Good safari lenses (for 40D)?
Discussion
The recent 70-200 f/2.8 L vs f/4 L lens debate has got me thinking.
We're currently looking into going on safari (for the first time...getting excited already even with nothing booked), which if it comes off (more expensive than I expected...) will be a complete photo-fest.
Up to now I've used my long-serving Canon 70-300IS f/4-5.6 (non-DO) for long-range work - mainly motorsport stuff and 'alternative landscapes', and for closer-range work I've got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is a beautifully sharp thing if a little slow and short-ranged, and a Canon 28-135IS f/3.5-5.6 for walkabout work...decent lens, occasionally seems to have 'soft periods' though where the photos just lack a little clarity...so I've tended not to use it as much recently as a result.
So my questions are:-
- Is the 70-300IS a sharp-enough (and wide-aperture'd enough - 5.6 at full-stretch! Edit: Just found out that a 1.4 tele-con will up the aperture to f/5.6 minimum...so no difference there) lens for safari photos? Is the 70-200IS f/4 L-series THAT much better, given I'd put a 1.4 teleconverter on it for safari work (I figure I'd need at least -300 reach to get some photos)? And what would the downsides be? Any obvious alternatives?
- Would you use the 17-50 or the 28-135IS as a fitted lens on a second (20D) body for closer-range shots and landscapes? Given the levels of dust I'm absolutely not changing lenses during the day, so I'm by default going to have 2 lenses on 2 bodies, and work around their limitations.
Thanks all,
M.
We're currently looking into going on safari (for the first time...getting excited already even with nothing booked), which if it comes off (more expensive than I expected...) will be a complete photo-fest.
Up to now I've used my long-serving Canon 70-300IS f/4-5.6 (non-DO) for long-range work - mainly motorsport stuff and 'alternative landscapes', and for closer-range work I've got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is a beautifully sharp thing if a little slow and short-ranged, and a Canon 28-135IS f/3.5-5.6 for walkabout work...decent lens, occasionally seems to have 'soft periods' though where the photos just lack a little clarity...so I've tended not to use it as much recently as a result.
So my questions are:-
- Is the 70-300IS a sharp-enough (and wide-aperture'd enough - 5.6 at full-stretch! Edit: Just found out that a 1.4 tele-con will up the aperture to f/5.6 minimum...so no difference there) lens for safari photos? Is the 70-200IS f/4 L-series THAT much better, given I'd put a 1.4 teleconverter on it for safari work (I figure I'd need at least -300 reach to get some photos)? And what would the downsides be? Any obvious alternatives?
- Would you use the 17-50 or the 28-135IS as a fitted lens on a second (20D) body for closer-range shots and landscapes? Given the levels of dust I'm absolutely not changing lenses during the day, so I'm by default going to have 2 lenses on 2 bodies, and work around their limitations.
Thanks all,
M.
Edited by havoc on Tuesday 17th February 19:20
If you're just going on safari for a couple of weeks, have you considered hiring something like a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS L?
It would cost you £3.5k to buy one, but the people on that link will rent one to you for 3 weeks for £220. It's still a lot of money, but if it's for a once in a lifetime holiday type experience, maybe worth considering?
It would cost you £3.5k to buy one, but the people on that link will rent one to you for 3 weeks for £220. It's still a lot of money, but if it's for a once in a lifetime holiday type experience, maybe worth considering?
havoc said:
The recent 70-200 f/2.8 L vs f/4 L lens debate has got me thinking.
We're currently looking into going on safari (for the first time...getting excited already even with nothing booked), which if it comes off (more expensive than I expected...) will be a complete photo-fest.
Up to now I've used my long-serving Canon 70-300IS f/4-5.6 (non-DO) for long-range work - mainly motorsport stuff and 'alternative landscapes', and for closer-range work I've got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is a beautifully sharp thing if a little slow and short-ranged, and a Canon 28-135IS f/3.5-5.6 for walkabout work...decent lens, occasionally seems to have 'soft periods' though where the photos just lack a little clarity...so I've tended not to use it as much recently as a result.
So my questions are:-
- Is the 70-300IS a sharp-enough (and wide-aperture'd enough - 5.6 at full-stretch! Edit: Just found out that a 1.4 tele-con will up the aperture to f/5.6 minimum...so no difference there) lens for safari photos? Is the 70-200IS f/4 L-series THAT much better, given I'd put a 1.4 teleconverter on it for safari work (I figure I'd need at least -300 reach to get some photos)? And what would the downsides be? Any obvious alternatives?
- Would you use the 17-50 or the 28-135IS as a fitted lens on a second (20D) body for closer-range shots and landscapes? Given the levels of dust I'm absolutely not changing lenses during the day, so I'm by default going to have 2 lenses on 2 bodies, and work around their limitations.
Thanks all,
M.
Where are you off too? What time of year? Speed is pretty cricial with Safari as you'll be up early in the morning (before sunrise) and it's really quite dark. Plus the animals can more pretty quick. Most places you can get really close, the limiting factor being not ditance from the animals to humans, but the amount of safari trucks in between... Get the right guide and you'll be able to shot lion at sunrise with the Tamron (really!), get it wrong and the best lens in the world won't help due to the ten truck loads of whooping and hollering americans surrounding a lone animal.. I did a few safaris about five years ago with a consumer 70-300 and it worked fine, but I was fairly lucky that it wasn't that busy. That said, longer reach will always being an advantage as the animals are spread all over, not just by the roads! You can usually get decent shots of the ones that are close, but those in the distance just ain't gunna happen and you have to accept that!We're currently looking into going on safari (for the first time...getting excited already even with nothing booked), which if it comes off (more expensive than I expected...) will be a complete photo-fest.
Up to now I've used my long-serving Canon 70-300IS f/4-5.6 (non-DO) for long-range work - mainly motorsport stuff and 'alternative landscapes', and for closer-range work I've got a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, which is a beautifully sharp thing if a little slow and short-ranged, and a Canon 28-135IS f/3.5-5.6 for walkabout work...decent lens, occasionally seems to have 'soft periods' though where the photos just lack a little clarity...so I've tended not to use it as much recently as a result.
So my questions are:-
- Is the 70-300IS a sharp-enough (and wide-aperture'd enough - 5.6 at full-stretch! Edit: Just found out that a 1.4 tele-con will up the aperture to f/5.6 minimum...so no difference there) lens for safari photos? Is the 70-200IS f/4 L-series THAT much better, given I'd put a 1.4 teleconverter on it for safari work (I figure I'd need at least -300 reach to get some photos)? And what would the downsides be? Any obvious alternatives?
- Would you use the 17-50 or the 28-135IS as a fitted lens on a second (20D) body for closer-range shots and landscapes? Given the levels of dust I'm absolutely not changing lenses during the day, so I'm by default going to have 2 lenses on 2 bodies, and work around their limitations.
Thanks all,
M.
Edited by havoc on Tuesday 17th February 19:20
I really wouldn't worry about dust. Get a rocket blower, use it everynight (blowing off the outside of the kit before moving to the elements/sensor). Just be sensible about it, and unless you have a spare body lying around don't worry about swapping lenses. You're just as likely to get dust on your sensor from a cheap consumer zoom sucking air in and out as you are when changing lenses. One of my friends (who sold his 300D on ebay when he got dust on the sensor!) has a D80 with Nikon 18-200VR. Bought specifically so he never, ever had to change lenses and risk dust on the sensor. Didn't happen, he still ended up with a load of dust bunnies! (not a surprise with that amount of tromboning!)
I would say however:
- Take an empty beanbag to rest the lens on, fill it up with rice or something when you get there.
- Make sure the driver turns the engine off when you are shooting to kill vibrations (they usually do)
- Take a spare charger and batts (I had a charger blown up by a surge from a dodgy African generator in Tanzania three days into a 3 week holiday leaving me with four charged batteries to last the trip...)
- Vary your shots if possible, so many safari shots are of the animals heads as everyone shoots from the roof!
Current thoughts are Tanzania in October - northern circuit (which yes is busier but has more animals and has Kili and the Ngorongoro crater, plus is cheaper).
Dust...you might be right...but I'll only be taking 3 or 4 lenses (3 above, poss a 50mm f/1.8 also), so shouldn't NEED to swap that often.
Speed - just been googling and found I can't afford a Canon f/4 IS, only the non-IS. Given the possible low-light nature involved, this makes it a trade off between the IS at f/5.6 and non-IS at f/4 with a sharper lens...or possibly looking at the Sigma / Tamron 70-xxx f/2.8's? I think only they would potentially be quicker than the 70-300IS f/4-5.6 with the IS on.
So, thinking out loud, the f/4 non-IS isn't going to be any quicker than the current lens, but will be clearly sharper...albeit with a shorter max-zoom...makes it nearly a score-draw for me, slightly in favour of the L-lens but not sure it's worth the money at the moment (the more I spend, the less we spend on the safari...). So are either the Tamron or Sigma any sharper or faster-focusing than the current lens, to make either a worthwhile purchase? Will I rue taking the slower/softer 70-300IS?
Dust...you might be right...but I'll only be taking 3 or 4 lenses (3 above, poss a 50mm f/1.8 also), so shouldn't NEED to swap that often.
Speed - just been googling and found I can't afford a Canon f/4 IS, only the non-IS. Given the possible low-light nature involved, this makes it a trade off between the IS at f/5.6 and non-IS at f/4 with a sharper lens...or possibly looking at the Sigma / Tamron 70-xxx f/2.8's? I think only they would potentially be quicker than the 70-300IS f/4-5.6 with the IS on.
So, thinking out loud, the f/4 non-IS isn't going to be any quicker than the current lens, but will be clearly sharper...albeit with a shorter max-zoom...makes it nearly a score-draw for me, slightly in favour of the L-lens but not sure it's worth the money at the moment (the more I spend, the less we spend on the safari...). So are either the Tamron or Sigma any sharper or faster-focusing than the current lens, to make either a worthwhile purchase? Will I rue taking the slower/softer 70-300IS?
Well Nogorogoro (sp?) has really high density of animals, and are easy to get fairly near to (though I never got anywhere near an elephant when I was there!), so you're sure to get a load of good photos whatever you take! The Serengeti is really cool too - sounds corny, but it's JUST like the lion king - you'll see what I mean! Just be aware of the testse flys...
As for glass, I wouldn't get massively worried. If you're doing anything else while you're there (culturaly stuff!) then a 70-200 F2.8 and 1.4x TC is probably a good bet (the 70-200 will get used again and again for everything, a longer lens won't be so versatile. If it's a trip of a lifetime safari only type job, then get the best speed and length you possibly can! I have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 which does me well, but am considering something longer if I go back to africa this year - possibly a sigma 400mm F5.6 prime. These can be picked up for a steal (ca £150) on ebay used. But you wouldn't want that as your only lens. However, one body with a 70-200, another with a 400mm would be great... btw if you do get the sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX, get a matched sigma EX TC, not a different brand. I have a Kenro Pro 300 2x TC and Tamron 1.4x TC, and AF doesn't lock, even in bright sun. I assume the sigmas do.
Last thing, whatever you do, do a walking (or cycling) safari. Anything among the animals and out of the steel box. Absolutely amasing. There's usually safe places (ie no big predtors apart from leopards which stay away from human contact). I did mine at Lake Naivashia, Kenya, and Hells Gate NP (also Kenya I think, possible Uganda).
By getting out of the vehicle (where safe!) you'll get far, far more out of the experience than a couple of extra stops on a lens. More like you are actually there rather than watching it on the tele!
As for glass, I wouldn't get massively worried. If you're doing anything else while you're there (culturaly stuff!) then a 70-200 F2.8 and 1.4x TC is probably a good bet (the 70-200 will get used again and again for everything, a longer lens won't be so versatile. If it's a trip of a lifetime safari only type job, then get the best speed and length you possibly can! I have a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 which does me well, but am considering something longer if I go back to africa this year - possibly a sigma 400mm F5.6 prime. These can be picked up for a steal (ca £150) on ebay used. But you wouldn't want that as your only lens. However, one body with a 70-200, another with a 400mm would be great... btw if you do get the sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX, get a matched sigma EX TC, not a different brand. I have a Kenro Pro 300 2x TC and Tamron 1.4x TC, and AF doesn't lock, even in bright sun. I assume the sigmas do.
Last thing, whatever you do, do a walking (or cycling) safari. Anything among the animals and out of the steel box. Absolutely amasing. There's usually safe places (ie no big predtors apart from leopards which stay away from human contact). I did mine at Lake Naivashia, Kenya, and Hells Gate NP (also Kenya I think, possible Uganda).
By getting out of the vehicle (where safe!) you'll get far, far more out of the experience than a couple of extra stops on a lens. More like you are actually there rather than watching it on the tele!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff