nmenaker

I'm just bringing my safari days to a close. I too some wide angle lenses, the 17-40, 24-105, and this new 150-600. I have to say, the images I got from the 150-600 were WELL above my expectations. AT 600, it's just a set of binoculars, but at 150-580... it takes VERY sharp excellent photos. Indeed, we got MUCH closer to wildlife than I thought we would, about 6-8 to lions, leopard, rhino, etc, but often I'd be farther away than I would have liked and the lens got me as close as I wanted. It's plenty fast, both AF speed and aperture wise, and the images SOTC are VERY sharp. I'll post some when I'm not on a satellite connection.

rocketfodder

Thought I'd throw in my 2 cents, if anyone else is still considering.

I previously owned a Canon 7d, and was going to bring a 16-35mm and a 70-200mm. Being my first safari, however, I got a backup body (5d3) and a 100-400L.

I was very against the 100-400 at first, and nearly got a 500 prime. I'm glad I went with the 400. Generally, I kept the 70-200 on the 7d, which when cropped, was not bad at 320mm, and the 100-400 on the 5d. Sometimes I'd switch it up, but that was the default. The IQ on the 100-400 blew me away, and the variability was really helpful with non-stationary subjects. I'm sure the prime would be great too, but the extra bulk and weight were not something I wanted to deal with in a car. Needless to say, I fell immediately in love with the 5d3.

My pictures are up at http://gowingnut.com/gallery/Zambia if anyone wants some examples.

P.S. I think I learned elsewhere on this forum (maybe this thread?) that the local African flights can get strict with carry-on weight. I bought one of those nerdy photog vests, and it worked like a charm. They demanded to check everything I had, so I just loaded myself up and went about my way. Very convenient.

lowside67

Kind of funny to buy a 5D3 as a "backup" to the older and mostly inferior 7D! But either way, a full frame and a crop is definitely the way to go for Africa IMO. However, I'd probably have done the opposite and put the 100-400 on the crop for maximum reach and the 70-200 on the full frame. Glad you had a good time! I just bucked up for a big prime and I am looking forward to going back, I will put the 300 2.8 on the 7D2 for "480mm" and the 70-200 2.8 on the 6D for wider shots.

Cheers

Mike Jacoubowsky

So far, the most-painful part of preparing for this trip wasn't buying an $1100 lens. Nope. It was having to get a flu shot (no biggie), a Yellow Fever shot (no biggie) and a HepA shot (Ouch! That one was in there for a long time, pushing a lot of stuff).

So I'm set. Providing that all the warning in the information Kaiser (my health care provider) sent me doesn't scare me off. Not very nice things said about the health care system in Kenya, public transportation, crime in general...

Now I just have to get some practice time with the big lens. Wish I had a chance to get to a zoo. Seems like that might be a good place to practice.

lhgreengrd1

Actually, a zoo is too easy - you can get much closer to the animals than you can in real life. You live in the SF Bay Area I see - maybe try shooting some birds or seals in the Presidio or Golden Gate rec. area. If you can be comfortable enough with your gear to shoot birds in flight, animals on terra firma will be easy. Here in San Diego, we have the Safari Park.

Mike Jacoubowsky

Afraid I'm not so good with birds in flight; my panning skills suck. I figured that a zoo would give me help with focusing points and varied lighting.

Speaking of focus points, we have bracketed exposures, is there such a thing as bracketed focusing? OK, did a quick google, other people puzzled just like me, but maybe Magic Lantern does something like that. I know Magic Lantern offers "trap" focusing, but that requires that your camera & lens are perfectly in-sync, no back-focusing, right?

rocketfodder

Haha, good point. The 7d quickly became the backup However, I would say that we were so close to animals that I didn't need any additional reach (except a few instances of birds, etc., where I switched them).

AJCU

I took a canon 18-135 and a ~30-300 mm. Deffinitly wish I would have taken my 100-400 during the trip. And a macro. The reason why I didn't is because it was a 7200 km Overland trip and that is a lot of rattling in a truck. ANd a lot of dust. But, it would be well worth it.

Africa is amazing, especially when you camp every night.

mkm4

Hello everyone!

I would like some advice regarding lenses for safari.

I have a Canon 6D with a 24-70 Canon lens.
I would like to buy a better lens for safari ( this is our 3rd safari) and would like to spend approximately U$2,000.00. Which one do you recommend?

- Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
- Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
- Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (less expensive)

Any comments would be highly appreciated.

rivlinm

Where are you doing safari? We were often reasonably close and my 70-200 on FF (5d) was enough, but about 2/3 of the time I tossed on the 2x to get 400mm.

I think you will love either of the top two, but I have been hearing great things about the 100-400 II and wish I had it. Often available on the canon refurb site for 1600ish.

Then there is always the 200-400 (with 1.4x built in to avoid any dust) if you feel like renting, or selling a kidney.

mkm4

Hi rivlinm

We are going to South Africa in September, 4 days at Kruger Park and 4 days at Sabi Sands.

The 200-400 is not an option because renting is very expensive in my country (Brazil) and I am very fond of my kidneys

I am torn between the 70-200mm f/2.8L and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6.

Thank you very much for your advice.

rivlinm

100-400 I say with 85% confidence.

Since you say we, your travel partner(s) can shoot any wide establishing shot or you can change to your 24-70. I put the 2x on and off A LOT and dust really wasn't a big issue. Cleaned sensor after each drive. I don't recall if the 6D offers that...

I do think the 70-200 is much more practical outside of safari, but only you know your uses beyond this trip. Maybe you sell after your journey since both hold their value so well. Esp the 100-400 being rather new.

It was very very rare that I used the 70-100mm range, so I don't think you will miss much. Most of my safari photos were either 200 or 400mm, the max on each given configuration.

My Mara (kenya) TR has tons of photos and you can click on them and see the EXIF in flickr to get a better feel for my focal lengths.

Photos

Mike Jacoubowsky

I know it's not a pro lens, but I had results exceeding expectations with a Tamron 150-600. There were many times I found a reach of about 500mm (actually 800mm when you figure the 1.6 crop factor on my T6i) to be essential. It's not fast (5.6-6.3) but it focuses very, very well on the T3 I used back then. It's big, but not huge.

This was for Tanzania; perhaps at Kruger you might be closer to the action more often than not?

rivlinm

I don't think that is a bad suggestion. But very niche lens that won't serve much purpose after safari for most. I considered renting one but was unsure how lowlight would impact it. I discovered other than the first 30 min each morning and last 30 in the evening there was no need to be fully stopped down. 5.6 is plenty of sharp once the sun is up. The morning and evening sun really make the animals majestic at those hours with the sun positioned just right.

Mike Jacoubowsky

The stabilization of the lens is better than expected, so providing the animals aren't moving, lower light isn't so bad (but never ever misplace that beanbag!). But you're right; it's an "Africa lens" and not much else. Certainly not fast enough for sports. Not bad for birds.

You could buy it for $1k and probably sell it pretty easily down the road for $800 though.