I've been a professional photographer for 23 years and I've never been interested in or attempted wildlife photography. All that changed when Sony sent over the a9 III and their brand-new FE 400-800mm f/6.3-8 G OSS Lens. This gear, and this genre of photography has renewed my love for photography, but it's also got me worried.
First Impressions: Massive Reach, Surprising Specs
Unboxing the 400-800mm was like pulling a small telescope from the case. It’s the biggest lens I’ve ever used, but it’s surprisingly manageable. At f/6.3-8, it’s a relatively "slow" lens, but the images it produces are incredible. Even at f/8, the depth of field is razor thin — the kind of shallow look you’d expect from an f/1.8 portrait lens. It turns out, you don’t need a faster aperture at 800mm to get beautiful separation. That said, handheld shooting was tough — until I realized the optical stabilization was off. Once I turned it on and set it to the right mode (there are three to choose from), the difference was night and day.
Autofocus That Feels Like Cheating
The Sony a9 III probably has the best autofocus on the market. Not only is it fast and accurate, but it also can detect different subjects and automatically autofocus on the perfect area of a subject. If you're shooting wildlife you can keep the camera in continuous AF and choose "Animal/Bird" detection in the autofocus menu and the camera will handle everything for you. You don't have to worry about moving AF points around anymore, the camera will find the close eye of any animal in the frame and instantly lock on to it and track it, even if it's flying right at you. This autofocus is so good that no matter what I was shooting, and no matter how fast it was moving, I had 100% confidence the camera would capture it.
And yes, I know every camera brand has these autofocus features (I own 4 other Sony cameras that have incredible AF). But the Sony a9 III's autofocus feels like a step above the rest.
What Makes The Sony A9 III So Special?
The Sony a9 III is the first full-frame camera with a global shutter. That means it can shoot at 120 frames per second without any distortion, banding, or blackouts. And because it doesn't require a physical shutter, it can do all of this silently. The camera also introduces something I didn’t know I needed: pre-capture. I set mine to buffer 0.5 seconds of 30fps before I press the shutter — so if I react to a bird diving, the camera already has the moment stored. That one feature alone changed my hit rate dramatically. No more gambling with timing — I now shoot the moment, every time.
Learning Wildlife Photography from Scratch
I spent the first day learning the gear. I had no idea how far I would need to be from a subject to shoot at 800mm. I didn't know what settings to use, or how reliable autofocus would be. I quickly learned the lens would allow me to capture subjects from an incredible distance and the camera could pretty much handle everything else. I ended up setting the camera to aperture priority (widest aperture), auto white balance, and auto ISO. Pair those automatic settings with "animal/bird" detect autofocus and my a9 III was basically the world's most expensive "point and shoot" camera.
If I had attempted shooting these animals with normal gear (a camera without animal face detect or pre-capture, and a lens that maxes out at 200mm) I don't think I would have enjoyed myself. I would have been spending all day trying to sneak up on animals only to have them run off before I got within range.
But with 800mm I could stand far enough away from the animals that they didn't even consider me, and the camera's auto exposure autofocus was so good, that I didn't even have to consider it.
Yes, It's Expensive
The Sony a9 III is $6000. That's extremely expensive for a 24mp camera that actually has worse resolution and ISO performance than Sony's $2,500 A7 IV. But you're not paying for image quality, you're paying for the ability to capture images that would literally be impossible to capture with another camera. When you buy the a9 III you're paying for pre-capture, you're paying for 120fps, and you're paying for world-class subject detection and autofocus. I never thought I needed these features, but after shooting these animals, I see how important they are.
The Sony 400-800mm isn't cheap, but it's actually cheaper than I expected. At $2900 It's only $100 more than Sony's 70-200mm lens. The lens is large, and it's not very fun to pack, or carry, but when it comes to animals, I'm willing to put up with all of that for the extra reach.
So this setup cost $8900 before tax. Incredibly expensive. But after using it, I don't think I'll ever be able to happily shoot wildlife with the gear I already own.
When Is Gear Too Good?
If I was a professional wildlife photographer, I'd feel very conflicted about how good these new cameras are getting. On one hand, I'm sure you'd be excited to buy it and capture even better photos. But on the other hand, having gear this smart/automated takes a bit of the sport out of photography. If you no longer have to worry about exposing, focusing on a subject, or capturing the peak moment, and you can use software powered by AI to automatically edit, colograde, upscale, denoise, and enhance your images after the fact, where is the talent? And if talent isn't required anymore, where is the value?
But maybe I'm just getting old. Maybe this is the same argument photographers have been making for decades each time technology makes photography easier and more accessible. I remember when I was in college and a photographer I was working for told me that "professional photographers don't use autofocus." If he's still shooting, I can guarantee he is happily using autofocus today.
Final Thoughts
If you're like me, and wildlife photography has never interested you, it may be because you didn't have the right gear. You need longer lenses to capture animals from a distance. For the last week I've had more fun shooting birds than I've had shooting anything in years. I've been able to capture images I never thought I would have the patience/ability to capture, and it was only possible because of this camera/lens combo. The 800mm lens allowed me to stand back and photograph animals without spooking them, and the a9 III incredible autofocus and pre-capture handled the rest. Yes, the Sony a9 III and 400-800mm are expensive, but if you’re serious about wildlife photography, I think these prices are easily justifiable. For everyone else (including me) we can wait for the incredible features of the a9 III to trickle down into their more affordable cameras.
Wow pictures in this article are 4 to 5s (spectacular!) A couple I would like to see the hd versions (meaning the off-fstoppers versions)
Thanks! Ya our site really downsizes everything. You can see them zoomed in, in the video at the top though.
Great stuff for your first time trying wildlife!
That said, I suggest trying some more lenses before settling on the conclusion that this is the best lens for wildlife. F/8 is fine for shooting birds in bright sunlight, it will be a whole different ballgame if you are shooting in lower light. F/8 just doesn't cut it as soon as the light starts to fade. Its a great lens for walking around in bright sunlight but it will struggle in good light situations and for a lot of wildlife photography, low light is where all the magic is.
Those high-end f4-500mm primes are still extremely expensive. New lenses can be in the $10,000. Maybe this is what your referring to. However... that said, if they can compete with all that new flashy technology. Perhaps one can just turn up the ISO gain, and achieve almost similar results. But who am I to say. I am only just a Tamron Wildlife lens user.
btw f/8 is the end of it's reach at 800mm. So at 500 it is around 6.75 or thereabouts. Which is actually quite reasonable.
What lens do you shoot with that is better? One of those $10,000 primes.
I understand what your saying of wildlife in the trees or in other dark settings.
There are lots of more reasonably priced lenses cheaper than $10k that are much faster than 6.75 and you can easily get a last gen F/4 for far lower than $10k. Multiple brands make a 500 5.6 in a similar price range to this lens. Nikon makes a 400 4.5 for a reasonable price too. Sigma even just revealed a 300-600 F4 for $8800. I'm not saying this lens is bad, just that's its premature to label it the best wildlife lens when its the *only* wildlife lens he has ever shot with.
I assume you, as a Tamron user, are using the 150-600? Do you not run into issues at 6.3 when shooting something like small birds in low light? You will be at like ISO 10,000. But maybe you don't often shoot at sunrise/sunset?
I shoot Tamron 150-600 G2. Yes, I've run into the ends of its capabilities... but have still loved what I can do with the lens.
I was just thinking about it, but technically: Even my Tamron G2 lens at 600mm at its max f/6.3 technically beats this lens at 400 6.3... speed-wise. The above lens is newer and some may say it carries a better brand name. So there is that, so it may still be sharper, because of it being newer. I was just commenting that you may be able to make-up for it's lack of 'speed' with all that wiz-bang technology that the camera has now. Yes he could probably adapt to yet a higher class lens, and get even better results in more challenging situations.
Edit: In looking at the marketing on the lens. The marketing is trying to say that this lens is comparable or better to it's own Sony 200-600 which even at 600 is the same speed at 400. So maybe speed isn't just the only thing to compare.
Yeah exactly, you need a lot of light when stopped down to those levels. When I am shooting something like a small songbird at sunset I need to be at like 1/2000th or faster. Even at F/4 my ISO is often starting to creep pretty high. At 5.6 I start to compromise on shutter speed to keep the ISO out of ridiculous levels. At 7.1 things get really problematic. At 8 the ISO is so high that the photo is a grainy mess. Modern cameras have really improved with ISO performance but trying to retain detail in feathers at like ISO 10,000 just isn't a thing yet.
With a 500 5.6, you can throw a 1.4 TC on it and be at 700 f/8 for bright sunlight, but when the sun drops, you still can at least get back to 5.6 which is what I'd consider the edge of "work-able" but really you want to be at F/4 or 2.8 but as you mentioned that's quite expensive.
Later in the video he did have grainy problems with light. He was also calling some of his photos, that I would call toss-aways great. (yes, they was fun things happening in them, but an editing nightmare as you have to try your best in topaz or whatever software he/you use to get rid of all that grain)
comment deleted.
I'm currently in talks with Sigma to get their new 300-600mm. I would love a faster lens, but I'm also worried about size and weight.
It would seem to me that one of the major drawbacks about 400minimum in wildlife is that it is 400minumum. So 400-800 is nice, but your stuck with things that are very very far from you, and if ever a thing actually got close you can't actually use that lens, you'd have to have another C-body hanging on you. It is nice to have the reach, but sometimes your shooting in the 200-300 range. Then there are those that shoot primes, but that must be really tough too. Never tried it. Of course personally my wildlife shooting even with my wildlife lens has been a slightly limited. I have used it more for astro and other long-range items more than I have wildlife. I haven't been able to get on as many wildlife things as I've wanted. I know catching a rabbit in the neighbors yard for instance was at 350mm.
Yeah, for sure. That lens reasonably requires a tripod to use for an extended period. Its amazing but its so heavy compared to even the 600 f4 primes.
Lee - lookout...your gonna get addicted to wildlife photography...it's actually a lot of fun getting out there and getting those photos of birds...it's not like having a photo shoot where you go out and take photos of non-moving, unexpected surprises...the challenge is getting in there capturing a shot of these birds that are fast moving targets...now try to get them in flight!
Love the lens, want the camera, interesting to see what gear like this does in the hands of an experienced photographer who's never shot wildlife. But when he kept calling that osprey and eagle I had to stop watching. A man gotta have a code...
looked like he was about to hold the camera up-side down too...lol, but the video-cut off. I mean generally if you hand-hold it: You should hold it by the collar.
Took me the better part of a year to figure out the 'right' way to handhold and shoot with super teles, still learning.
It's not something you pick up in a day. Which is one of the reasons this video is interesting, seeing how hard these small but critical hedges make wildlife photography.
I've thought about writing up a list of the random, mostly non-photo, gear that I use to shoot birds,
But then I think, why give away 2 hard fought years of field experience? Nah, figuring it all out is most of the fun!
Haha, the only bird I knew the name of in this entire video was "Pelican" and even that probably isn't right.
I wonder how this lens would hole up using the A1?
David, I'm pretty sure Sony had their reasons for sending this setup and not just the lens. It's called "Marketing".
Lee, it’s great to see you so enthusiastic and excited about wildlife photography, but also a bit sad in that what you are saying it really is gear that matters … and size LOL! But just look at what you did in several days working on the most rudimentary skill set, you might become addicted. A word of advice, beware of Chiggers.
Yes, I am having a blast, but I do wonder what percentage of wildlife photographers actually make money doing this.
Lee the secret to making a small fortune with nature photography?
You start with a large one !
There is no money in wildlife photography, only glory!
A whole new ballgame...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mg2xj9hI19o