70-200 IS f2.8 v 300 IS f2.8 or ?

I bought a 70-300 IS prior to my last vacation thinking that I would sell it when I got back, but I couldn't bring myself to give it up once I returned. Lesson: make sure selling is actually an option for you!

The choice can be influenced by where you are going on safari, as the nature of vegetation (and hence need for longer focal lengths) changes. It can also make a difference whether you are visiting a private game reserve with good rangers and trackers and the ability to go off road or whether you are e.g. just making your own way round parts of Kruger NP where you must stick to the road. Where the vegetation is lush you will find that you will be using manual focus otherwise you'll end up with the bush in focus and the leopard well hidden. One of the most popular choices as a safari lens is the 100-400. The downside is that it is a little slow, especially for night game drives (when you'll need flash and a flash extender e.g. Better Beamer - though these are also useful in daylight to provide fill). You should also have at least a second camera (perhaps a P&S) with a standard zoom capability. You won't want to be changing lenses if you can avoid it. Also, have a good pair of binoculars.

Hi Mark U,

Thanks for your response...

I had looked at the 100-400 but as you say speed and light could be a problem. As I understand it, it is a private reserve with morning and evening drives. I would expect that the trackers will know their stuff and I'd similarly hope that we can get reasonably close to whatever game we may see.

I was tending towards the two I suggested for speed reasons and the likelyhood of poor light in the evening. I guess I was really angling after the necessity of zoom versus prime. From all safari photos I've seen before by friends - subjects are normally a reasonable distance away. I am therefore expecting some photoshop action to bring alive the best photos, so would the prime be better!? Or does the zoom element perhaps give me more 'options' depending on the situation!?

T

Hi Mark E,

I see where you are coming from! But at approx £1,000 - and the fact that I will have just spent up to £1,500 on the cameras and other lens (+ filters, memory card etc.) I thought I might be best to wait a while...

That said - if I found myself a 0% purchases credit card.... hmmmmm....

If you are worried about speed. I would get the 200mm f/2.0

If you are considering on sellling these items upon your return. Why not rent them? It's less of a hassle

Thanks Dave - hadn't thought of that thus far...

You might want to use the Photo.net search feature using "safari which lens" as question or something similar.

There are some very experiences photogs here.

The quick version is: according to a lot of people the 100-400 is the way to go but some pro's say it's unwieldy and they advice a 300/4 plus x1.4 and others advice bigger guns. (Most advice bringing two bodies and a versatile zoom on the one and a long lens on the other.)

Matthijs.

You might also consider the 400/4 DO. While early versions were criticized, most of those criticisms have abated. I have it, along with the 300/2.8, and I find that the 400 (which will autofocus with the 1.4 extender on all of Canon's DSLRs) is significantly easier to handhold for extended periods. It is not as good, especially in the area of contrast, as the 300, but it is reasonably close.

I've never been on a safari and I own none of the lenses under discussion, so I can't advise there. But I will say, whatever you get, your pictures will be better if you have time to practice with it at length before the trip. That is, take pictures, inspect them in on computer, take more and inspect those, etc. I never shoot very well with unfamiliar equipment. Given that the wedding is right before the trip, you'll be pretty busy, you may have to budget some time specifically for that purpose.

Good luck, it sounds like a lot of fun, and congratulations on the wedding :-)