the scene—it isolates. A 100-300mm or 70-200mm includes the environment, giving context and scale. One isn’t better than the other. They’re tools for different narratives.
Which Lens for Which Job? A Quick Reference
Here’s how I break it down in practice:
70-200mm f/2.8: Close encounters, storytelling frames, wildlife in landscape, low light
100-300mm f/2.8 (with 1.4x TC): Fast-paced work, forest animals, handheld flexibility
100-500mm: Generalist lens for safari, birds, mammals, spontaneous shots
400mm f/2.8: Predator portraits, dusk/dawn conditions, handheld tracking
600mm f/4: Birds, distant subjects, clean backgrounds, patient observation
Sometimes we don’t need a crazy zoom. Shot this one with a 70-200 f2.8
📬 Want More Real-World Gear Talk and Wildlife Field Notes?
If you’ve found this helpful, you’d probably enjoy my free newsletter. I share behind-the-scenes stories, field-tested gear tips, and new trip announcements—along with honest reflections on the wins and fails of working in the wild.
