Coming back to this because I spent way too long trying to make shorter lenses work for wildlife! I remember this one trip to a local wetlands where I was trying to get a decent shot of a heron with a 70-200. I kept creeping closer and closer... totally spooked the bird and got nothing but a blurry wing. It was so frustrating!! After that fail, I grabbed the Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN OS Contemporary and it was a total game changer for me. It is way lighter than the massive Sony zooms so it doesnt make my a7C II feel totally unbalanced in the hand. Honestly, the reach is night and day compared to those 180mm zooms. The autofocus is super snappy too, which is huge when you are trying to track a hawk in flight. Ive had mine for over a year now and it has survived some seriously dusty trails and light rain without a single hiccup. Totally reliable beast for the price and the image quality is amazing for a budget lens! You really want that 400mm reach if youre gonna be serious about animals... trust me on that one.

Would love to know this too

For capturing distant subjects on a budget, consider the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 G2 lens. It offers a versatile zoom range, fast autofocus, and effective image stabilization, providing a good balance between price and performance. 

Just saw Isabella's post and had a moment to think about this more. Honestly, while that Tamron is great glass, 180mm feels a bit short for wildlife unless youre pretty close. Im curious tho, what kind of animals are you actually planning to track? IIRC there was some debate about how well the smaller a7C II body handles the weight of the really long budget zooms. Im not 100% sure if the internal stabilization works as effectively with those massive third party lenses compared to the native ones, or if the ergonomics just become a total nightmare without a grip. Kinda curious what your priority is between reach and portability before I can really suggest anything solid.