I'm going on a safari in Kenya next week. And I need your opinion and help on choosing an extender to go with my 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I was thinking of the 1.4x extender due to its quality over the 2x extender. But I was just worried about the reach it'll get.
If you guys are interested to know, I'm bringing using my 1d mrk3, Sig 12-24, and a 24-70L. Need your advice urgently.
Thanks guys! Appreciate it.
buy a 100-400 and then sell after (or rent) or a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC
spend thousands and thousands on such a trip and then not maybe $150-200 at most lost in the buy and sell of a safari lens (less than the cost of the TC even!)??
you might even leave the sigma at home
the wides are of the sorts that 24mm gets you as much as anything else less than like a 5mm would.
a good combo is a 70-200 on one body (or sometimes the 24-70) and a super-tele on the other body or a 100-400 on one body (and sometiems the 24-70 on it instead)
galenapass wrote:
Good advice here- longer lenses are a must for this type of shooting. It may seem like a stretch to buy/rent better equipment for your trip, but later you will enjoy your shots and remember the trip, the upfront cost will be forgotten.
yeah i mean look at resale prices for 100-400, 300 f/4 or 2.8 etc. they are close to what you pay from a low priced store and in many cases the 1.4x TC will cost you as much not too mention spend THOUSANDS and thousands on the safari and then not risk $200 on a resale??
Reach is never enough on safaris. I have done several trips to Africa with both the 70-200IS and 100-400IS, converters 1.4x and 2.0x. The 100-400 was by far my most used lens on game drives. If portraiture of locals is no subject for you then leave the 70-200 at home. The 100-400 is much more versatile. Rent it, or buy it and sell it after the trip (it will be hard to separate I know ) but you won't regret it. Renting in Kenya is no option, so shop at home. Have EOSfun anyway!
I will reiterate that the 100-400 is a good choice, though it is short in some cases. The 300/2.8 IS is an excellent lens, but you may strike out often due to lack of expertise. 300/2.8 and longer fast primes are not the best lenses to use in critical situations for the first time. (Sorry if my repsonse turns out to be inappropriate.)
I am almost afraid to ask, but why are you making last-minute decisions? IME it is important to get to know the gear and how to use it to best advantage.
The 300/2.8 is a big gun with the necessary hood mounted, be sure you want to carry it with you. If you are critical on image quality I would say it's worth it, just be sure and definitely take the converters with you to extend it's reach. Else take the 100-400IS like I did and get the 1.4x and a beanbag with you. Without a beanbag Africa with long lenses and no tripod will give you shaky images, even with IS on. Listen to what Chris above stated, I'll repeat it too: game driving is at light critical times early in the morning or late in the afternoon. You'll appreciate to be able to let lens have a rest in a beanbag over the window or the roof of of a Landrover. Have EOSfun !
If you can make the space / weight, hire the 300, AND the 1.4 extender. That gives 420/f4 of very sweet lens, and 300mm if you want faster or wider.
another cheaper option is to hire the 1.4 and 2x and bring both. It depends on your type of photography.
If you want absolutely stunning images, and can live with just getting 2 or 3 crackers, then get the 1.4 extender and hope you get close. If you want a pretty good record of loads of things, then get the 2.0 extender, but dont expect to have any competition grade images with the 2x and the 70-200. The 2x with the 300 prime would give better results, they work better together.
I took a 100-400 and a 500 on 2 IDMKIIIs and added the 1.4 as needed to the 500. This combo served me well for wildlife though I often wished I had a 600 and will when I go the next time. For me the 2x gives unacceptable results. A 100-400 will cover the most shooting opportunities though with a 1.4 won't be very sharp. If you can swing it the 300 or 400 5.6 with 1.4 and the 100-400 is a good combo.
I visited kenya in 2007 armed with nothing more than a 400d and a 70-200 mm f4 non-is and got decent results..decent enough to be published and im only an amature/enthusiast. If i were you, i'd get the x1.4 tc..that way you get the reach, preserve the autofocus and IS and the IQ is supposed to be pretty good. crop for more 'reach' in post processing.
invest your money instead on memory cards/Hard disks or batteries. power charging can be an extremly hit and miss affair in east africa. also, dont spend silly money on custom built ''bean bags'' . instead, use thick sweaters ( you will need them in the morning when it's cool) or also fill up a bag with rice/beans when you get there.
I hope you ignored that comment to ditch the 24-70 mm lens as you will also get great opportunities to do some landscaping and portraits.
one more tip...try and see africa **without** a viewfinder from time to time, too!!!
It was a comparison between the 100-400L and a 70-200 2.8 IS with a 2x converter. What do you guys think?
Renting a 100-400 and buying a 2x extender would cost me the same amount of money. Hmm.. still haven't made up my mind. I'll bring my 12-24 for Mt.Kilimanjaro but might leave the 24-70 at home and bring a 50 1.8.
Paul, You never said if you were going on a PHOTO safari or just a tourist safari. The difference is tremendous. I used the 500 f4 IS on a FF canon body, and nearly always used the 1.4x. But, you don't always need to get that close for wonderful landscape images with creatures in them. Try your 70-200 and 1.4x this time, and next trip go longer. See my Africa Gallery on my My Photo Site
for examples.
Oh, sorry, but yes, I'm booking a photo safari. About 10 days long. I know have the option to either buy a 1.4x or 2x or rent a 100-400, they'll all cost me about the same amount of money. Still seeing the cross road =)
paul.kzk wrote:
Oh, sorry, but yes, I'm booking a photo safari. About 10 days long. I know have the option to either buy a 1.4x or 2x or rent a 100-400, they'll all cost me about the same amount of money. Still seeing the cross road =)
A 2x tele only works beautifully on legendary lenses like the 300 2.8 IS (which I don't see on your 'To Rent' list). Buying the 2x and using it on any other lens (like your 70-200) will only depress you when you check your pictures after the trip. Sharpness will take a big hit.
Using a 1.4x on a 70-200 will not give you much reach at all and you might feel longing for more....but by then, it will be too late.
Option A:
Why not just rent the 100-400 for this trip? A naked lens will definitely give you the best image quality and also get you that long variable focal length.
Don't even try the 1.4x on the 100-400....most likely, it will be a bad combo.
Option B:
Btw, since you already have a 70-200, why not just rent a 400 f/5.6 ? You are going to change lenses anyway since I don't read anywhere that you are going to take 2 bodies. Might as well have a 70-200 and a 400 mm prime (with guaranteed image quality) ? Why have overlapping focal lengths with the 70-200 and 100-400 ?
If you want to see what I did on a recent safari with these 2 lenses(on 2 bodies, tho), pm me. I will be happy to share my images.
My 2 cents.
PS: Seems like you have a 30D in your profile along with the mk3....still have it Seriously, think about taking more than 1 camera body, especially on a photo safari.
I have a 70-200 2.8 and both 1.4x and 2x extenders. I would never go on a trip like that with that combination. I only keep the 2x around for the times when I absolutely need it to get a shot I might not otherwise be able to get, but I pretty much know that when I use it it's to capture a snapshot not a photograph, the loss of image quality is really apparent with this combo and YOU WILL be dissapointed. I would buy or rent a 100-400 in a heartbeat if I had a trip to Africa booked. The 1.4x extender is great and I really don't notice any loss in image quality when using it, but you don't really gain much length with it either.
I've been on quite a few safaris and found that most of my shots are taken with the 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x, especially when using a 1.3x body like the 1D mk 3 (this is an awesome combo and it was my primary setup in Botswana in 2007). If funds allow and you don't mind carrying a heavy lens then by all means do rent the 300 2.8 IS and a 1.4x. This lens takes the 2x extender pretty well as well.
Particularly since getting my 300 2.8 IS, I have been disappointed with the quality of the 70-200 2.8IS with a 1.4x extender so frankly I don't want to bother trying it with the 2x.
I was not too pleased with the 300 f4L IS + 1.4x extender. Particularly if you are only bringing 1 body, then a 100-400 may be a better bet if you don't bring a 300 2.8L IS and don't want the extra weight of bringing your 70-200.
If you were to choose between the 12-24 and 24-70 it would depend on what you like to shoot. That said, I found that I rarely use my 24-105 and 17-40 for animals and landscapes (their most common use is for shots at the camp). I rather like my 70-200 for compressed landscape shots. In fact, I have bought a Canon G10, which takes surprisingly high quality photos at ISO 80 which I may bring on my next safari instead of my 24-105; I'll bring the 17-40 for casual shots at camp and for ultra wide angle.
One last tip - check if your camp will provide bean bags.
Have a great time! Be warned, though, that photo safaris can be addictive!
Just checked out the 2x converter at the shop. Found a significant difference in sharpness wide open at 400mm comparing the 70-200L and the 100-400L
about the 300mm.. They don't rent the 300mm IS here =( but they do have the 300 f/2.8L. Should i still get the 300 f/2.8L with the 1.4x extender? or opt for the 100-400L instead?
I would opt for the 100-400L over the 300 with extender. I went on a safari last year, and two things I realized similar to what others have said, I always wish I had more reach, and IS and having the flexibility of a zoom is nice.
If it's the 300 without IS with extender, you may have a difficult time getting sharp pics without the IS even with a beanbag!
If it's the 300IS version with extender, then I think that would be very nice combo.
However, don't forgot that since on your safari your jeep will be limited in where it can go, it's nice to have the flexibility of the zoom.
Just checked out the 2x converter at the shop. Found a significant difference in sharpness wide open at 400mm comparing the 70-200L and the 100-400L
about the 300mm.. They don't rent the 300mm IS here =( but they do have the 300 f/2.8L. Should i still get the 300 f/2.8L with the 1.4x extender? or opt for the 100-400L instead?
i think i might take the 100-400 over the NON-IS 300 2.8 since the vehicles can shimmy and rock a bit even with the motor turned off
i did use a non-IS 70-200 2.8 just fine, but 200mm is not 300mm or 420mm so not sure if it would've be ok without the IS for the early and late stuff, actually i know for fact that at times it would not have been (then again the 100-400 IS already gives back 2 stops in speed to the 300 2.8 and the IS is not latest generation so it might only be mildly better during those times)
) but you won't regret it. Renting in Kenya is no option, so shop at home. Have EOSfun anyway!
Seriously, think about taking more than 1 camera body, especially on a photo safari.