p.2 #1 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
Blueimage has the right suggestions. Your African experience can be very varied depending on where you go and how you go. Game parks and reserves each have their own character that varies with the seasons. Some have lots of one kind of animal and none of another. Before going I would talk with an African safari specialist travel agency. You can work through your own local shop but you still need to talk directly with the experts so thay can offer you something that you and your wife want. My suggestion is to do two or three camps, in different locations or countries, staying at least three days in each. At least one of these should be a tented camp, as luxurious as you want, the others can be smaller game lodges. Avoid the big motel/hotel style resorts. Certainly find out how the game drives are conducted and what type of vehicle is used. Avoid the pop top minibus.. Be aware that in National Parks driving off road is not allowed, whereas in private reserves this is often done.
Your distance to the animals will vary from a hundred yards or so to being able to almost reach out and touch them.
100-400L on a crop sensor, 24-105L on a 5D2 sounds good, and anything better will cost heaps more. If you are only going to Southern Africa then the 70-300L would also be suitable, and more useable when you return for general photography. The open plains countries in East Africa need a longer 400mm lens.
The biggest problem with trips to Africa is that you get hooked and want to do it again and again. Good luck, you will not be disappointed.
Practise with the 100-400L before you go, it has a learning curve.
p.2 #2 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
the 24-105 or 24-70 will only be used in the vehicle or around the lodge.....other than that, you cant have a long enough lens with you........I have been to the plains of Kenya, the longer the lens the better, without a doubt!
p.2 #3 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
I just did a quick trip to Kruger National Park on the back end of a business trip. All I had was my 100-400 on a 1Dx. While I wanted my 500, frankly, what I probably really wanted when the 400 wasn't enough was an 800. The critters are either close enough for the 400 or WAY off. When you're out there, don't forget the birds. You get the most remarkable things perching on a branch all by a couple of meters from your car window. Also, think high ISO... some of the best stuff is seen very early and very late. What I appreciated more than the length of the 100-400 was the high ISO of the Dx. The bottom end ISO I shot at was 800 and I went as high, I think, as 25000 on an evening safari.
p.2 #5 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
cocodrillo wrote:
I just did a quick trip to Kruger National Park on the back end of a business trip. All I had was my 100-400 on a 1Dx. While I wanted my 500, frankly, what I probably really wanted when the 400 wasn't enough was an 800. The critters are either close enough for the 400 or WAY off. When you're out there, don't forget the birds. You get the most remarkable things perching on a branch all by a couple of meters from your car window. Also, think high ISO... some of the best stuff is seen very early and very late. What I appreciated more than the length of the 100-400 was the high ISO of the Dx. The bottom end ISO I shot at was 800 and I went as high, I think, as 25000 on an evening safari....Show more →
I'll throw this idea out for discussion purposes. With wildlife photography, pushing ISO seems to occur quite frequently. Wouldn't a 5D3 be a better body for the 100-400 than a 7D? In April Canon releases f8 AF firmware. So in lower light you use the bare 100-400 on the FF with its ISO advantage then in higher light you use the 100-400 with a 1.4x to achieve the "reach" of the crop body. My 5D# images with the 100-400 have always looked better than my crop body + 100-400 images. So if you are using the 100-400 for 70% of your imagery then
Of course the OP could just switch bodies and lenses for the lower light runs. He'd sacrifice reach and wide but still get the most out of his gear.
p.2 #6 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
Sell the 40D and get a used 7D. The difference is probably <$500
I was in Uganda in 2005 with 20D and 70-200/4 was my longest lens back then. I wish I had a 400 for quite a few shots while out touring. Ideally you would have both.
When trekking to see mountain gorilla, it was critical to have low light performance as the jungle is quite dark. I had the 85/1.8 which served me well. The 85 was excellent for low key portraits of people too, compared to a big white. It's not all just about the animals and landscapes.
p.2 #7 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
Jeff Nolten wrote:
I'll throw this idea out for discussion purposes. With wildlife photography, pushing ISO seems to occur quite frequently. Wouldn't a 5D3 be a better body for the 100-400 than a 7D? In April Canon releases f8 AF firmware. So in lower light you use the bare 100-400 on the FF with its ISO advantage then in higher light you use the 100-400 with a 1.4x to achieve the "reach" of the crop body. My 5D# images with the 100-400 have always looked better than my crop body + 100-400 images. So if you are using the 100-400 for 70% of your imagery then
Of course the OP could just switch bodies and lenses for the lower light runs. He'd sacrifice reach and wide but still get the most out of his gear....Show more →
Ideally one has both long and relatively fast lenses, but the 100-400 is a very useful lens despite the slow aperture and need to stop down a bit for better FF sharpness. I always start with the FF bodies and use a 7D or other crop body only if warranted for reach. For example I will normally use a FF body with 500/4 and 1.4x before going to the 7D and 500/4 alone. Maybe that will change with a 7D II that has lower high-ISO noise. However, the 100-400 really is not the greatest with a TC. It's a little better that straight upscaling, though I consider the 100-400/TC/7D an emergency option only.
One trap that some people fall into is thinking that a fast lens is compensation for a noisy sensor. Sometimes shooting fast and wide open is fine, but often one needs to stop down a few for DOF. I see many first timers in Africa shooting too wide open, and I did the same once back in the film days.
p.2 #8 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
I do not do the typical photo safari. However, in my trips to SA, Zim, Nam etc, my most used and abused lens is my 100-400. I have never taken my 70-200 and never will. Depending on where you are going and what your plans are will give a better ideal as to how close/far the critters will be. Hence, the utility of the 1-4 is great. I do not like to change my lens or add tc's while in the field as there is dust. In my trips, I have been in the bush and had rain, dust, wind, and a few occasions when I had to ditch my camera. Hence, determine what you will be doing and it will determine what gear is right for you.
p.2 #9 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
I have never been o Africa, but you might consider the 70-300 L and the 400 5.6, but I would consider a better camera more usable at higher ISO. The !DX or 5D III would be great for a safari like that. I would also like at least a 500 f4 II and 1.4x.
Best to you.
p.2 #10 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
EB-1 makes a good point about stopping down. A lot of the time I was up at 6400 ISO because I was stopping down to f8 or f11 to pull a wider chunk of the scene into focus. This makes clean high ISO really a huge consideration. Depending on what you want to carry, a straight forward fixed 400 f.5.6 might not turn out all that badly as a single purpose alternative. Part of all this is how comfortable you are with buying and reselling and the possibility of your gear getting jacked somewhere on the trip (possible at your departure airport.... stranger things happen).
p.2 #11 · Another safari lens question: 70-200+tc or 100-400? or ?
Unless you want the 22mp, I'd consider buying an Olympus OM-D with a 150-300 zoom. That's 600mm equivalent and 16mp. Plus much less to lug around. You can still take your Canons with other lenses.
Don't flame me now...I own Canon, Nikon and Olympus and love them all.
