Is a $12,000 lens worth it? What it was like to photograph bears with a SONY 400mm f/2.8

Author: Alec Sills-Trausch

I’m not rich, I don’t have a major company backing me, and I’m mainly a landscape photographer, so using a prime lens has never really been a thing I thought about. But I’ve always heard how sharp and fantastic they are – even if some have a price point of 3x my monthly rent.

So, when I was gearing up for a trip to Alaska to photograph bears in Lake Clark and Katmai National Parks, I reached out to Sony to see if we could partner. And somehow, I scored some gear for the trip.

Unfortunately, I now want a $12,000 lens that I definitely can’t afford, haha!

Below, we’ll dive into the lens, some of my photos, and more thoughts on using this for wildlife photography.

Using a 400mm 2.8 prime lens to photograph bears and whales

First things first…what the heck is a prime lens?

If you’re not a photographer (thanks for being here) and you’re wondering what a prime lens is, it does not zoom. You have one length; if you want to get closer, you’ll have to move your legs.

Some prime lenses are more expensive than zoom lenses, and others are not. They tend to be sharper and have a lower aperture (think f/1.8 or f/2.8).

The most practical use cases for prime lenses are portraits, wildlife, and astrophotography.

two brown bears wrestle in a creek in alaska
Photo Credit: Alec Sills-Trausch

My background as a photographer

I got my first camera in 2018 and haven’t looked back since. But as a person who mostly photographs on hikes and backpacking missions, there’s almost zero reason to carry a prime lens (outside of astrophotography). That is why I don’t.

I enjoy using my wide-angle lenses, my 70-200, and my 100-500, which is pretty cool up here in Washington, to photograph mountain layers. I literally had never touched a prime lens until this Alaska trip, when I brought the 400mm f/2.8. But I knew this would be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, so I wanted multiple bodies and lenses for videos and photos.

Thankfully, it all worked out because having this was amazing.

My Thoughts on the 400mm prime

This is an INCREDIBLE powerhouse of a lens, and at 400mm, it was the perfect lens for photographing bears up close in Alaska. A 600mm would have been too close (I mean, we had bears within 10-15 feet of us).

While our tours were during the day, I never had to battle too much with low light. Due to that, I was either shooting 1/1600 – 1/2000 (or faster) or bumping my aperture into the f/4-7 range simply due to brightness.

But if we had had the opportunity to stay out later, you wouldn’t have been able to pry this out of my hands. It’s phenomenal in low light and would be a total game-changer.

It is a bazooka, though. There’s no hiding that. The 400mm f/2.8 lens is big and heavy, and you’ll get a workout just lugging it around. But it does look badass. I felt like a legit NatGeo photographer walking around.

Lastly, I’m not sure if the hood is more to protect the $12,000 lens or for weather, but we did get a rainy day out in Katmai, and I was super thankful to have that hood on. It kept drops off the glass and allowed me to focus only on the animals.

A brown bear opens its mouth while looking for a fish
Photo Credit: Alec Sills-Trausch

Pros:

  • Fantastic, clean images
  • Low-noise photos
  • Reliable
  • 100% worth the money
  • Autofocus amazing (though that’s also thanks to the body)

Cons:

  • The camera case is its own carry-on
  • It’s a $12,000 lens (renting is much cheaper, FYI)
  • Fixed focal length, so if a subject gets too close, you’re scrambling
  • May not be able to get a background with the animal in it
  • You’ll want a tripod or monopod (not a big con, but I figured I should mention it)

If you’re wondering why I included whales in the header, it’s because I had the lens for a couple more days after the Alaska trip, and my parents had given my fiancee and me whale watching tickets north of Seattle.

I figured, why not take the lens on one final spin and see what happens? Nothing overly exciting happened, but I did land some pretty shots you can see at the end of the piece.

Make sure to pair it with a zoom lens

I think that bringing a variable zoom lens with you on any wildlife photography trip is important. I know how everyone loves to get the up-close shot of an animal, but being able to show it off in its natural environment is also pretty cool.

I have one photo of a bear crossing a stream with mountains behind it. It’s a striking image and wouldn’t have been possible if I only carried a 400mm lens.

Now, I know I’m advocating for spending more money on gear – which I know isn’t possible for everyone. But it’s just a thought. If you’re able to take a world-class wildlife trip, I feel you’ll want to land the best images possible.

Is a $12,000 lens worth it?

The short answer is yes. The long answer is ‘yes, but that doesn’t mean you have to buy it.’ There’s a very small market of people who can afford a $12,000 lens, and I’ll admit I’m not one of them yet. Your capabilities with low-light shooting are unparalleled, and if you can get your hands on it, do it.

For most reading, just rent it. It’s a far lower commitment, and then you’re not spending months of salary paying off a lens that you might only use a couple of times a year.

What I used on the Alaska trip

Photos with the 400mm prime lens

Until next time, adventurers, stay safe.

Follow on social media: TikTok || Instagram || Facebook || Newsletter | YouTube