As a wildlife photographer, capturing the world’s immense variety through your lens is undoubtedly a romantic idea. But no lens does it all, which is why manufacturers offer so many – from 9mm fisheyes to 1200mm supertelephotos. Which one is right for you? It starts with the critical choice between a prime and a zoom.
Prime and Zoom: The Basic Characteristics
One of the fundamental characteristics of any lens is its focal length, typically measured in millimeters. The rule is simple: As the focal length increases, the field of view of the lens narrows. In other words, a long focal length like 400mm or 600mm can bring distant subjects into sharp focus. Whereas a wider focal length like 24mm or 50mm requires you to get much closer to your subject in order to fill the frame.
With primes, the field of view is fixed (for example, a 500mm prime offers a 5° view of the world in front of you), while with zooms, it can span a range (a 180-600mm zoom covers about 14° on the wide end to 4° on the narrow end).
Certainly, in theory, having a zoom is more flexible than having a prime. But from this difference between primes and zooms, many other practical differences arise, and a lot of them favor primes. Let’s take a closer look at everything below.
Note that to keep this comparison as straightforward as possible, I will only focus on longer focal lengths, which are most commonly used in wildlife photography – anything from 200mm up.
Maximum Aperture
Many photographers willingly endure the torture of lugging heavy telephoto lenses over rough terrain, even when lighter alternatives exist, for one simple reason: maximum aperture. In other words, the speed of a lens, or its low-light capabilities.
Lenses with a wide maximum aperture like f/2.8 or f/4 allow for more background blur compared to shooting at, say, f/5.6 or f/6.3. They also capture more light, making it easier to continue shooting even as the sun dips below the horizon. Also, a bright maximum aperture delivers more light to your camera’s autofocus system, so it becomes more likely that you get accurate focus even in low light. In short, a wide maximum aperture is highly desirable in wildlife photography.
NIKON Z 9 + NIKKOR Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S @ 400mm, ISO 16000, 1/125, f/2.8
The reality is that prime lenses usually have wider maximum apertures than a zoom lens of the same focal length. There are many 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4 prime lenses. With zoom lenses, you may need to make due with f/5.6 or f/6.3 instead.
Of course, there are outliers in both camps. On the one hand, there is the portable but painfully slow Canon RF 800mm f/11 IS STM. On the other, there’s the gigantic Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 zoom. (If you manage to get your hands on one, don’t forget to bring a cart – you’ll need it for its 15.7 kg / 34.6 lbs whopper.)
Under normal circumstances, however, primes are brighter than zooms, especially for a given price. For example, the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 S and Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 S are both great lenses about the same price, but the prime offers f/4.5 at 400mm, while the zoom is two-thirds of a stop slower, offering f/5.6 at 400mm instead. Or, if the maximum aperture is the same – like the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 versus the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 S – then the prime will almost certainly be smaller and lighter, and usually sharper as well.
That brings me to the next comparison…
Weight and Dimensions
One of the interesting differences between prime and zoom lenses is their portability. But the differences don’t always favor one over the other. In fact, there are heavy zooms, heavy primes, light zooms, and light primes.
To illustrate the difference between primes and zooms, let me compare three lenses, all of which can reach a focal length of 600mm.
First is the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S. This lens tips the scales at 3,260g (7.2 lbs). It’s actually not bad considering that 600mm f/4 lenses in the past used to weigh much more – sometimes nearly twice as much. Still, it is a heavy lens.
Second is the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR zoom. This zoom lens weighs just 1,950g (4.3 lbs), and it’s clear which lens you’d rather carry on a hike. The reason that it’s lighter is not because it’s a zoom, though. The reason is that the maximum aperture is a narrower f/6.3 rather than a wider f/4.
Third is the winner: the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 VR S. This lens is a featherweight champion at just 1,470g (3.2 lbs). It shares the same f/6.3 maximum aperture as the 180-600mm zoom. However, since it does not need to zoom, Nikon was able to make it lighter than the 180-600mm.
This goes to show that it is not directly the case that a prime lens will always be smaller and lighter than a zoom, or vice versa. Often, the biggest factor that determines a lens’s size is the maximum aperture. However, if the focal length and aperture are the same, a prime lens will usually be lighter than a zoom.
Another example supports this point. Of the popular pair of Nikon AF-S 500mm f/5.6E PF ED VR and Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR, the prime is an impressive 840g (1.9 lbs) lighter than the zoom.
So, if you have in your head that telephoto prime lenses are monsters, it’s probably because you’re thinking of exotic lenses with maximum apertures of f/2.8 or f/4. All else equal, prime lenses usually have an advantage here.
Sharpness
Lens sharpness is often overrated, especially with supertelephotos. If your wildlife photos are not crisp enough, it is usually due to factors like motion blur, focus errors, atmospheric distortion, or excessive cropping. Lens sharpness is pretty far down the list. However, if you do everything else right, a sharper lens still helps, and a mediocre lens can be noticeable. Most of all, you’ll have some more room to crop with a sharper lens, especially if used in combination with a higher resolution camera.
Typically, primes are more sharp than zooms. This is apparent in a lab environment, and it’s sometimes clear in the real world, too. Although, the differences depend significant upon which lens you’re considering.
For example, let’s take a look at how the Nikon 180-400mm f/4E TC1.4 FL ED VR compares to the Nikon 400mm f/2.8E FL ED VR at 400mm. Both lenses are in the top class of Nikon F-mount telephoto lenses and showcase the best of what Nikon was capable of at the time of their introduction.
Although the zoom delivers solid performance, the center sharpness of the prime lens is about 20% higher at f/4 and f/5.6, where most wildlife photography is done. This is enough to see a difference in real photos if everything else is optimized.
However, I don’t think that sharpness should be your primary consideration when picking a lens. If you need the versatility of a zoom, don’t be scared off by this difference. It’s better to have a good composition from a zoom than a badly composed photo from a prime, no matter which one is a little sharper.
Minimum Focusing Distance
Most photographers use telephoto lenses to bring distant subjects closer. But what’s often overlooked is their ability to magnify small subjects that are close by. You could argue that there are dedicated macro lenses for this purpose, and you’d be absolutely right. BUT…
Macro lenses typically have focal lengths around 100mm, which presents a few challenges. First, there’s the issue of working distance – the gap between the lens and the subject. Very few creatures will tolerate a lens hovering just inches from their antennae, beak, or nose. A telephoto lens increases that distance, reducing the likelihood of triggering a flight response.
Second, 100mm or even 200mm macro lenses can be great if you want to include an attractive background. But if the background is distracting, you’ll have a much harder time finding an angle that hides it. Telephoto lenses, on the other hand, make it easier to control the background and use it to fine-tune the overall character of an image.
The ability to focus on close subjects is, in my opinion, a huge advantage for any lens. Interestingly, large exotic primes often lag behind zooms in this regard. Let’s compare the Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S with the Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S. While the prime can focus down to 2.5m (8.2ft), the zoom manages to focus down to just 0.98m (3.2ft) at the same focal length. In practice, that’s a huge difference and a strong argument for the zoom.
Not all lenses will have such a dramatic difference, and occasionally, the difference will favor the prime (such as Nikon’s famous 300mm f/4 F-Mount lens that is nearly a macro lens). Still, if you plan to use a single lens for a wide range of subjects – from tiny creatures like insects and amphibians to birds and larger mammals – pay attention to the minimum focus distance – or the maximum magnification spec – of the lenses that you’re considering. Often, a zoom will have the advantage here, both for its ability to change focal length and for its closer minimum focusing distance.
Mechanical Durability
The more mechanically complex a device is, the greater the chance that something will fail at some point. This is as true for cars as it is for lenses. And the fact that zooms are mechanically more complex than primes shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Unfortunately, this isn’t just a theoretical concern – it’s something I’ve seen firsthand. Not long ago, I was dealing with a friend’s camera whose zoom had jammed, leaving it usable only within a narrow range of focal lengths. Generally speaking, primes are more mechanically durable than a similar zoom.
Another common problem with zooms is that many of them extend in length while zooming, which can such in dust. Some of this dust ends up on the camera sensor, and some ends up in the lens. It can also be a problem if shooting in heavy rain or snow, even with a weather-sealed zoom. Before retracting your zoom lens, I recommend wiping down any extended parts to prevent water from getting inside.
That said, some zoom lenses avoid this problem entirely by maintaining a constant length, such as the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 VR, Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS, or Fujifilm XF 150-600mm f/5.6-8 R LM OIS WR. These lenses take up more space in a backpack, but in addition to greater mechanical durability, they are easier to balance on gimbal heads. (Meanwhile, a handful of telephoto prime lenses extend when focusing, but this is very rare these days.)
Autofocus Speed
Although zooms are thought of as slow, there are zooms out there whose focusing speed is phenomenal. As I write this, I am thinking of the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR and photographing puffins and skuas in Norway. At the time, I had this pro zoom with me along with the Nikon AF-S 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR. As much as I like the latter lens, comparing their focusing speed is like comparing the speed of a racehorse and a pack mule.
But if focusing speed is an absolute priority, wide-aperture primes will typically be the leaders of the pack. They have fewer elements to move when focusing, and – if their maximum aperture is brighter – they can cast more light on the camera’s AF module. The more expensive exotics also have the most powerful AF motors available. In Nikon’s latest 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4, the motors are so powerful that their magnetic field can interfere with the proper functioning of pacemakers (official Nikon warning).
It is certainly possible to take photos like birds in flight with prime lenses. In fact, the biggest differences in focus speed are usually down to how modern and expensive a lens is, not whether it’s a prime or zoom. But at the margins, a prime usually has a bit of an advantage in this comparison.
Filters
Just like in landscape photography with standard lenses, filters can sometimes be useful for telephoto lenses as well. Creative filters, such as polarizers or ND filters, are the most common choices. Alternatively, you may want to screw on a simple UV filter to protect the front element of your lens.
Often, supertelephoto lenses cannot take filters directly on the front threads. Instead, you must drop the filter into the rear drop-in slot on these lenses, which isn’t as flexible of a solution.
Whether a telephoto lens takes filters or not is mainly a factor of its maximum aperture, not so much whether it’s a prime versus a zoom. However, zooms usually don’t have as bright of a maximum aperture, and relatedly, they usually have smaller front elements. This makes it easier to use standard filters.
For example, the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 and Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 both take standard 95mm filters, while the Nikon Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S does not.
Versatility
If there’s one area where zoom lenses undeniably dominate, it’s versatility.
With wider lenses – say, a 35mm lens – it’s easy to change the size of my subject by walking forward and backward a little. In wildlife photography, however, things are a lot less simple. Small adjustments in shooting position don’t have nearly the same impact when working with a telephoto lens as they do with a wide-angle lens.
On top of that, wildlife photographers are often shooting from a blind (or, alternatively, some hard-to-reach position) where moving forward and backward is simply not an option. Many animals will be wary if you move too much, so you are often fixed in one place.
Thus, the ability to change focal lengths with a zoom often mean the difference between getting and not getting the shot. Combining this with the closer focusing of many zooms, and sometimes their lighter weight, and they have the potential to be a lot more versatile than a prime. Simply put, they can shoot a greater variety of subjects with a greater variety of unconventional angles.
Price
The price of a lens varies greatly – it doesn’t always favor primes or zooms. However, I would say that prime lenses have a slight advantage here with wider focal lengths (compare a 50mm f/1.8 versus a 24-70mm f/2.8). Meanwhile, zooms catch back up in the telephoto range and sometimes have the advantage.
For example, the Nikon Z 180-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is $1900 cheaper than the Nikon Z 600mm f/6.3 S, even though both lenses reach the same focal length and maximum aperture. And the most expensive telephotos from many manufacturers are prime lenses like a 400mm f/2.8 or 600mm f/4. The “budget” choices for supertelephotos are usually going to be zooms.
Conclusion
So, which is better for wildlife, prime or zoom? It turns out, there is no simple answer. For example, if you photograph small birds, long prime lenses (500mm to 800mm) will probably serve you better than a zoom. With the zoom, you’ll probably find that you’re using it at its maximum focal length most of the time anyway – and then cropping even further in post-processing.
If you photograph everything from birds to larger mammals, a zoom might be superior. Especially on an African safari or similar adventure, a zoom is invaluable. Its ability to adjust the angle of view to the size or distance of the animal is unmatched. That is, unless you have the luxury of two cameras with two primes.
Do you also want to capture landscapes with your telephoto lens? A telephoto zoom would allow you to compose much more precisely. A prime would mean zooming with your feet, and this in turn might mean traversing entire mountain ranges with telephoto lenses. Or, alternatively, needing to crop or make a panorama to change the composition that you captured.
And what if we include not only distant animals, but also small creatures like lizards in our considerations? Then zooms almost always win. If you don’t want to carry a dedicated macro lens, some zooms let you focus very close indeed.
So, in what ways are prime lenses better than zooms? It’s often a matter of subtle nuances that can make all the difference. Generally speaking, when their focal length is ideal, primes usually offer better performance than zooms. A wider aperture, faster autofocus, better bokeh, higher sharpness – these are all areas where primes usually outperform their zooms.
You may be wondering which lens I use most often. Well, the Nikon AF-S 500mm f/4E prime! I felt that the combination of price, weight, image quality, and features was ideal for my bird photography. However, if someone replaced it one day with a 180-600mm, or any other lens, I could not complain. After all, people take remarkable wildlife photos with any lens. The most important thing is to go outside to take pictures. The rest will fall in place no matter what lens you have.
So, prime or zoom? That’s the eternal question. I hope my article shed some light on this topic. Either way, as always, I’d love to hear your insights in the comments below the article.
