Safari Lens Recommendation

[number95]

<p>I know this is one of the frequently asked questions but I already have 70-200 f4 IS and 1.4x II extender and will use 450D body so that the farest reach will be equivalent to 448mm on FF. So I wonder I need further need for extra reach on a safari? Of course the longer is the better but I dont wanna carry to many lenses with me. I plan to have 10-22 and 24-105 and possibly 70-200 plus 1.4x but love to hear recommendations suggestions and experiences of others. If 70-200 with 1.4x is not enough than I have 2 choices, one is 300mm f4 IS and the other is 100-400. I dont want to get 400mm f5.6 since it does not have IS.<br>

Thanks.</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>I love my 100-400mm IS. I'd think that for a safari where you will need a long lens much of the time, it would be nearly ideal. The downside is a (relatively) small maximum aperture.</p>

<p>Some non-Canon alternatives would be the Sigma 50-500mm (no IS) or the Sigma 150-500mm OS (with stabilization). Both get good reviews, although the quality may not be totally up to the level of the Canon lenses.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>If you're using a 450D then the ideal lens will be the 100-400 as it will cover most lengths and you won't need to change lenses. But there's no need to shell out all that cash if you don't have to. 448mm might just cover everything you need. I've never been on safari but with 448mm I would be happy to risk it. Maybe someone with safari experience can advise better.</p>

<p>I do own the 300mm f4L IS and it is a fabulous lens with fantastic image quality. Adding the 1.4x makes little difference to the image quality. I highly recommend it but you lose the versatility of a zoom. It's built in lens hood is superb too.</p>

<p> </p>

[anov]

<p>This guy wrote a very good notes regarding African Safari:<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00SnI5">http://www.photo.net/travel-photography-forum/00SnI5</a></p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I've never been on a safari, but I'll offer what I think might be a useful comment: I remember when I had my new 5D and 24-105 in hand and decided to experiment with motion blurs of a horse running in circles around me. I was careful to zoom when I "thought" there wasn't heavy dust around me, and I tried to keep a respectable distance from the horse. Unfortunately the dust accumulated on the sensor with each few frames I shot. The problem was that the zoom on that lens is not internal and involves telescoping barrels. Anytime the barrel extends or contracts, whether from focusing or zooming, dusty air is drawn back and forth through the camera body. It didn't matter that my lens was "sealed." It wouldn't even matter if I had a 1-series body. Air still enters and leaves.</p>

<p>My advice to you, when shooting in predictably dusty environments, is to use a lens with internal focus and zoom -- like your 70-200 w/ 1.4x TC, but not like the 100-400.</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/pn/spring%20romp%2003%20reduced.jpg" alt="" /><br />"Spring Romp"</p>

[zml]

<p>Take a look at <a href="../travel-photography-forum/00SnI5"><strong>this</strong> </a>thread. Also <strong><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Safari-Tips.shtml">here</a>. </strong>(Both from people who have actually been on a safari...) </p>

 

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Safari is a very broad term and applies to varying conditions. It all depends a bit on where you go and what your ambitions are. 448mm is quite a lot of reach, much more than most non-professionals had access to five-ten years ago, and will most likely be enough most of the time. Sure, there will be spottings when basically no lens is long enough, but there will also be occasions -- probably more of them -- when your lens is too long. If you're <em>really</em> serious about your photography, and willing to invest, chances are that you'd be better served by a second body, mounted to one of your shorter zooms.</p>

[number95]

<p>Thank you all, very much for contributions and suggestions. I really learned a lot. I have not yet decided on the equipment but it seems I definitely need a second body. Also it seems frequent lens switch is a really bad idea in that environment.</p>

[phil_shaw1]

<p>I think it depends on how much you want to spend and how much equipment you are prepared to carry around with you. Based on your comments that you don't want to carry too many lenses around with you and that you are not considering the 400/f5.6 because it does not have IS, the choice becomes very simple - the 100-400/f4.5-5.6L IS. Many people use this lens on safari holidays; it is very versatile and is slightly lighter in weight than the 70-200/f2.8L IS.</p>

[avijitsett]

<p>You may like to read this.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Safari-Tips.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Safari-Tips.shtml</a></p>