Of course.
This seems more like a thread to show off more photos than a discussion, but I'll bump your post.
I've used 70-200mm and other 200mm lenses for wildlife often enough. I prefer to have a zoom that's longer the vast majority of the time, but I've had great success at 200mm and below on occasion.
CyberDyne wrote:
Of course.
This seems more like a thread to show off more photos than a discussion, but I'll bump your post.
I've used 70-200mm and other 200mm lenses for wildlife often enough. I prefer to have a zoom that's longer the vast majority of the time, but I've had great success at 200mm and below on occasion.
It's a great lens for Galapagos
The photos are the discussion. The purpose is to show real-world examples where 70-200mm works for wildlife, especially with larger animals, close encounters, safaris, and environmental shots.
On Safari, before I got the RF 100-300 f/2.8, I always had the RF 100-500 but used the 70-200 f/2.8 for early morning and late evening. Now with the way the 100-300 takes TCs I get 600mm f/5.6 and 420mm f/4. I may leave the 100-500 and the 70-200 at home this trip. If only the thing were'nt so darn heavy.
I think the 100-300 2.8 is the a wildcard lens. I have taken it to Africa as my long lens, sometimes it came up short, but most of the time, it was fine. Do you want just two lenses to photograph everything, then a 24-105 and the 100-300 2.8 could be that.
As discussed in the article i wrote, if you want to carry the 100-300 and a longer lens such as a 400 2.8 or 600 4.0 then it is a lot to carry and deal with.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
On Safari, before I got the RF 100-300 f/2.8, I always had the RF 100-500 but used the 70-200 f/2.8 for early morning and late evening. Now with the way the 100-300 takes TCs I get 600mm f/5.6 and 420mm f/4. I may leave the 100-500 and the 70-200 at home this trip. If only the thing were'nt so darn heavy.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
On Safari, before I got the RF 100-300 f/2.8, I always had the RF 100-500 but used the 70-200 f/2.8 for early morning and late evening. Now with the way the 100-300 takes TCs I get 600mm f/5.6 and 420mm f/4. I may leave the 100-500 and the 70-200 at home this trip. If only the thing were'nt so darn heavy.
---------------------------------------------
big country wrote:
I think the 100-300 2.8 is the a wildcard lens. I have taken it to Africa as my long lens, sometimes it came up short, but most of the time, it was fine. Do you want just two lenses to photograph everything, then a 24-105 and the 100-300 2.8 could be that.
As discussed in the article i wrote, if you want to carry the 100-300 and a longer lens such as a 400 2.8 or 600 4.0 then it is a lot to carry and deal with.
The safari comments and 300mm focal length are of a lot of interest. My daughter has traveled all over and always used hand me down Canon gear including an EF 70-200. She’s used it in the Galapagos, Amazon and Asia. A couple of years ago I convinced her to switch to Olympus OM for its compact size for travel and because her fiancé uses the OM and they could share lenses. She’s used it successfully in Asia and the Faroes and is taking it to Patagonia later this year.
They’ve recently scheduled a trip to Kenya for a couple of weeks next year and doing the safari thing. The longest lens they own is the OM 40-150 f4 pro. Do you guys think the 40-150 with its 300mm 4/3 sensor equivalent is doable?? They’re thinking of renting the OM 100-400. Would that get enough use to make it worthwhile? And considering their trip to South America maybe even get the 100-400 sooner? Appreciate any advice, Thanks
I’ve spent a lot of time shooting in Eastern and Southern Africa, including with M43, and my honest take is that 300mm equivalent is going to feel short very quickly on a Kenya safari unless they’re in a private conservancy where vehicles can go off-road and get closer.
The 40-150 f/4 is a great travel lens, and I’m sure it would be useful for larger animals, environmental shots, camp/travel, and anything close to the vehicle. But for wildlife as the primary focus, I would strongly recommend having more reach.
At minimum, I’d rent or buy the OM 100-400. Yes, I think it would get used a lot on safari. In fact, I’d probably say it becomes the main safari lens and the 40-150 becomes the secondary lens.
If budget allows, I’d seriously look at renting the OM 150-400 f/4.5 with the built-in 1.25x TC. I owned that lens for about three years before eventually selling it when I moved over to Nikon, and it’s still one of my favorite lenses I’ve ever used. It really is the dream M43 safari lens because it gives you huge reach, flexibility, and excellent image quality while keeping the overall system relatively compact compared to full-frame equivalents.
So my take would be:
40-150 only: doable, but limiting
100-400: strongly recommended
150-400 rental: ideal if they want the best safari experience from the OM system
For Kenya, I would not want to be capped at 300mm equivalent unless photography is a secondary priority.
ps: I currently shoot the R1 + RF 100-300mm and the majority of the time I have the 1.4x TC on it.
Thanks for the reply. Your experience was very helpful. Daughter and fiancé feel renting a couple of additional OM bodies and longer telephoto lenses to use as primary sources is the best option, with their current gear as backup for closer encounters.
Honestly the OM system has me thinking of downsizing
