Choosing tele lenses for southern Africa

[jkmackenzie]

Hello,

 

This is a very subjective question, and in the end the real decision is up to

me...I know...

 

I'm heading for a 3 week trip to southern Africa in a week. It will include a

safari and I am battling between two lenses...I'm stuck, so I figure some

feedback would be useful.

 

The setup: Canon 30D with the 17-40, SD1000, extra batteries and about 10gigs

total storage.

The dilemma: Do I take along my 85mm 1.8, or my 28-135mm IS lens?

 

The purpose of my travel is to visit a friend, but naturally some touring is

part of the plan. I'm traveling very lightly, so i'm battling between the pros

and cons of each one:

 

85mm - compact, lighter, sharper, faster, better colour, but shorter focal

length and no zoom.

28-135mm - more versatile, more reach, IS, but softer, bigger and heavier.

 

This would normally be an easier decision, but the chance to do a safari makes

me think that extra focal reach trumps the benefits of the 85mm. Any opinions?

 

Thanks!

[gungajim]

I would definitely opt for focal length and to my way of thinking 135 mm would be the bare minimum. A 75-300 or 100-400 would be ideal if it you afford it.

[mark_hanley1]

I spent a week in Kenya on safari. My 500/4 and 300/4 were the most used lenses. Used the

wide angle a couple of times and the 80-200 the rest of the time. Frankly, the longer the

better. Take the longest lens you have, can afford to buy or rent.

 

Mark

 

http://travel.nostalgia-studios.com/Kenya/

[stevepamp]

If you're planning on taking wildlife photos on safari, take as much reach as you can get. While better than nothing, 135mm will likely be totally inadequate for most of the photo ops you will get on safari. I used the 100-400mm on a 20D for a safari in Tanzania. It was barely enough.

[alex_lofquist]

On my first trip to Kenya (two months), the longest lens that I had was 200mm. (Film camera.) When I returned five years later (for a month and a half), I brought a 60 macro, a 70-210, and a 400. The 70-210 got the most use however the most interesting photos were usually done with the 400. If I were to return today, I'd certainly consider bringing a longer macro and my 500 with a 1.4X TC. Since tripods are inconvenient on safari vehicles, I'd recommend VR/IS lenses if you can get them.

[jkmackenzie]

Thanks very much so far. Obviously the strongest recommendations are for more reach, so i'll be taking the 28-135. While it isn't really all that long (215mm equivalent on my 30D) it's the best I've got at the moment and will have to do since I just can't afford another lens. The 70-200 f4 IS is my next goal, but sadly this trip used up all of those savings...one or the other I guess. I'm sure that I will fall in love with the place and return at some point, like Alex above, but with more appropriate gear.

 

Thanks again for your points of view,

Jason

[ken munn]

Can you afford to add a 2x converter from Kenko? You'll get more range for not many bucks,

and although the results won't be tack sharp, you'll get shots you otherwise wouldn't have.

[matthew_newton]

You could also attempt to track down an old manual focus 200mm lens and get an adapter to make it work on your cannon. Depending on who made the lens you could get a fairly good quality 200mm f/4 lens for $50-100 and another $20-30 for a adapter. Most manual focus 200mm f/4 lenses are pretty compact and weigh little. Something like a zuiko 200mm f/4 would be good (excellent optical quality).

[daniel rufer]

I would also suggest to check the possibility of a Kenko teleconverter. I have no idea concerning the usability of IS with them or how your 28-135mm will look through a 2x TC, as I come from the Nikon side.<br>

What I can say is that my 80-200/2.8 produces very nice results (only very slight image degradation or loss of sharpness) even with the 2x TC from Kenko (the Pro 300), my 70-300/4-5.6 is pretty much a soft watercolor picture at 300mm with the 2x.<p>

SO: it very much depends on the initial quality of the lens I guess.<br>

Obviously the degradation is less with the 1.4x (would give you up to 300mm).<p>

Concerning manual focus: while it can be argued that wildlife photography is easiest with a fast AF (USM in Canons case), I find that as soon as you are dealing with 300mm or more, handholding will not often be an option (especially with anything else but immensely expensive pro glass or massively cranking up the ISO), so your "shooting speed" will be limited by that anyway... and anything slow or stationary enough for normal beanbag or tripod work (without something like a wimberley sidekick etc) will also allow manual focussing. AF (unless with USM) will not be too fast with a TC anyway and if your lens gets above f/5.6 - f/8 (depending on the AF-module of you camera) with the loss in f/stop, you will have trouble with the AF anyway.<p>

If you want to check the TC's, make sure that you check the one you want to buy with YOUR lens and YOUR body to make sure everything works.<p>

Also, when down there, check if you come by a rearing station where they grow animals to be released into the wild. We visited a cheetah rearing station (can't remember right now where it was exactly), where it was possible to take pictures of cheetahs (even baby cheetahs) from rather close (though behind a fence, but this is not visible if shot with a tele lens and not too large DOF).<p>

Have fun on the trip!<p>

Daniel

[peterq]

From experience I know, if you want to shoot the wild :

- as much focal length as you can get

- don't hesitate to add a 1.4 converter

- get IS, a tripod is useless

- have patience and be fast

- every shot is better than the one you missed, so take them all

- have cleaning aids, extra batteries & chargers with you

- whatever the gear, enjoy being there and have much much fun !