The Ubiquitous Safari Question...

[rm_jones]

<p>I know this is a commonly asked question, but I'm hoping some people can give me some advice nonetheless!</p>

<p>Basically I'm going on safari in May, and need a telephoto (heard that before)... Basically I have a Nikon D700, which is troubling because I lose a lot of reach, and so this question is posing some problems:<br>

1) the Nikon 70-200 is supposed to be due for an update, it isn't great on an FX sensor (apparently) and there are mixed reports about it with a teleconverter. Although it is big, because it is thin it will fit into the bag I am planning on taking<br>

2) the 70-300 is small and relatively cheap, although it has a small amount of reach. I know it's not in the same league as a the pro lenses but i'm sure the quality will be fine - basically is 300mm on FX enough? (I wouldn't want just a 200mm on DX)<br>

3) the 80-400 sounds ideal, but is roughly the size of the moon, weighs a lot (but not dissimilar to the 70-200), focuses biblically slowly and isn't as well made. It may be a squeeze in my bag, if it fits at all. Also it is supposedly due for an update...<br>

4) the 200-400 is out of the question. Just no.<br>

5) the bigmas are apparently (maybe you know better) of really poor quality<br>

6) the Sigma 70-200 with teleconverter seems okay, but just doing some handheld shots outside a shop I got hardly any in-focus shots of passers by (no OS) - most of my shots will be hand held<br>

7) I don't actually know what focal lengths are necessary for safari, given that I don't mind about birds<br>

8) things like the 300 2.8, 200 f2, 400 2.8 etc are also out of the question</p>

<p>If you can shed any light on any of these questions I would be very grateful, especially as there are probably about a million of similar questions on this site. Thanks very much in advance</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_huizenga]

<p> I went to Africa a few years ago using an F100 film camera and a 70-300 ED lens. That lens got me pretty close to everything I wanted and took very nice shots. As far as reach, I could have used something longer a few times, but I just didn't have that kind of cash. I think a 70-200 would be too short too often.<br>

I' ve seen the 80-400 up close, and it's not much bigger than the 70-200. The focus speed isn't that big of an issue for what you would be doing, and if you can afford it, I believe would be the best all around lens for a safari. That's my 2 cents. Anyone else?</p>

[rm_jones]

<p>Thank you very much for your reply, just to clarify the 70-200 would be with a teleconverter, but interesting you say that the 300mm is long enough. I suppose there is always the DX crop mode if i get desperate, even though it's only about 6mp </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Not sure exactly where you are going, but for African safaris, you are much better off with some longer lenses. You might want to take a look at this article here in photo.net based on my 1997 trip to Kenya. I was shooting film back then but it is similar to FX: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nature/kenya.html">http://www.photo.net/nature/kenya.html</a></p>

[jeff_mcneill]

<p>I did two weeks in Kenya in 2007 with a D200 and the 80-400 as my long lens. It worked like a charm during the day when there was plenty of light. The zoom range was great, and on the DX sensor I could really fill the frame. Focus speed wasn't really every an issue, the animals were lying around for the most part...</p>

<p>As dusk approached, I would have loved to have also has a 2.8 zoom, slow shutter speeds and auto-focus issues came into play once the light started getting dim, I ended up switching to manual focus toward the end of the day. With the D700 you'll be able to crank the ISO up higher than I was and still enjoy decent results, so the shutter speed issue may not be as much of an issue for you.</p>

<p>All in all, it was the right lens for me. It's really not all that big, the VR definitely helps out when you're out at 400mm and the 80-400 range is great from a safari vehicle. </p>

<p>Have fun, which country or countries are you visiting?</p>

 

[rm_jones]

<p>Thank you very much for all this, it's very useful as I really have no idea what sort of environment I'll be in, it says that 'even professional camera gear can be catered for' although I don't think people would appreciate me waving a huge great lens in front of them the whole time, plus I have one eye on what use I'll have for it when I get back - for photographing cricket and surfing (which I do, and where focus speed isn't that important) the 80-400 could be a wise choice...</p>

<p>I'm going to South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zambia - should be amazing! Do I gather too that some sort of bean bag is a must, I've heard that mentioned elsewhere too? Thanks again guys!</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"70-200... isn't great on an FX sensor"</em> Simply NOT true.</p>

<p>"70-300... not in the same league as a the pro lenses" Only because it is a slower lens (aperture wise and autofocus speed wise). IQ is excellent, as good as the 70-300mm.</p>

<p>"80-400 focuses biblically slowly and isn't as well made." If you use the focus limit switch, it focuses reasonably fast to shoot just about anything. I am not aware of it not being well made.</p>

<p>"DX crop mode" This does not get you any closer, it just crops the photo in the camera instead of on your computer. You do not 'gain' anything by shooting in crop mode except additional space on your memory card and faster write times/larger memory buffer.</p>

<p>I have used Nikon's 2X on the 70-200mm and it works reasonably well (IQ). Typically the IQ is no better at 400mm than a cropped 200mm non-converter image.</p>

<p>Based on the list you give, the 80-400mm is likely your best choice. Beyond that, it is a toss-up. I have not directly compared the 70-300mm at 300mm vs the 70-200mm with a 2x at 400mm but I suspect the 70-300mm will give better results (my subjective opinion).</p>

[elliot1]

<p>That 2nd paragraph should end with " IQ is excellent, as good as the<strong> 70-200mm."</strong></p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>If you can the 80-400 is THE lens to take. I think the 70-200 by itself will be a bit short and I don't know what the converter will do to image quality. Take also a shorter zoom say 24-70, on a separate body if that is possible. While focus speed with safari wildlife is not importanf accuracy is. I think the minimum you should have is a 70-300 and a 24-70 or there'bouts.<br>

I have done a couple of safaris, Botswana and Kenya, there will be times when you are face to face with animals and other times when they are further off. To me those far off shots, with the dust and landscape captured on a long tele are the essence of Africa, and the long tele is the only lens that can capture it.<br>

Your trip will be amazing, the only downside is you will want to do it again.<br>

Neill</p>

[rm_jones]

<p>Yeah I have the 24-70, interesting that you say I'll need it, I thought it'd be redundant! I know that cropping won't gain me anything, but just in terms of composition and filling the frame there and then. It would be great if they could update before I go, but you can't have everything I suppose!</p>

[michael_alger]

<p>The widely discussed weakness of the 70-200VR concerns the corners at the long end. All other aspects seem to be just great. So, if you use it with a TC, you basically cut off the corners and you will be back to "DX"-like performance minus the little effect of the TC itself. This is, what I would go for. If you still worry about the performance, you might want to consider the 80-200/2.8. I use it, with TC and without, good results on a D700 but you lose VR. VR on a D700 @ ISO4000? Come ooon :-)<br>

If the resulting 280mm looks too short, add a 300/4 (either AF-D or the newer AF-S). They perform nicely also with the TC.<br>

If that still is too shoort, just crop. Do the math on how large you will be able to print depending on what you cut of your pic. It's quite a lot.</p>

[james_symington1]

<p><em>"70-200... isn't great on an FX sensor"</em> Simply NOT true.<br>

It is true actually - but for wildlife photography what is wrong with the lens won't matter (shabby corners that a beer bottle would be embarrassed to produce). If you wish to take landscape photographs as such it is a poor lens - for most other purposes it is fine.<br>

On another note, it is always tempting on a safari to try and get the longest lens possible but ultimately what you end up with is lots of close-up shots of animals that you could much more easily and cheaply replicate in your local zoo. What you can't replicate in the zoo is the sight of a pride lions AND Mt Kilimanjaro in the background (or whatever). A 300mm F4 would be as long as I would take.<br>

Have fun!</p>

[mats nilson photography]

<p>Dunno, this may or may not be very helpful, but.. These days, I have more and better lenses than I could ever dream of having, but it hasn't always been so. The one time I've been fortunate enough to actually be on an African safari was long ago, and the best I could afford was a used Tokina AT-X 400/5.6. Not what one would consider a great lens by any standards, but hey! it was 400mm and it was mine! And you know what? I came home with quite a few really nice photos! I think it's good that you've come to terms with your financial limits, ruling out lenses that are just out of the question. Then, hopefully, you can enjoy using whatever you manage to bring, rather than feeling miserable about it, like much too many do. You're going on safari! Wow! Lucky you! :-)</p>

<p>More to the point, regarding your question: I once went to the Canadian Rockies and was kindly allowed to borrow the then new 80-400 zoom. Yes, it was somewhat cumbersome, but I never felt any of that since I was too busy photographing all sorts of wildlife, having tons of fun. And yes, it focused sluggishly, which didn't stop me from taking pin-sharp photos of birds in flight. I think it's a great enough lens. It's portable, reasonably affordable, and with a long reach. I think you'd feel rather limited with just 200mm.</p>

<p>Here are just two examples - an Impala photographed in Botswana using the lowly Tokina, and two Columbian Ground Squirrels in Jasper, taken with the 80-400:<br>

<img src="http://www.matsnilson.com/Impala.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://www.matsnilson.com/Groundsquirrels.jpg" alt="" /></p>

 

[fran__ois_p._weill]

<p>RM Jones,<br>

Though I'm not the best specialist in safari or even wildlife photography by far, I won't take any of the zoom lenses you refer to.<br>

May be you have already some zoom lens reaching 200mm in your bag...<br>

If so and to keep a relatively conservative budget I will go for a 300mm f/2.8 from Sigma and its x1.4 tele-converter (good reputation, fast and cheaper than any Nikon equivalent if not as stellar optically)... So I will have a 300mm f/2.8 and for exceptional situations a 420mm f/4 available for close-ups (the x1.4 extender has a reputation not to alter too much the IQ the x2 one has not). Shorter lenses will do for a more "atmospheric" approach.<br>

The x1.4 extender will be just about the necessary compensation for the decrease in apparent reach from a DX format body to an FX format and you will end up with about the equivalent of a Nikon 300mm f/4 (the only "affordable" 300mm in Nikon range) on a DX body.<br>

But one of the main equipement I will bring in company with a big tele lens will be a sturdy and well made monopod with a high quality ad-hoc head and a fast lock - unlock system. This will take care of a lot of self induced movement blur with the tele-lens.<br>

I hope it helps<br>

FPW</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>I have been to Kenya and Tanzania in two separate trips. In the 2000 Tanzania trip, I bought the 500mm/f4 and 300mm/f2.8 with F5 and F100 film SLRs. While those lenses are great, bringing both is just too heavy as airline carry ons.</p>

<p>If I were to go again today, I'll take the 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR mainly with a DX body such as the D300. That is a very flexable lens for wildlife photography, especially for larger mammals. The only problem the 70-200 has on FX are the extreme corners; for portrait, wedding, event, news, wildlife, sports ... photography, the extreme corners shouldn't matter; it is mainly an issue possibly for landscape work. The last thing you want to do is to put a 1.4x TC on the 70-200: you'll rob one stop from an expensive lens and worst yet, you'll now screw up its excellent center performance.</p>

<p>Since the OP has already ruled out the 200-400, as usual, you are essentially down to the 80-400 or 300mm/f4 + 1.4x TC. Any 70/80 to 200mm zoom by itself is just too short for an African safari, especially on FX. Please take a look at this thread also; the location is different but the trade offs are similar: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00SXC2">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SXC2</a></p>

<P>

I suppose renting (hiring) a long lens for the trip is an option.

</P>

[soeren_engelbrecht1]

<p>I agree with James that environmental portraits of animals should definitely not be ignored. Facial close-ups can be nice - but are very often also available at the zoo, as James pointed out. And: Remember that you would probably also want to have pictures of the landscape, the camps, and maybe even your spouse :-)<br /><br />When we went to Tanzania some five years ago, I brought the following for film use: 20/4, 28-105/3.5-4.5, 80-200/2.8, 300/4, as well as 1.4x and 2x converters. This worked great for me - mainly using the 80-200 and 300, only occasionaly the TCs. And you will be amazed, how close you can sometimes get to some of the animals.<br /><br />If you can afford it, I'd go for the 80-400 or a used 300/4. You can always crop a bit if needed.<br /><br />And remember to bring binoculars as well. And DO remember to simply enjoy the scenery :-) if you really want to be the next Frans Lanting, your approach should be completely different anyway :-)<br /><br />Soeren</p>

<div></div>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>I would concur with most of the advice given here based on my several months in Kenya. A 500 f/4 is really too heavy to drag through the airports and customs. The largest lens that I brought was a 400 f/5.6 for animals like leopards in a tree or some larger birds. Otherwise, my 70-210 was the most useful when out on the savannahs. For market scenes and cityscapes a wide lens can be nice to have. For those shots around a campfire in the evening, a 35 f/2 is ideal. bring a small binocular for those animals for which you cannot get close enough. If I were to go back again I might select a 300 f/4 and a 1.4X TC over the 400 f/5.6. Bring a polarizer. Be sure to bring a second body for backup. I had the shutter fail on one camera on my first trip there. Also bring some plastic bags to protect your equipment from the all-pervading dust. Learn a little Swahili. </p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>While the 80-400 VR has an AF issue, it is a very sharp lens and if you pre-focus and use the focus limiting switch it can be pretty fast. It is easy to carry on a plane and hand holding is very easy with it. I have used it successfully for large birds in flight, small birds and other mammals. It sounds like a good choice for your budget and it's true that the great high iso performance of the D700 will let you get more out of the 80-400.</p>