100-400 or 200-500

Ouch....anyway, all the best with your trip.. the 70-300 is comfortably long with a 1.6X crop though, as I said - 480mm, and you can double that to 960 with the 2X. If that won't get the job done, very little else will!

Having tested the lens it seem VERY sharp at f7.1 onwards. Seemed to be less sharp in portrait orientation, but a dark bedroom at night is not a good place to test. Will have a loan (new) Tokina 80-400 arriving today, thanks to CameraKing for thier concern (and not testing my lens properly in the first place). Will test it out at lunch if I have time, might take both and use them in Kruger, only taking the prefered lens to Botswana to save weight.

Can't wait for tomorrow to come

Less sharp in portrait? Sure you don't have one with the dreaded portrait bug?

Not to rub it in but I just test drove my 100-400 at the duck pond today. That lens is PHENOMENAL. It is also phenomenally big, and this is coming from someone who has walked the Bigma route. When racked all the way out with the hood, it's nearly 2ft long!

Hope yours works out for you. Good idea on bringing both lenses.

Lightstream wrote in post #2242601
Less sharp in portrait? Sure you don't have one with the dreaded portrait bug?

Not to rub it in but I just test drove my 100-400 at the duck pond today. That lens is PHENOMENAL. It is also phenomenally big, and this is coming from someone who has walked the Bigma route. When racked all the way out with the hood, it's nearly 2ft long!

Hope yours works out for you. Good idea on bringing both lenses.

Heh, that's the EXACT reason I fear all super telephoto zooms, the damn size of them. The 300mm F/4 IS looks pretty small, but I haven't seen a comparison with measuring tape and the 100-400L side by side. It's a good thing I guess the 100-400L is small when at 100mm.

Most lenses get pretty sharp stopped down, but for a telephoto that you are planning to shoot wild life with I think 7.1 is a little unreal because your probably going to be shooting at high shutter speeds and not have the light to stop your lens down that much .

Fully stowed, the 300 is just a little bit longer than the 400. Rack 'em out all the way, but don't put the hood on the 1-4, and they are nearly equal length (300+hood = 1-4 no hood). Add hood, and that's another few inches on the front.

f/7.1 is not that unrealistic in decent lighting during the day. It was easy to get 1/500 with f/7.1 ISO 400 today with the ducks, not that I need to actually, but I was testing. That'll cover camera shake as well on the 70-300 IS (480mm on crop camera). For larger game like the lions and elephants, they stand still too. For birds I'd open it all the way up to 5.6.

BTW.. the duck was in the shade. When going after the gulls my shutter speeds rocketed up to 1/1600-1/3200 at f/7.1!

Lightstream wrote in post #2242783
Fully stowed, the 300 is just a little bit longer than the 400. Rack 'em out all the way, but don't put the hood on the 1-4, and they are nearly equal length (300+hood = 1-4 no hood). Add hood, and that's another few inches on the front.

f/7.1 is not that unrealistic in decent lighting during the day. It was easy to get 1/500 with f/7.1 ISO 400 today with the ducks, not that I need to actually, but I was testing. That'll cover camera shake as well on the 70-300 IS (480mm on crop camera). For larger game like the lions and elephants, they stand still too. For birds I'd open it all the way up to 5.6.

BTW.. the duck was in the shade. When going after the gulls my shutter speeds rocketed up to 1/1600-1/3200 at f/7.1!

What do you mean fully stowed? Is the focusing on the 300 NOT internal? I thought both lenses were like 8-10 inches in length (I guess that is not zoomed out and focused though or something?)

Not to rub it in but I just test drove my 100-400 at the duck pond today. That lens is PHENOMENAL. It is also phenomenally big, and this is coming from someone who has walked the Bigma route. When racked all the way out with the hood, it's nearly 2ft long!
I am not jealous at all....

my two cents, stick with the 100-400 its summer in South Africa now, so expect alot of light - the 100-400 stopped at f8 takes great pictures.

South Africa is my second home, (Durban, KZN) the 100-400 will suit your needs, have a look at the safari link in my sig, I used the 100-400 through-out.

Thanks arkturas but it is out of my league. Had a play with the Tokina, build and feel seems better than its predecessor, can't see the pics as I have no CF reader here at work. But judging from the screen at about 1/400 sec with a monopod I will be fine, thats a dark day in England mindst you, at iso 800.

arkturas wrote in post #2243044
my two cents, stick with the 100-400 its summer in South Africa now, so expect alot of light - the 100-400 stopped at f8 takes great pictures.

South Africa is my second home, (Durban, KZN) the 100-400 will suit your needs, have a look at the safari link in my sig, I used the 100-400 through-out.

Have you tried out the 300mm F/4? I am curious if the zoom is that much more useful if your shooting wild life.

Jagwire, I havent actually - it was a hard choice, and would still contemplate selling the 100-400 for a 300 F4 prime, I really need to demo/or hire it for a weekend. Seeing as its winter now in the UK there's not much point I will be going to Zimbabwe (Rhodesia) next year, so maybe (Wife permitting I will have a 300 F4 with me)

Great pictures arkturas!!

Cheers, enjoy South Africa mate, Are you declaring your camera equipment?

I have reciepts for everything, so should I need to?

I used a 400 f/5.6 prime lens when I was in Zimbabwe in Motopos and Hwange National Parks. I missed some great shots while trying to change to a wider lens when subjects were too close to the vehicle. That is why I decided to start using a zoom. The 100-400 IS has all the image quality most people need. (In previous posts I have explained why I chose the Sigma 50-500 instead.)

I have not travelled all over Africa. My wife was brought up in Rhodesia and my in-laws are now living in South Africa. My daughter is currently working in Uganda. As I result I have made photography trips to Zimbabwe, South Africa and Uganda. Conditions in other parts of Africa such as Namibia, Botswana, Kenya or Tanzania (considerations for future trips) will be different so I do not know what is best for each of these.