awardticket

For an August Masai Mara safari I am looking into renting a lens for my rebel t3i. I am debating between a few different options. I prefer a low f stop so that I can use it well in low light situations such as dawn, dusk etc. and use a quicker shutter speed. Shooting from a vehicle I will have a beanbag however I don't have the most steady hands so I want IS.

Below are a few options I saw on Adorama. Prices are all before shipping, tax and insurance. If anyone has any opinions I would really appreciate it as I am new to the whole DSLR world!

CANON EF 300MM/2.8L IS USM VERSION II 300 dollars. I would use my P and S Nikon Coolpix p7000 for the pics right near the vehicle and I have the kit lens 18-55mm if I need.

CANON 70-200/2.8 L IS II With the crop sensor on the camera perhaps this is enough? It's more within my budget at 140 dollars.

CANON 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS which is 100 dollars however is the aperture good enough? My camera isn't the best one at high ISO.

CANON EF 200-400 F/4L IS USM 1.4X USA which I had to mention although it's quite a fortune at 575. I don't get what is so good about it however I am sure that's due to my lack of knowledge!

SIGMA 120-300 f/2.8 at 175. Only downside I see it that I read it doesn't focus well in low light and it's not a Canon lens. I also would want to you Servo and not sure how a different brand lens would affect that.

Anything else I should consider? Thoughts? Thank you!

Thalassa

The 300 mm f/2.8 lens has superb image quality and good low-light performance but it is quite limited because of the fixed focal length. It is a specialist lens and I am not sure it would the best choice for you.

The 70-200 mm f/2.8 is impressively sharp and fast and it is a truly great lens, but it is a bit short for safari use.

The 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is a utility player that covers a lot of territory. It is also a bit lighter than the 70-200 mm lens. It is 2 stops slower than the 70-200 but provides twice the reach. This would be one of my finalists.

The 200-400 f/4 with the built-in 1.4X teleconverter is an amazing piece of glass. It retails for something like $11,000. As it has a TC, it covers a range from 200 mm to 560 mm (albeit stopping down to f/5.6 with the converter on). The big issue (besides the cost) for me would be the weight: this lens is a monster at nearly 8 pounds. If you are not a seasoned photographer, the sheer size and weight of the lens might simply overwhelm you. Furthermore, despite the IS this lens would be practically impossible to shoot handheld.

The Sigma offers a very useful focal length range, it is fast, and it has been positively reviewed. It also seems to have a very impressive IS system. I have not seen reports of slow AF but I certainly have not read all reviews. This would be my second finalist.

As I am a Nikon guy, I have very limited direct experience with these lenses. However, I own and have used on several safaris Nikon's 80-400 mm f/4.5-5.6 VR which is quite comparable with the Canon 100-400 mm. I have been very happy with the lens.

So, for me it would be between the 100-400 mm and the Sigma. The Canon has longer reach and it is a fair bit lighter (3 lbs vs. 6 lbs). The Sigma is (I think) slightly sharper and faster. Personally, I would go for the Canon, but your needs and preferences might be different from mine.

Cheers,
T.

awardticket

Thanks for the incredible tips! I am new to the whole DSLR thing and just learned recently what all the terms on the various lens mean and all so I appreciate as a DSLR newbie the help.

Ok so the prime 300 is out.

Regarding the 70 to 200 how would that rate vs the 100 to 400 using a 1.4 teleconverter? That way I only lose one stop plus when the light is really bad like early on and later afternoon I would just take out the teleconverter (in a clear plastic bag to avoid dust). This way I have the option of 70 to 200 at f 2.8 and 70 to 280 with the converter plus my camera is a crop sensor of 1.6 additional to all that (at 448 total with the converter).

On the 100 to 400 would the push pull mechanism pull in dust? I am also concerned about the slow aperture as I don't have much experience holding a big camera steady and all.

Thank you so much!

Thalassa

With the 70-200 and a TC, you'll have an extended range of roughly 100-280 mm or quite similar to the Sigma with a loss of one stop (you'll effectively have a constant f/4 lens). Since putting the TC on and off in dusty field conditions is not usually a good idea, having a TC with you is a bit akin to having two different (but quite overlapping) lenses with you without the full weight.

As for the lens performance, below are the scores from DxOMark for the two Canon's and the Sigma:

http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/...OS-HSM-S-Canon
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/...F45-56L-IS-USM
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/...f28L-IS-II-USM

The Canon 70-200 and the Sigma both get excellent scores. I would guess the Sigma would come out on top if you put the TC on the Canon.

While the Canon 100-400 scores lower, the practical difference in my experience is not quite as big as the score difference might lead you to believe. But it certainly is not the sharpest of the bunch.

I personally prefer pump zooms (they are what I used way back when). But I have no real experience whether they are more prone to problems from dust than ring zooms.

I think weight and size would be valid reasons not to take the Sigma, but not the brand. This is no cheapo lens and Sigma has proven with their new lineup that they can play with the big boys.

Cheers,
T.

lowside67

The lens not mentioned that should be a serious contender is the Canon 70-300L 4-5.6. It is MUCH smaller and lighter than the 100-400L with a newer and more advanced autofocus system.

I'd skip renting these lenses though. If you keep your eyes open on Craigslist, you can always find Canon L Lenses and their value is practically fixed once used - I expect you can easily resell it after your trip for $100 less, and if you get a good deal and are patient when selling, you can probably get all your money back or even make a little bit.

Mark

Thalassa

I second the buy/resell idea, especially since the rental prices do not include shipping, insurance, and presumably tax.

As for the 70-300 lens, it is about 330 grams (12 ounces) lighter than the 100-400. It scores better than the 100-400 on DxOMark. It is a ring zoom so if you are concerned about the pump zoom, this is also a plus.

In other words, definitely worth considering.

Cheers,
T.

awardticket

The idea to buy and resell is really intriguing to me, as I will be going to Ehtiopia for a week plus 2 days in Amboselli before the lens would arrive (with the rest of my group that's coming later as I wouldn't want to pay for a rental for so long).

Would buying the Simga work as well? I really want the low f 2.8 for good bokeh and low light so that's what I am leaning towards now if you guys think that makes sense.

Thalassa

Canon L series lenses are probably easier to sell as their excellence is widely known. However, people in the know also appreciate the top-of-the-line Sigma lenses, but it might take longer and be somewhat more uncertain.

Cheers,
T.

awardticket

That's good to know. Would the Canon 70-300L 4-5.6 give me a nice blurred background and good bokeh? And how does it compare to the 70 200 L with a constant f2.8 using a 1.4extender which would give me an extra f stop at 300mm?

Also using my crop sensor 1.6 rebel would the 120 wide range of the Sigma be to narrow to get decent shots of the migration in the Masai Mara if I am lucky enough to catch it, or even get a nice group shot of animals at a water hole etc.?

Thanks T.!

lowside67

This is a handheld shot in natural light with my 70-300L at 300mm F/5.6:
https://scontent-b-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/...81304158_o.jpg

The 70-200 2.8 IS2 is much heavier, bigger, and more expensive than the 70-300. A more fair comparison would be the 70-200 F4 IS which would be 70 @ F4 at the wide end (no extender) and 280 F5.6 at the long end with the 1.4x on there. The 70-300L is a one stop solution and a very nice lens.

120 on a crop body is going to be a complete pain in my opinion, but I shoot full frame and enjoy my 17-40 very much...

Mark

valleyrun38

Can someone recommend a bridge camera(which I understand to be a cross between a Point and shoot and a DSLR) to take on an African safari. We have only used point and shoot cameras in the past and want to purchase a camera that isn't too complicated.
Hope no one laughs.

lowside67

Nobody will laugh but there is no point in buying one camera over another for simplicity.

ALL modern digital cameras from a $100 point and shoot to a $4000 Canon 5D Mark III with a $10,000 Canon 200-400mm lens attached to it have a fully automatic mode which requires nothing but removing the lens cap and pressing the shutter button.

You should make your decision based on your other priorities - overall image quality, low light performance, price point, physical size & weight, etc.

Mark

JVPhoto

I'm going at the end of the year where I'll be in Capetown shooting people/models/portraits and then a week in Kruger.
Packing list:

Canon 5D w/ Canon 70-200 2.8 & Zeiss 85 1.4
Leica X2 point & shoot
Hasselblad 500c w/ 60, 80 & 150mm lenses

I was going to bring my 24-70 for the Canon but since I have the Leica that is what I pop around with when I want to shoot things that really aren't my professional work (i.e. things for trip reports, Facebook, landscapes, city life).

awardticket

Great pic of the bike, wow!!! Unreal.

Do you think the 70 - 300mm at 300 mm f5.6 would be able to get a total blur on the background or for that I need to consider the sigma or canon 100 - 400?

I totally see what you are saying regarding the 120mm wide angle on a crop sensor. I am seriously torn on what to do.

lowside67

Depends heavily on the distance from you to the subject and the distance from the subject to the background. I assure you, you can absolutely annihilate the background if you get close enough. That photo the background is relatively close to the bike so it's not as blurred as if it was a bit further away.