Which lens for safari?
Discussion
A couple of thoughts whilst reading the comments.
If the body is to be the 30D I would guess that the option to crop may be a little constrained for optimum quality when compared to more recent and larger sensors? Of course that may be influenced by the intended use of the images on return from the trip.
Secondly - does the focus system offer enough to function well at the slower lens speeds, especially with an extender? It might not matter since at a distance one could probably get away with successful manual focusing but is perhaps something to consider, check out and plan for in advance. I'm not familiar with the 30D at all but from memory I seem to recall that there was a big advance in capabilities from the 30D to the 40D so there may be some strategic considerations to take into account when considering a lens choice.
If the body is to be the 30D I would guess that the option to crop may be a little constrained for optimum quality when compared to more recent and larger sensors? Of course that may be influenced by the intended use of the images on return from the trip.
Secondly - does the focus system offer enough to function well at the slower lens speeds, especially with an extender? It might not matter since at a distance one could probably get away with successful manual focusing but is perhaps something to consider, check out and plan for in advance. I'm not familiar with the 30D at all but from memory I seem to recall that there was a big advance in capabilities from the 30D to the 40D so there may be some strategic considerations to take into account when considering a lens choice.
OP, what did you take? How did you get on?
I'm off to SA next week and have the chance to borrow either a 28-300L or a 100-400L. I have my own 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4, but as it's a trip to see family not a dedicated photo trip I want to travel light (relatively) so the flexibility of a long zoom is appealing. I could take two bodies (5D3) but I'd rather take just one, so the 28-300 sounds good, but the extra reach of the 100-400 also appeals.
I'm off to SA next week and have the chance to borrow either a 28-300L or a 100-400L. I have my own 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4, but as it's a trip to see family not a dedicated photo trip I want to travel light (relatively) so the flexibility of a long zoom is appealing. I could take two bodies (5D3) but I'd rather take just one, so the 28-300 sounds good, but the extra reach of the 100-400 also appeals.
tog said:
OP, what did you take? How did you get on?
I'm off to SA next week and have the chance to borrow either a 28-300L or a 100-400L. I have my own 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4, but as it's a trip to see family not a dedicated photo trip I want to travel light (relatively) so the flexibility of a long zoom is appealing. I could take two bodies (5D3) but I'd rather take just one, so the 28-300 sounds good, but the extra reach of the 100-400 also appeals.
If you will definitely be going on Safari, take the 100-400 - especially if you are shooting full-frame. I have been a number of times and have always had various 70-300 lenses on a crop body and wished for more length.......I'm off to SA next week and have the chance to borrow either a 28-300L or a 100-400L. I have my own 70-200 f2.8 and 300 f4, but as it's a trip to see family not a dedicated photo trip I want to travel light (relatively) so the flexibility of a long zoom is appealing. I could take two bodies (5D3) but I'd rather take just one, so the 28-300 sounds good, but the extra reach of the 100-400 also appeals.
The 28-300 isn't a particularly great lens.
If you are taking 2 bodies, then I'd recommend the 100-400 on one and something shorter on the other like a 24-70 or 24-105.
I went 6 years ago to Tanzania when I had cheaper kit - 20D and 40D, with a 70-300IS on one and a Tamron 17-50 on the other. Tamron was hardly used, and I often wished for more reach with the 300 lens on a crop body.
My only concern with a 100-400 on safari is dust...there was a LOT of it, and the 100-400 has a bellows motion...
...but that aside, I'd want a minimum of 300 on a crop / 400 on a full-frame.
My only concern with a 100-400 on safari is dust...there was a LOT of it, and the 100-400 has a bellows motion...
...but that aside, I'd want a minimum of 300 on a crop / 400 on a full-frame.
5D3 = Full Frame so 400mm reach rather desirable I would think.
If the 100-400 is a Mk1 Canon then the push-pull dust suction issue may be a challenge, especially for a "loaner", although effects of the dust may not be visible in the images. However the owner may not be impressed on return IF there has been any ingress.
If it's a MK2 lens that may not be a problem.
If using one body (2 would be great for the requirements but who wants the travel hassles?) using some careful lens changing techniques to minimise the effects of dust transfer to the camera sensor would be highly advisable of course. That is likely to be much much more annoying to deal with than any possible effects from dust in or on the lens.
If it was me I would be tempted to go with the 5D3 and 100-400 with a 2x extender in reserve should the opportunity to use it arise. (and a monopod!) Maybe something like a 24-105 for the more general shots.
In addition take something compact.
Something with a sealed lens system would be handy for the avoidance of dust. And there is some excellent kit around these days. Alternatively something like an EOS M could be a flexible approach.
When I travelled to Oz some years ago I wanted to co as light as I felt was comfortable.
I settled for my old 400D (light, worth nothing if lost) with kit lens, a Samyang 14mm and a 70-300 DO (not especially light but quite compact). Left the bigger stuff at home gambling that the amount of light available would offset the slower lenses and poorer high ISO of the body.
I also took an S90 for the pocketable size and instant convenience and a G11 to fit somewhere in the middle being almost pocketable but (with an adapter) more easily capable of making use of some filters I already had. Plus it didn't look as daft as the S90 on a tripod! And I could use a proper flash with it.
It turned out to be a good combination and I used each of them pretty equally over all. The compacts were especially handy in social settings where messing around with anything more "obvious" might have spoiled the opportunities.
Frankly I think I would have been disappointed with the 300mm on a crop body, if out to shoot wildlife, unless relatively close. There again the 400D is only 10Mp and a little ancient these days so a 5D3 should be a better bet ... but even then if you can't be sure that the guides can get you close I would think an 400mm with the option of an extender would be desirable. (However seeing so many pics recently of animals climbing right onto safari vehicles maybe something very wide would be more useful!)
If the 100-400 is a Mk1 Canon then the push-pull dust suction issue may be a challenge, especially for a "loaner", although effects of the dust may not be visible in the images. However the owner may not be impressed on return IF there has been any ingress.
If it's a MK2 lens that may not be a problem.
If using one body (2 would be great for the requirements but who wants the travel hassles?) using some careful lens changing techniques to minimise the effects of dust transfer to the camera sensor would be highly advisable of course. That is likely to be much much more annoying to deal with than any possible effects from dust in or on the lens.
If it was me I would be tempted to go with the 5D3 and 100-400 with a 2x extender in reserve should the opportunity to use it arise. (and a monopod!) Maybe something like a 24-105 for the more general shots.
In addition take something compact.
Something with a sealed lens system would be handy for the avoidance of dust. And there is some excellent kit around these days. Alternatively something like an EOS M could be a flexible approach.
When I travelled to Oz some years ago I wanted to co as light as I felt was comfortable.
I settled for my old 400D (light, worth nothing if lost) with kit lens, a Samyang 14mm and a 70-300 DO (not especially light but quite compact). Left the bigger stuff at home gambling that the amount of light available would offset the slower lenses and poorer high ISO of the body.
I also took an S90 for the pocketable size and instant convenience and a G11 to fit somewhere in the middle being almost pocketable but (with an adapter) more easily capable of making use of some filters I already had. Plus it didn't look as daft as the S90 on a tripod! And I could use a proper flash with it.
It turned out to be a good combination and I used each of them pretty equally over all. The compacts were especially handy in social settings where messing around with anything more "obvious" might have spoiled the opportunities.
Frankly I think I would have been disappointed with the 300mm on a crop body, if out to shoot wildlife, unless relatively close. There again the 400D is only 10Mp and a little ancient these days so a 5D3 should be a better bet ... but even then if you can't be sure that the guides can get you close I would think an 400mm with the option of an extender would be desirable. (However seeing so many pics recently of animals climbing right onto safari vehicles maybe something very wide would be more useful!)
LongQ said:
(However seeing so many pics recently of animals climbing right onto safari vehicles maybe something very wide would be more useful!)
1 word: Elephants(Have you ever tried taking a photo of an elephant (the whole animal, not just a leg or half a head) using a long lens?
)More seriously, if you can afford the space/weight, take 2 bodies - not swapping lenses is a good idea, and you never know when that cheetah you've just been following at high speed is suddenly going to walk right in front of your 4x4...
Seronera 2 070 by martin-dc2, on Flickr
Seronera 2 116 by martin-dc2, on Flickr(That said, 70mm on a crop / 100mm on a full-frame MIGHT be wide enough for most safari encounters...)
I went earlier this year and had the same dilemma. I was going to hire a 500 but in the end I took a 70-200 F2.8 and a 2x converter in case I needed more reach (plus a second body with a 24-70 F2.8).
Maybe we got lucky but I never considered putting the converter on, 70-200 was ample 99% of the time.
Regarding the second body - this was well worthwhile. Don't get bogged down with only taking super close-ups of animals. Sure, they're great and worth getting, but don't forget to get some scenic shots of the actual area, it's magnificent.
Maybe we got lucky but I never considered putting the converter on, 70-200 was ample 99% of the time.
Regarding the second body - this was well worthwhile. Don't get bogged down with only taking super close-ups of animals. Sure, they're great and worth getting, but don't forget to get some scenic shots of the actual area, it's magnificent.
Ari said:
I went earlier this year and had the same dilemma. I was going to hire a 500 but in the end I took a 70-200 F2.8 and a 2x converter in case I needed more reach (plus a second body with a 24-70 F2.8).
Maybe we got lucky but I never considered putting the converter on, 70-200 was ample 99% of the time.
Exactly the combination I used (earlier post). Unless your primary interest is small birds, this should cover most opportunities; another advantage is to have a really good driver who gets you into the right locations for those shots; if they can't get close to the wildlife, that's when you need the long lenses. I developed a new respect for Land Rovers in Kruger, they could go places that the Land Cruisers etc just couldn't get to, especially in the hillsMaybe we got lucky but I never considered putting the converter on, 70-200 was ample 99% of the time.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff