duncangr wrote:
If it was my first visit I would take something more flexible like a 200-600 + 1.4TC or a 400-800. 600 can often be a little short and occasionally too long
However 600mm is probably a good place to be if you are stuck with a prime but I think you will more often than not want longer rather than shorter. So a 600 + 1.4TC would be my preference over a 300 + 1.4tc.
Only thing worse than being too short is being too long
My ideal setup for this park is:
A9iii for the fast action with focal length of 400 - 840mm depending on subject/location. So any lens will work e.g. 200-600+1.4TC, 400-800 or for best IQ but more difficult the 300 + 1.4TC or 2xtc, 600f4 or 600+1.4tc. Note that the A1 will struggle with some of the really fast action.
A7r5 for everything else with any of the lenses - landscape (16-35f4), big game, small bird stills, big birds stills and BIF. The IQ from this camera is quite astounding and AF is more than good enough for the big raptors.
Thanks for the advice and for sharing more of your incredible images. I have three A1 bodies and am planning on sticking with those for now (will take only two of them on this trip), although I completely understand about the focusing issue. The focusing on the A1 during one cheetah hunt that I saw in Kenya last year was all over the place. Grasses were a real problem pulling focus from the cheetah. I am hoping that the firmware updates which I am in the process of installing now improve things in that respect.
I have the 200-600mm and it is an excellent copy, plus both teleconverters. That said, I was just looking for an excuse to get the new 400-800mm and you may have just given it to me.
As odd as it sounds, the last time that I was in Namibia and photographing the dunes in Sossusvlei, I shot at 600mm and sometimes wished that I had more reach.
I will also be taking the 70-200/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and either a 16-35/4 or 17-28 + 15. The ultra wides are for Kolmanskop and I want to have 16mm or wider there. Last time I shot there was completely with the 15 and 17-28 and that worked out really well.
Abuttolph wrote:
Thanks for the advice and for sharing more of your incredible images. I have three A1 bodies and am planning on sticking with those for now (will take only two of them on this trip), although I completely understand about the focusing issue. The focusing on the A1 during one cheetah hunt that I saw in Kenya last year was all over the place. Grasses were a real problem pulling focus from the cheetah. I am hoping that the firmware updates which I am in the process of installing now improve things in that respect.
I have the 200-600mm and it is an excellent copy, plus both teleconverters. That said, I was just looking for an excuse to get the new 400-800mm and you may have just given it to me.
As odd as it sounds, the last time that I was in Namibia and photographing the dunes in Sossusvlei, I shot at 600mm and sometimes wished that I had more reach.
I will also be taking the 70-200/2.8, 24-70/2.8, and either a 16-35/4 or 17-28 + 15. The ultra wides are for Kolmanskop and I want to have 16mm or wider there. Last time I shot there was completely with the 15 and 17-28 and that worked out really well....Show more →
Interested to hear how your trip goes with the A1's. If the focusing is any better after the firmware update and if the TC's are causing some of those issues. I think that's one area Sony improved upon with A1 ii is the focus through grass and trees. I've seen a few demos where the A1 can still get confused.
CapCityPhotos wrote:
Interested to hear how your trip goes with the A1's. If the focusing is any better after the firmware update and if the TC's are causing some of those issues. I think that's one area Sony improved upon with A1 ii is the focus through grass and trees. I've seen a few demos where the A1 can still get confused.
I will report back on that when I get back, which will be July. The focusing issue that I had during the cheetah hunt was with the 200-600 on the A1 without a TC. It will indeed be interesting to see if the updated firmware has improvements to the AF for this kind of situation. Hopefully, I will have a similar opportunity to test it out.
Posting a question about the gorillas trek in Uganda/Rwanda.
The family is planning a trip to Africa to see the gorillas and also follow up with a safari in Tanzania. They have asked me to be in charge. I can handle the latter but I am having trouble deciding on Uganda vs Rwanda.
The TO we are working with currently has quoted twice as much for Rwanda compared to Uganda. We will be a party of 7, and so the costs multiply very quickly.
The concerns against Uganda are: Harder trek (some of us are not that fit), political instability therefore safety issues and perhaps less wholesome and encounter and finally logistical issues traveling from the US (New York).
Concern for Rwanda is simply the cost.
Would anybody who has done both or at least Uganda be able to advise? Looking at October 2026 for now and planning to spend the standard two days at the location.
I’ve done both and the biggest cost is the permit in Rwanda is over double what is charged in Uganda. The trek is slightly easier (I found both to be easy) in Rwanda and yes the country overall is is nicer and safer but Uganda was great too. I would go by whatever makes the family more comfortable.
Primus wrote:
Posting a question about the gorillas trek in Uganda/Rwanda.
The family is planning a trip to Africa to see the gorillas and also follow up with a safari in Tanzania. They have asked me to be in charge. I can handle the latter but I am having trouble deciding on Uganda vs Rwanda.
The TO we are working with currently has quoted twice as much for Rwanda compared to Uganda. We will be a party of 7, and so the costs multiply very quickly.
The concerns against Uganda are: Harder trek (some of us are not that fit), political instability therefore safety issues and perhaps less wholesome and encounter and finally logistical issues traveling from the US (New York).
Concern for Rwanda is simply the cost.
Would anybody who has done both or at least Uganda be able to advise? Looking at October 2026 for now and planning to spend the standard two days at the location.
Primus wrote:
Posting a question about the gorillas trek in Uganda/Rwanda.
The family is planning a trip to Africa to see the gorillas and also follow up with a safari in Tanzania. They have asked me to be in charge. I can handle the latter but I am having trouble deciding on Uganda vs Rwanda.
The TO we are working with currently has quoted twice as much for Rwanda compared to Uganda. We will be a party of 7, and so the costs multiply very quickly.
The concerns against Uganda are: Harder trek (some of us are not that fit), political instability therefore safety issues and perhaps less wholesome and encounter and finally logistical issues traveling from the US (New York).
Concern for Rwanda is simply the cost.
Would anybody who has done both or at least Uganda be able to advise? Looking at October 2026 for now and planning to spend the standard two days at the location.
I've visited the gorillas in Rwanda and have friends who have done Uganda. Yes, Uganda is known to be a bit more difficult, but I wouldn't be too dissuaded. The pace is very slow and comfortable, there's no rush. If you're fit enough to maintain a solid walking pace for a few hours (+/-), you'll be fine. You pay a porter to carry your gear (it's a great way to support the locals) and just focus on the hike. They'll get you there.
If cost is the primary concern, I would do Uganda without a second thought. Sitting with gorillas was a life changing experience for me, it's worth it.
evertdoorn wrote:
Indeed a life changing experience... I did it in Rwanda in 2004 and the permit back then was only about 300 usd or something like that
It's a great incentive though to protect Virunga NP. Many difficulties with security in the past; more than 200 rangers have lost their lives thoughout the years protecting it so the money is much needed.
Thank you, guys. Very helpful. It seems like the higher costs in Rwanda are not just the TO but the permits and the cost of keeping the ecosystem safely running.
In the end you get what you pay for, like most things in life.
Will either need to get fitter for Uganda or cough up more money for Rwanda
I am heading to Botswana with Pangolin in July. Chobe, Shinde and Dinaka. I have shot in Africa several times but not in Botswana. Mostly in The Mara, Samburu and Serrengetti. Plus a few smaller parks over the years. The big differences on this trip will be that we’ll have boat and off track access and potentially night drives. These will be new to me. Likely we’ll be a lot closer than I’ve generally been used to. Hence the lens options.
I am taking an A1ii with 400-800, for long close and birds and a 28-70 f2 for general and landscapes. I will also have an A1 and A7R5 bodies with me.
To fill the gap, I was originally going to take a 100-400GM. one lens. nice optically. Makes for a simple three lens kit that covers pretty much everything. How ever the night drives thing has me thinking of getting a 300mm GM and taking that instead. I have the TC’s already. That means either a 70-200 2.8 or possibly the upcoming 50-150 f2. That’s an extra lens and TC’s. Which is somewhat more faffing around. And we’re flying between camps which means the usual weight and bag issues using Cessna Caravans in Africa. Cost is not an issue and I can get a very good price here in Oz right now for the 300. I’m getting analysis paralysis.
Basically my options are two faster lenses over one slower zoom. A pretty normal decision. But is there a consensus on this? I know the 300 is excellent with the 1.4x. But is the speed (of use) and convenience of a good zoom, like the 100-400 worse than the extra lens (70-200 2.8 and 300 2,8) plus a TC worth the hassle for a couple of stops of light? I’m leaning to the 300/70-200 but maybe you could talk me out of it?
My main camera was an A1 with the 400/2.8+1.4x TC.
For my second body, I had a very similar choice to you. I had an A7R5 and needed to pick between the 100-400, 300/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 (GM2). I am *thrilled* that I went with the 70-200/2.8 over the other two choices. Having 2.8 was super valuable for early mornings, late afternoons, and night drives, as well as for background separation/portraits. Also, several times I used the 70-100 range and would just been too close if I had the 100-400 instead. I never found myself upset that I couldn't cover the 200-400 range because of the cropping ability of the A7R5.
Given your choices, you won't be upset bringing the 70-200/2.8 over the 100-400 or 300.
Would any of you consider the new 50-150 f2 over a 70-200 f2.8? The reach isn't massively different but the 50-150 doesn't accept TC's. But f2 for wider angle shots of closer game is super tempting.
That'd be a 28-70, 50-150, 300 2.8 (with 1.x4 ocasionlly) and a 400-800 for birds. I'd put the 400-800 on an A1ii and use an A7R5 for the 50-150 and 300.
flash wrote:
Would any of you consider the new 50-150 f2 over a 70-200 f2.8? The reach isn't massively different but the 50-150 doesn't accept TC's. But f2 for wider angle shots of closer game is super tempting.
Canon shooter here, thus massively jealous.
On my last trip I lent my 70-200 to my friends who didn't have anything similar in that range, and I myself shot with the 100-300. I think it's safe to say that I missed the 30mm on the wide end far less than they missed the longer end (we both also had a 400 prime, me a 2.8, they a 4.0). In this context, this translates that if in their case the 200 was too short, the 150 would be even more so.
The only time when I'd see this reversed is at Shompole, where the combo of the 50-150 and 100-300 would have been absolutely killer. I was jumping between 24-70 and 100-300 (multiple bodies). But for traditional safari purposes (you didn't state where and what), I don't see it.
