robert_in_ca
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.93 #11 · African safari talk...recommendations? | |
vbnut wrote:
The 70-200 is only marginally wider at the wide end than the 100-500, so should I assume it's the f/4.5@100 and f/5@200 versus the constant f/2.8 that you're advocating for. Can you why you consider the 70-200/2.8 essential for a safari, and when you would use it?
Do you think the 100-300/2.8 plus 1.4x and 2x extenders would be a reasonable alternative for both the 100-500 and 70-200?
Also, my impression from the images I see here is that there are plenty of landscape opportunities on a safari, so I would think something wide (24-xx or 28-70/2.8 as I'm planning) would be desirable if not essential. Do you think I'm wrong?...Show more →
I’ve shot this a few different ways over a lot of safari days, so my view is based more on field use than theory.
A few years ago I shot Tanzania extensively with the R5 and 100-500 only, and honestly, that lens delivered in spades. On my next several dozen safaris I moved to a Nikon kit with the Z9 + 400 TC and Z8 + 70-200, and that was a wonderful, very flexible setup. The 70-200 made a lot of sense there because I was pairing it with a fixed long prime.
That’s really where I think the 70-200 becomes essential: if your main wildlife lens is a fixed 400/2.8, 600/4, etc., or if you specifically want a faster overlapping mid-tele option alongside something like the 100-500. But with a zoom like the 100-500, especially in parks where you can’t drive off-road, I found the 70-200 becomes less and less used. In places like many Tanzanian parks, Kruger in South Africa, etc., you’re often distance-limited by road access, so 200mm can feel short very quickly. The exception is somewhere like a Kenyan conservancy, Ngorongoro (excluding the crater floor), or certain private reserves, where you can drive off road and position the vehicle better and get much closer.
For my current Canon kit, I’m using the R1 + RF 100-300/2.8 with both TCs, plus the R5 II and RF 24-105/2.8 Z. To me, the 100-300 with the 1.4x and 2x can absolutely cover a lot of what people are trying to solve with both the 70-200 and 100-500, with the tradeoff being size, weight, cost and handling versus the huge flexibility and reach of the 100-500.
On landscapes, I agree there are definitely opportunities. I mostly used a 24-105, and previously a 24-70, but I eventually ditched the 24-70 because I barely used it. For me, the 24-105 range is more useful on safari than a dedicated wide or standard zoom that stops at 70, because you often want environmental wildlife, camp/lodge, vehicle, people, and landscape shots without constantly changing lenses.
|
