Speaking more in the super zoom range. These lenses are not typically associated with exceptional quality. You'll notice you never see Canon 100-400L used professionally , Nikon has one you'll see occasionally but, generally pros will always rock a prime. This changes when you hit the 70-200 2.8, this is an ubiquitous part of a pro kit. However that Sony is about three times what I expected it to cost, perhaps that is a decent option? I looked at that lens lineup and there aren't many options and the 70-200/2.8 is twice what the OP is already hedging on. Wildlife is not my discipline but, anytime I have shot an animal with the 70-200 it was at 200 so not much utility in the zoom function. If one were inclined to blind up and such that might be different I suppose.. Honestly, at least at this point, the lens lineup for this body is not optimal for the discipline be inquired about. Maybe Sigma or Tamron has a good option though?
I don't like that the lens in question has a relatively small maximum aperture size and that is variable to boot. This would tend to pigeon hole a shooter into the snapshot box and stifle creative development. I feel like the recipient might always shoot max aperture and zoom for wildlife and then why are you using a zoom instead of a prime while being stuck with all the downsides of the zoom and enjoying none of the benefits?
