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 :-)

I'm surprised that you don't include the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS on your list.

The choice between prime and zoom can come down to several things. Some select a prime for the ostensibly better IQ (more on this below), the potential for a larger maximum aperture, and/or the fact that they _only_ need the longest focal length.

The choice to get a zoom may be based on the desire for greater versatility in one lens, the need for focal lengths other than just the longest one, and in some cases (e.g. the 100-400) smaller packed size.

The prime can produce better IQ than the zoom at the prime's focal length. However, for shots where you would use a different focal length with the zoom this small advantage diminishes, disappears, or even reverses - since you can crop "in-camera" with the zoom but you'll have to crop in post with the prime, thus losing image quality. If you know you'll always need the exact FL of the prime, it can be the better choice. But this is often not the case, and one of the classic stories you'll hear relates, more or less, the photographer with the 400mm lens on safari who can't get a shot when the lion approaches within a few feet of the truck. With the zoom the shot would be possible.

Both primes and zooms have their places, but I think that initially getting a zoom makes more sense in many cases.

Dan

Thanks for all your comments guys.

In particular - Alan, VERY good point - will look to borrow / hire 'the chosen' lens for a weekend and get experimenting... would be disasterous to be left with some poor images after setting everything badly!

G Dan Mitchell - I had thought about the 100-400 but wondered if it might be too slow? In particular when at 400?

Matthijs - I will go off now and do such a search...

Thanks again all - keep 'em coming!

Toby

I don't find it too slow in most situations, and for me there are far more situations in which it versatility is more important than having a somewhat larger max aperture - plus I can always raise ISO a bit if necessary and the IS feature helps compensate in some situations. Plus, you aren't going to get a larger maximum aperture at 400mm anyway.

I suspect that the aperture issue would be essentially a non-issue on your safari.

Dan

Further to Matthijs suggestion, I've now been and read alot more on this subject....

Dan - the 100-400 comes up alot with only real concerns being that it can be awkward (due to size!) to use in the back of a landy...?

Another idea repeatedly popping up (although some of the comments were quite old) is using the 70-200 IS f2.8 with a 1.4x extender.... could this be viable?

I suspect a vist to my local store is in order to handle the 100-400 v 70-200 with extender.

Toby

In most private game reserves you'll end up surprisingly close to the animals. Longer focal lengths (i.e. over 300mm) become useful for birds, or smaller animals such as jackals, but are not needed for the "big 5", although you can fill the whole frame with part of a face if you have them. Bear in mind that up close, 100 is too long for an elephant or even a leopard wandering within feet of your Landrover on a crop body - these incidents, and wider scenic views are why you need a second camera. So far as evening drives are concerned, much of the drive usually takes place in late afternoon before sundown. However, there are night encounters where the animals may be illuminated by a floodlight - but you'll still want to add more light. But at 400-800 ISO, with a flash extender on a 580EX (worth 2 stops), this is just about manageable at f/5.6.

Large aperture does help to give subject isolation and to blur some foreground distractions. However, you'll have to manage the weight of your lens (a monopod can be helpful: a tripod is more difficult as you have to stay in the Landrover - usually converted to provide 3 rows of bench seats for 3 behind the driver). I do recommend having some dustproof bag (e.g. large Ziploc) to put the camera/lens in while driving between sightings - it can get very dusty unless you have wet weather - and the dust can get everywhere.

Does you fiance know that you are planning to spend your honeymoon photographing wildlife and is she ok with that?

Just a thought?

Hi Geoff.... its a good point!

The safari is only one part of what will be a fantastic trip! I'm pretty sure i'll make it up to her!

Toby

Give her the binoculars... and I bet she enjoys the sundowners and the braais as well as the safari drives. It's a memorable experience and you'll likely meet an interesting international cross section of people too. It all makes getting up at 5 a.m. worthwhile.

I've never been to Africa, but I have formerly owned the 100-400 IS and now own the 70-200/2.8 IS with both teleconverters. If I wind up ever being able to afford to go on an African safari, I think I'd prefer the 100-400, but that may just be a naive opinion. Listen more to the people who have done it than to me.

However, I wanted to offer a caution about hiring/renting a lens for an African safari. I don't know about the UK, but most rental agencies I have heard of in the U.S. do not allow you to take the rented equipment out of the country.

Furthermore, when I rented a 300mm/2.8 IS to take to Alaska two summers ago, I could **not** get it listed temporarily on my photography equipment rider on my homeowner's insurance. I was paranoid about theft or damage for the entire three week trip.

Add to that the previous poster's (Alan?) comments about not taking unfamiliar equipment on a once in a lifetime trip, and I have the following advice...

Buy whichever lens you choose a couple of months ahead of time. Use it to get familiar with it. Get insurance on it. Take it to Africa and enjoy it. Bring it back home and sell it if you can not afford to keep it.

The cost of a three week rental for whatever lens you choose is probably about the same as the differential between buying a new lens and selling a three month old lens. If you were going to rent a lens for only one week week in country, though, the financial equation would be different.

Also, if you can buy used, you'll probably end up with an almost free three month rental.