Telephoto Lens for African Safari Questions

[MKraus]

I am going on photo safari to Africa.  I have Canon system.  Need a telephoto lens.  Suggested to get Canon 100-400 IS.  
1.What are suggestions for "best" lens to get?  Is Canon 100-400 IS a good choice?
2.I will probably not use this again and am trying to save cost of purchasing a new one.  Any suggestions about the pros and cons of renting one?
3.Suggestions for where I could rent a telephoto Canon lens in US?

Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

[feppe]

Instead of renting, another option is to buy it and sell on eBay after you're done.

[stever]

yes, i think the 100-400 is the best all-round wildlife lens and the best place to rent it - or any other lens - is lensrentals.com (Lloyd Chambers has a 5% discount code on his blog - diglloyd.com)

the historic issue with this lens is that many have been soft at f5.6 and it may be very desirable to shoot at f5.6 in the early mornings and late afternoons when animals are most active.  i think Canon's quality control on the lens has improved, but renting from lensrentals is probably the safest way to get a good copy without testing

you don't say what body you're using.  i've found that on a 5D2, a crop to 640 equivalent is as sharp as shooting 640 equivalent on a 20D and very nearly as sharp as a 40D or 7D -  with the benefit of much sharper images from 100 to 400, an effectively wider zoom range (100 to a 640 crop vs 160-640), and lower high ISO noise

you also don't say specifically where you're going, but there's plenty of dust just about everywhere and changing lenses in the field is to be avoided - for that reason and the security of a backup i use 2 bodies, one with a wide to medium zoom - surprising how you can suddenly come upon an elephant or giraffe (or lion) that's too close for a tele

[mahleu]

Africa is a big place. Are you shooting gorillas in dense jungle, lions in desert, birds on lakes?

[MKraus]

I am going to be in game park...lions, etc.

It sounds like a second body would be good, #1 as a spare and #2 to use for second lens as changing lenses in field carries increased risk of dust.  My camera body is original 5D which I could use with 24-105 lens.  I can get access to a second full framed body I think.  Perhaps I could have this ready with the 100-400 lens. Thus would have 2 full framed bodies, one with a 24-105 lens and the other with 100-400.  Does that sound like a reasonable combination?  

Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

[Ed Blagden]

The overwhelming majority of my wildlife shots are taken with a 300mm f4 IS with a 1.4x TC added, making a very nice 420mm 5.6IS.  Take off the TC if you are shooting birds in flight - the autofocus can't keep up.  If you can, take along a second body with a 70-200mm on it, and have in reserve a wide angle zoom (24-105mm f/4 is a good choice) for those magnificent vistas.  All this applies to full frame.

Safari Njema!

Ed

[kbolin]

To me a second body is an absolute necessity.  After one spends several thousand dollars in travel, accommodations, meals, park fees,etc;  it amazes me how many people say they can't afford a second body.  Buy a simple Rebel to have as a backup and as mentioned earlier to avoid having to change lenses to minimize entry of dust.

The 100-400mm is an ok lens but certainly not one of Canons finest.  It's often called the "Dust Sucker" as the push-pull action of the zoom mechanism can suck dust into the lens itself.  All other zooms use a twist/turn action on the barrel of the lens.  Why Canon hasn't replaced this lens is beyond me.  Despite how much I don't like this lens... I have two.    

I often wonder if I should sell all my Canon gear to buy Nikon for the soul reason of buying their 200-400mm F/4.  I keep crossing my fingers Canon will replace the 100-400 with a Nikon competitive product.  (Please Canon).    

You can expect to get softer than expected images with the 100-400 lens.

Kelly

[DaveCurtis]

Another option would be the 400mm f4 DO, especially if you think you would be shooting predominantly at 400mm. It is sharper than the 100-400 and has faster auto  focus and it's not a "dust sucker". Also it is reasonable light for a 400mm f4.

It obviously hasn't the flexibility of the zoom.

I use this lens as a wildlife lens and it's great!

[stever]

on a trip to Tanzania last year i rented a 400DO which i used in addition to the 100-400 (DO on 40D, 100-400 on 5D2) - and used the 100-400 about 80% of the time

i now have a 400 5.6 which is as sharp in the center as the DO and way sharper at the edges - if it had IS it would be perfect.  the 300 f4 is a very sharp lens, but with the 1.4x it is not as good as the 100-400 in the center and significantly worse at the edges, a thought this combination was fine in the bad old days of film, but my 5D2 does not like it at all even after a trip to Canon for the 1.4x and micro-adjust fiddling

as much as people complain about the 100-400, it has been enormously productive for an enormous number of photographers.  it's not the lens for enormous prints, but 13x19 from crop-frame and 17x25 from full frame are not a problem

[Steve Weldon]

I am going on photo safari to Africa.  I have Canon system.  Need a telephoto lens.  Suggested to get Canon 100-400 IS.  
1.What are suggestions for "best" lens to get?  Is Canon 100-400 IS a good choice?
2.I will probably not use this again and am trying to save cost of purchasing a new one.  Any suggestions about the pros and cons of renting one?
3.Suggestions for where I could rent a telephoto Canon lens in US?

Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

I haven't been to Africa in ages.. and then it wasn't to take photos.. but a guy who writes for my site is an exotic animal vet and has led many workshops in the different areas.  He wrote a two part series here and here.   Another guy was a first timer to Tanzania wrote a few articles here and here.  And a friend has been there a bunch of times and wrote this and this about his recent trip to Kruger.. Maybe you'll find them useful.  Don't let the small number of hits scare you off, the site has only been up a short while and these articles were transfered from another sister site into our new site..  Maybe you'll find their experiences useful.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I am going on photo safari to Africa.  I have Canon system.  Need a telephoto lens.  Suggested to get Canon 100-400 IS.  
1.What are suggestions for "best" lens to get?  Is Canon 100-400 IS a good choice?
2.I will probably not use this again and am trying to save cost of purchasing a new one.  Any suggestions about the pros and cons of renting one?
3.Suggestions for where I could rent a telephoto Canon lens in US?

Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

I'll add a voice for the 100-400. I went on a short safari in South Africa in April. I found the 100-400 an extremely useful lens with a near-ideal range. I occasionally wanted something longer but I never found that the 100 wasn't wide enough.

Jeremy

[Dick Roadnight]

I am going on photo safari to Africa.  I have Canon system.  Need a telephoto lens.  Suggested to get Canon 100-400 IS.
Matthew Kraus

I was in Africa in 1975 (pre-digital) and I used a Novoflex 640 follow-focus lens and a Rollie 35. I would not want to go with nothing longer than 400.

[JohnKoerner]

I am going on photo safari to Africa.  I have Canon system.  Need a telephoto lens.  Suggested to get Canon 100-400 IS.  
1.What are suggestions for "best" lens to get?  Is Canon 100-400 IS a good choice?
2.I will probably not use this again and am trying to save cost of purchasing a new one.  Any suggestions about the pros and cons of renting one?
3.Suggestions for where I could rent a telephoto Canon lens in US?
Thanks,
Matthew Kraus

The pro to renting one would be, if (as you say) you're not going to use it again after your trip, you won't have to.
The con to renting one would be, if (after using it) you decide you do want to use it more often after your trip, you'd have to give it back ... and then you'd have to go buy one.

The solution to this dilemma therefore lies in how "sure" you in the supposition that you will "probably not" use that lens again.




______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

I often wonder if I should sell all my Canon gear to buy Nikon for the soul reason of buying their 200-400mm F/4.  I keep crossing my fingers Canon will replace the 100-400 with a Nikon competitive product.  (Please Canon).    
Kelly

Rather than selling all of your Canon gear for the sole reason of buying the Nikon 200-400, an easier route would be to read the thread Bernard just put up a few days ago, and purchase the new Novaflex adapter, which would allow you to place said Nikon lens at the end of your existing Canon body  

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=45106


Good luck,

Jack


.

[Ken Bennett]

Rather than selling all of your Canon gear for the sole reason of buying the Nikon 200-400, an easier route would be to read the thread Bernard just put up a few days ago, and purchase the new Novaflex adapter, which would allow you to place said Nikon lens at the end of your existing Canon body

Another option is to buy a D-700 and the 200-400/4 lens and just use them together along with your Canon gear. In the old days, photographers often owned and used different brands of cameras and lenses -- certainly with different formats, but also to be able to use a particular lens.

[stever]

i'm a little confused how this thread got morphed to a Nikon 200-400, a quite heavy and expensive lens, and even more confused about a recommencation to adapt this lens to Canon for shooting wildlife -- Manual Focus!

if you're not a professional photographer and going to Africa for the first time it's important to enjoy the experience and come back with high quality (not highest quality) images related to that experience.  you're not going to have a vehicle and assistant to yourself (although it didn't take me long to realize that reserving a private vehicle for our party was a minor additional cost) and you're not going to have the time or option to track individual animals or spend hours (or days) at a single location

that said, there can be great opportunities and the 100-400 (with knowledge of it's limitations and some practice) is the best tool for the non-professional

[JohnKoerner]

i'm a little confused how this thread got morphed to a Nikon 200-400, a quite heavy and expensive lens, and even more confused about a recommencation to adapt this lens to Canon for shooting wildlife -- Manual Focus!

Not sure what there is to be confused about. Still, on behalf of the slow, I will do my best to help with a little recap:

The original subject was "telephoto lenses for African safari." (I hope you're still with me.)

Many people suggested the Canon 100-400 as a great lens to satisfy in this capacity. However, some griped about that same lens. One poster griped quite a bit about the Canon offering and then mentioned that the Nikon 200-400 was a vastly superior lens to the aforementioned, so much so that said poster had even considered switching brands to be able to utilize it. I merely suggested to that poster that he consider the new Novoflex adapter instead. (I do not understand your additional confusion over this, either, as most people would be able to see the sense in spending only ~$300 to use this lens, rather than make an entire gear change to do so.)

Anyway, I hope I didn't go too fast. I must admit I am a little confused about what there was to be confused about in this slight digression of topic? It was, after all, still within the context of "best lenses for African safari"?

My earnest suggestion is, if the logic of your universe seems to crumble over a minor digression of thread topic, then I would suggest you drink some warm milk in the evening to help you relax.

Jack


.

[stever]

John, so you're recommending manual focus?  have i got that part right?

[JohnKoerner]

John, so you're recommending manual focus?  have i got that part right?

Unfortunately Steve, no, you didn't get that right either. What I recommended was the Novoflex adapter as a preferential way to make use of a single good lens on a Canon body, rather than throwing away the entire camera system (and the expense of acquiring another) to accomplish the same thing. So you seem to be as confused about what I actually said as you were about its relevance to this discussion.

Now, if (as an incidental aside) there would have to be dreadful reality of manual usage of this particular (and otherwise great) Nikon lens, with use of said adapter on the Canon, then that is still a worthy part of this discussion. And, since I addressed Kbolin and not you, this would be a decision for him to make. I merely was trying to be helpful as I have had a similar desire for this lens too.

Yet I still don't see how any of this would have caused such "confusion" in you regarding the relevance of this side-discussion to the original thread topic. After all, the Nikon 200-400 is still a great telephoto lens (MF or AF), and it would still in all probability take better photographs on a safari than the old Canon 100-400. As such, it still falls in line with the original theme.

Therefore, in closing Steve, and speaking of useless digressions, if we're going to reduce each other's posts down to implied (but not directly stated) realities ... are you suggesting that a person can't take excellent photos with a MF lens? Or are you suggesting that a 200-400 lens is not a viable choice in this discussion of possible telephoto lens options on a safari? Do you mean to suggest that to affix it at the end of a Canon isn't a relevant option? Or are you suggesting that any discussion of any lens, other than the 100-400, is somehow sacrilege here?

Because, so far, the only part of your original post I agree with was your opening line which was, "I am a bit confused ..."

Have a good one, and try the warm milk  

Jack



.

[stever]

i'm suggesting that a non-professional, without significant experience of manual focus going on a first safari will come back with very few good images and suffer considerable frustration

are you making recommendations from personal experience?

[JohnKoerner]

i'm suggesting that a non-professional, without significant experience of manual focus going on a first safari will come back with very few good images and suffer considerable frustration

Well, you said many things other than that, but regarding this position in particular, my answer is "possibly."

While I do understand your point, in the end it really depends on the subject. For my own photography in the field, many times the quick AF means the difference between getting the shot and not getting it, and so I do see the same thinking you're applying here on the subject of a safari. That said, much of the time I still prefer to use MF over AF, once I have a cooperative subject, so if I didn't have AF I would still come back with many very nice shots. In fact, I would say the greatest sense of "frustration" I have usually involves AF not picking-up what I want it to, when I use it, rather than my inability to get a clear shot when I don't and opt for MF instead. The truth is, sometimes an errant AF can blow a shot every bit as much as poor MF.

Still, if this was your main point, that an AF feature can help nail fleeting-opportunity shots, I can understand this completely. I think we could have dispensed with all the "confusion" talk and just discussed the advantages of AF vs MF in a safari, as every bit of this is relevant to the topic and should never have caused any confusion at all.

are you making recommendations from personal experience?

Do I have personal experiences in Africa? No. With either lens? No.

But I don't need experience with any of this to have recommended a thread showing a fellow boardmember an adapter that would enable him to affix a very nice Nikon lens at the end of his Canon. All of the "personal experience" in shooting in Africa won't change the fact that this would be a more sensible alternative than selling a whole set of gear and buying a new one, over just one lens.

In closing, I understand your point, but I don't necessarily agree with it. With an excellent lens, and with good light, I don't think MF is a very tough thing for even an amateur to do. My own view is if I were going to spend thousands of dollars going to Africa, for a once-in-a-lifetime experience, I would bring the best lenses and camera/s that I could possibly afford. And even on my lenses that did have AF, I would probably be trying to get most of my "keeper" shots with MF.

Jack




.