I'm planning a trip to Africa next year. We're going to hike Kilimanjaro, and then do a 5 day safari. I'm bringing my D300.
I'm currently tossing around my lens options. We're not doing any private game parks, so I'm expecting that I'll have to take a long lens of some kind. I have a 70-300mm VRII which will live on my girlfriend's camera most of the time, it's her favorite lens.
That relegates me to a 300mm f/4, and a 1.7x teleconverter, which is not very flexible... unless I rent something.
Considering renting a 200-400mm f/4 for the trip, and borrowing a friend's 1.4x. If I'm renting, my options are pretty substantial, so what do you guys think? Is that the right lens? Flexible framing, teleconverter gives me a lot of range...
I'll also need to pick up a bean bag - at least, that seems to be the most common suggestion.
And yet, I would probably opt for the 300mm f4 with a TC1.4 and TC1.7. A brilliant combination and you will own it even after the safari . It also allows you to practice prior the safari so you known your gear before setting foot in Africa.
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
And yet, I would probably opt for the 300mm f4 with a TC1.4 and TC1.7. A brilliant combination and you will own it even after the safari . It also allows you to practice prior the safari so you known your gear before setting foot in Africa.
That's a really good point and something I've been considering. My hesitations are constantly swapping lenses in the dust (or in rapidly developing situations), and being stuck with a fairly dim aperture and no VR to help offset it. It's a lot lighter and smaller though, for sure.
If I go the rental route, I'll probably rent one a while before the trip to get used to the handling and such... and I must admit, there is a small part of me that sees it as an opportunity to justify a few hundred bucks renting an exotic telephoto, which I otherwise can't justify .
Don't worry about the dust. Yes, its dirty out there but if you cab afford a safari trip, another $40 when you come back to clean the camera won't break your wallet. I'd probably opt for a 300 f/4 as well. Since you already own the 1.7, I might even ganle renting a 2x. You never know how close you'll be to wildlife(or how far)
binary visions wrote:
Oh, I don't care about dust when I get home. I'd just like to avoid a lot of field cleaning or cloning dust spots out of half my photos.
Understandable, I think we all hate dust in the photography world. On second thought, I can't think of anyone who likes dust at all
I'm fairly certain the game parks there are all "on road" where you are going and the animals can be right in front of you or off in the distance. Lions for example, do not care about the vehicles. You can be right next to a couple on their honeymoon so to speak and they will not blink an eye at you.
The 200-400 is a heavy lens, 7lbs or so if IRC. Definitely not recommended for hiking and storage during the day before the safari is also a consideration. The 70-300 is a good choice as well. It is a trade off.
Either way you decide, I strongly recommend a zoom. Especially if you are bringing one body. There will be other things to shoot such as scenary and friends.
Bean bags are great but for me, I probably wouldn't bother unless I brought the 200-400. You must be out of the parks by sunset so chances are you will be heading back at last light.
You are right on the dust. This is not dust in your house but dry dirt from the road. You will get a mouthful every so often. Not something you want to be changing lenses in (timing is key). A good bandana is recommended.
Ps. I brought the 200-400. It is great but it is a committment.
For on-road parks, the average distance to an animal is "too far". Even 400mm is sometimes too short, but then again anything longer is cost- and weight-prohibitive for most people.
I'd rent either the 200-400 or the 80-400. The first has better optics and a faster aperture, and is my preferred lens... but as Celbrett says, it's a commitment. The 80-400 may be a better choice, because it's more flexible and smaller/lighter/cheaper, while its usual dings (relatively slow AF, relatively small max aperture) are not very important in this setting.
I'd also try very hard to take two bodies: partly for backup in case of failure, partly so you can have a short lens on one and a long lens on the other. I've had elephants walk to within three feet of me before.
My girlfriend will have her D40x (and the 70-300mm) so we'll have a second body. Maybe not with a wide lens on it all the time, but I'd expect that wide angle opportunities at least develop a little slower or give you more warning than the long-lens shots - at least, that's my experience with most wildlife.
The 200-400, if I rent it, will sit in the offices of our tour provider until we go on safari - there will be no hiking with that monster.
My dad actually has an 80-400 that he doesn't use much. I'll be honest, I've just never been pleased with the results out of it, but perhaps I'll ask him to mail it to me for a couple weeks of shooting to see what I can get from it. It'd certainly be an easier thing to carry.
I have a Nikon 80-400mm VR and use it on a D300. It's the lens I hate to love. It has a lot going for it for what you want though. It will go to 400mm, the VR actually works, the zoom range is very convenient, and the lens is relatively compact. I leave my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR at home on overseas trips because it's so bulky and doesn't have the reach. Another thought is the Sigma 50-500mm OS, but I'm not sure how it performs at 500mm. Some say it's soft, some say it's great.
It depends on the hiking group you choose. We did a hiking trip in Peru last year book-ended by several days in the cities and the tour group had a place to store our "city gear" during the hike. Others we met on the trail left their gear at hotels, and still others did not have a place to leave it.
For this trip, we will have a safari bag and a hiking bag - the safari gear stays behind while we hike, and the hiking gear stays behind during the safari.
Vinnie_VdB wrote:
And yet, I would probably opt for the 300mm f4 with a TC1.4 and TC1.7. A brilliant combination and you will own it even after the safari . It also allows you to practice prior the safari so you known your gear before setting foot in Africa.
This is what I'd suggest as well. The 200-400 is great to about 150 feet and then the IQ falls off. I would suggest taking a tripod as well. People worry too much about the dust problem. Carry a lens pen in your pocket for use in the field and basic cleaning equipment in your camera bag or luggage for use at the end of the day.
we used long sandwich bags to cover our camera gear when not shooting. it covered the body and lens and came off in one second when the shooting started..highly recommended 'low tech' solution.
as for lenses, i'd suggest taking as much reach as you can, because in most instances you cannot get really close. on a budget i'd probably suggest something like the sigma 150-500os,which looks pretty sharp as long as you have good light. otherwise rent something really good like the 300 vr or better yet, the 500vr.
One note of caution, though: mostly you will be too far, and wishing for more reach... but on occasion you will be too close and having some ability to pull back is important. I've got bunches of shots from the 200-400 at 200-or-so, and those are some of my best shots. Don't leave yourself without a short game, or you are very likely to regret it.
On my last safari, I had three bodies in the car and ready: one with a 70-200, one with the 200-400 and one with the 500. When a bull elephant walked up to us and scratched his right hip on the hood of our LandCruiser while checking us out from a whole four feet away, only a 16-35 would have helped me. And I had one in the bag, just didn't want to risk alarming him by moving. But that's when I decided to carry a P&S or MILC with me and in my shirt pocket for the next trip. Would've made a great image.
I just returned from South-West Africa and used a D700+70-200 and a D800e+200-400.
For safaris the 200-400 is a very good trade off between weight and IQ for me.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
When a bull elephant walked up to us and scratched his right hip on the hood of our LandCruiser while checking us out from a whole four feet away, only a 16-35 would have helped me. And I had one in the bag, just didn't want to risk alarming him by moving. But that's when I decided to carry a P&S or MILC with me and in my shirt pocket for the next trip. Would've made a great image.
That's awesome .
I was thinking I'd take my little Canon P&S and it sounds like that'd be a good idea. It's also the only camera I have that does video - mediocre, standard definition video, but sometimes there's a nice moment.
Chris Dees wrote:
I just returned from South-West Africa and used a D700+70-200 and a D800e+200-400.
For safaris the 200-400 is a very good trade off between weight and IQ for me.
Thanks for the feedback - hope you had a good time!
"The 200-400 is great to about 150 feet and then the IQ falls off."
While the above quote "may" be true for some of the lenses, I haven't seen that in mine. What I have seen is if you're trying to photograph smaller objects at 300 feet it can be very difficult to get the exact focus you want - the sensors are bigger than the subject. - not in focus isn't the same as poor IQ.
So if you're taking a photo of a elem rhino, buffalo etc as long as it's reasonably large in the view-finder you'll be good as gold. Taking a photo of a very small duiker at 100 yards will not be satisifying using any 400mm glass that's portable.
Same goes for bird photography - got to close or getting a lens with more magnification - there's a reason birder's like the 600mm
Binary, we did Kili and the parks two year ago. I am certainly not a pro b y ay means, Read a lot here and other forums. Ended up taking two D300's. One wore the 70-200 VR1 for most of trip, the other wore a Sigma 120-300 with a 1.4 TC. My wife had a Canon G10. I purchased the second D300 body and the Sigma used. An sold them for what I had in them when I got back from the. Rodolfo's three camera rig sounds like a dream come true. One tip I picked up on another forum was to take some nylon stuff sacks, and hit a market to by rice or beans to use as "sand" to use as bean bags to lay over the top rails of the Rover or Land Cruiser. Best $20 bucks I spent on gear the whole trip.
Here's a link to some of our favorite shots from the trip. Tanzania 2010
Have a blast, its the trip of a life time! We are planning on going back in few years for spring trip.
. It also allows you to practice prior the safari so you known your gear before setting foot in Africa.
. 
