Safari Lenses

[garyhun]

I have a 20D with a 24-70L. I'm going to get the 10-22 soon so that takes care of everything to 70mm.

I am off on Safari in next few months so need to get a good telephoto/long zoom lens. Was thinking of the 100-400L which would also round off my lens collection quite nicely for the time being.

So...the Q...any experiences with the 100-400. Is this a good lens for Safari use etc.

All comments gratefully received.

Gary

[condyk]

It's the recommended lens if you want a safari zoom and so a great choice. You might want to look at a 1.4x TCon as well as the extra length will be really valuable. Canon TCon is ideal, or Kenko Pro 300 if you want to save some cash.

[garyhun]

Thanks condyk!

[robertwgross]

I would say that the 100-400 lens is an excellent choice, depending on exactly where you will be and what you will be doing. On most safaris these days, you travel around by Land Rover and poke your head out of the top hatch. So, a tripod might get in the way, but a beanbag might be good to cradle the lens. On some stops, the wildlife might be almost miles away, so the maximum focal length is needed. On other stops, the animals might almost walk up to the vehicle, so going short is needed.

When I was in Africa, each morning we would take a "game drive" and look for the animals. Then for the afternoon, we would take a walk and let the animals look for us!

---Bob Gross---

[JonathanHaber]

I recently returned from a Safari to the Londolozi Game Preserve in Sabi Sands. Used a 75-300 IS USM primarily, but switched to the 28-85 IS USM a few times for landscape shots and when the animals walked right next to the Land Rover. Everyone is blown away by my pictures. I think the extra expense of a 400 might have been overkill, and not necesarily needed. Especially if you're in a Land Rover with other people, there might not be a lot of time to get very still with a long lens. Here's my POTD (http://www.dailydigitalphoto.com/cgi-bin/potd/potd.pl?day=14&month=6&year=2005) on Imaging-Resource.com.

[condyk]

I toured all through Southern Africa over a 18 month period and visited loads of national and private game parks, so I have lots of experience of different conditions and what could be most useful. You can get good shots with a shorter lens, absolutely; I even got some with my old Kodak 2mp and 3x optical zoom ... and some are still on my wall. But seriously, you will also miss way more opportunties of getting the more interesting or shy animals. A Zebra or Springbok shot is easy, but try a Nyala, Bat Eared Fox, or Leopard without at least 400mm. Most times you won't even see them, but if you do then your heart will leap and you WILL want the length :D

Really, 400mm is too short some of the time, but practical finances dictate for most of us that we ain't gonna buy the 600mm f2.8 we may ideally want. So, we copmpromise:the 100-400mm has IS and THAT is very useful on safari. Hand shake will ruin many shots and we want to minimise the shots we lose, because some we can't ever get back. The 50-500mm Sigma is equally good optically in my view, but loses on the IS front. The Sigma 80-400mm has OS (same as IS) and is cheaper, but maybe not quite so dynamic as the other two (owners may disagree). All 3 can be good SH buys if budgets stretched.

Private game parks MAY be different as they are much smaller than the national parks and the animals get a tad more habituated to vehicles and people, meaning they are easier to snap. Even so, a full frame of Leopard can still be much more satisfying and flexible in post processing than a smaller, less detailed and flat one stuck in a frame that is 70% African Bush.

Andy Biggs uses the 100-400mm IS L extensively http://www.andybiggs.com and it's woerth checking his site for inspiration.

[judyg]

I took all of these shots with the Canon EF 75-300 IS USM. Of course, I took them with, gasp, a *film* camera, the EOS Elan 7NE, but the lens was terrific. The safari was one of the greatest adventures of my life, enjoy!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/jgoodstein/Africa/lion1.jpg

[judyg]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/jgoodstein/Africa/elephantbest.jpg

[judyg]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/jgoodstein/Africa/rhinowithbird.jpg

[judyg]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v477/jgoodstein/Africa/leopardintree.jpg

[BrandonSi]

Thanks for sharing Judy! FYI, you can post more than one image link in a post, just a tip! :)

[ScottE]

I have been on two safari type trips to southern Africa.

The first trip I took a 400/5.6 lens. I found that was not flexible enough and missed some good shots while changing lenses. You can be photographing a cheeta with your longest lens when it will get up and walk right in front of you. I decided I would get a telephoto zoom lens for the next trip.

On my second trip I took a Sigma 50-500. I had a vehicle where I could mount a window pod in the window and that worked very well. I was happy with that lens, except for a few times when we went in an open vehicle and it would have been nice to have image stabilization. For those few times I would have preferred a Canon 100-400 IS.

Remember that you will not just be shooting big game at ideal distances. There are many colourful birds and you cannot have too long a lens for them. Some of the small antelope are shy and will not be close to your vehicle. Take as long a lens as is possible.

I would find out what kind of vehicle you are going to be shooting from and whether it will be plausible to use a window pod or sandbag for most of your shots. If so I would go for the longer and shorter focal lengths of the Sigma 50-500. If you are going to be shooting from a vehicle where many of your shots will be hand-held I would choose an image stabilized lens such as the Canon 100-400.

Scott

[who me?]

I went on a safari several years ago in South Africa and at that time I was using a Canon AE-1 and 100-300F4 lens and a monopod. We were in a private reserve and riding in open Land Rovers. The 100-300 was on my camera 99% of the time. I found that a zoom is invaluable as your distance to subjects varied quite a bit. There were times i wish I had a longer lens but I was really happy with what I got. Safaris are truly amazing.
One thing that I don't see people suggesting is a monopod. I found that this was perfect for what we did. I could extend the monopod just enough to be resting on the floor of the vehicle and steady the camera very well. Since the Range Rover didn't have a roof or windows, this was the ideal acessory. If you don't think you will have enough room for a tripod you might consider the monopod. And if that is the case, teh IS will be really heplful too for steadying any shake induced by the vehicle.
Have a great time.

[blackviolet]

in addition to the ones i posted in the animals & nature section, here is one - also on safari. similarly to who me?'s experience, we had game drives in an open top land rover defender - no windows and no doors. i had my monopod with me, but often, it just wasn't easy enough to have it on the floor of the vehicle and point at the action. sometimes i rested the lens on my hand, which was on the seat (i didn't have a bean bag :( ). other times, i rested the lens on my wife :o. mostly i just held it. the game drives (and walks) were very early in the morning, or early in the evening, so a very fast lens would have been better. i could not carry my 80-200 2.8L due to weight limitations on the charter flights. the next time i go, i'll definitely take a much faster lens.

this is one shot where i was able to use my monopod. bigma - 417mm, 1/250 @ f7.1 (iso 800). it's a juvenille male lion, before he went to sleep. by the way, lions are in fact very spotted :cool:

http://www.pbase.com/image/45407925.jpg