If I want to shoot wildlife in low light, what is my best lens option? I have a 70-200 2.8. It has been recommended that I get an 85mm 1.2, but I think that is most often mentioned as a portrait lens. And, since it is almost $2,000 I don't want to be wrong. Any thoughts? Thanks
Reach is a major consideration, too. Not sure why you are looking to an 85 1.2 and 70-200 for wildlife? Even the 300 2.8 may be a bit on the short side, depending upon what you are shooting.
You also fail to mention the type of wildlife you want to shoot in low light. While a 2.8 lens is the best option, the longer lenses (500 & 600) tend to be f/4's. All well and good if you have a body that can handle higher ISO's with minimal noise. Then you would need to consider a solid tripod and head that can handle the weight of the longer telephotos. You can handhold these longer lenses in good light but real low light is tough.
Too many variables for a blanket answer, I would think.
I am lucky to have a 300 2.8 and a 500 F4. I recall last winter here in Geneva where and when the light was low I used the 300 almost exclusively unless on real good sunny days which were few and far between. Distance to the subject is quite important though and you got to get close with the 300. A lot depends on your subjects too and their size and whether they are moving fast like small birds seem to be always doing or a bigger animal like a deer which may stay stationary for a few moments and let you get the shot and which you can fill the frame from a longer distance.
Martin
