Nikon 70-200 f2.8VR+TC1.7 vs Nikon 70-300VR vs Sigma 120-400 f4.5-5.6OS vs Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 OS for African safari

[billy_senior]

<p>Hi all.<br>

I am going for a first time (hopefully not the last!) safari to Africa later this year which will include Rwanda (gorilla trek), Tanzania, Kenya, Botswana and Namibia. (The safari is a normal safari, not a photographic one, but some of it is private - just my partner and I). I currently own a D40x with the 18-55mm kit lens, and am looking to get another lens for the upcoming trip. To be honest I am currently very much just a casual hobbyist, usually only taking photos at celebrations/parties/on holidays etc, but am interested in doing more photography in the future, and want to take this into consideration when choosing my next lens.</p>

<p>I have spent many hours reading through the various online forums and photography websites about which lens to get and after reading about so many differing ideas/opinions i'm all rather muddled now about which would be the best option. I have narrowed down my choices to the above 4 lenses, as the features I definitely require are:<br>

1. Image stabilisation.<br>

2. > 300mm (ie. 450mm after crop factor on a D40x), as this seems to be the consensus for the minimum focal length required.<br>

3. Zoom (i gather prime IQ is better but i think i will really need the flexibility of a zoom on safari, hopefully so i don't need to change lenses out in the dusty environment). </p>

<p>The Nikon 70-200 is tempting for the f2.8, particularly as this should be useful in the low jungle light when gorilla trekking in Rwanda (and should hopefully still be ok on safari in the bigger game parks when max aperture falls to f4.5? with TC). I also think i may possibly use it more (without the TC) than the other lenses after i return from safari (i think i will probably be interested in trying portraits or even landscapes - with wildlife photography only being on future holidays ie. likely to be no more than once/year). The downside is the significant price premium compared to some of the other options, and possibly the size/weight if i have to lug it around on safari.</p>

<p>The Nikon 70-300VR seems like a reasonable balance between price/zoom/lens quality. My main concern would be whether it is long enough, as on reviewing some of the awesome close up "head/shoulder" photos of wildlife (eg. lion) that i love (posted by other forum members on safari), virtually none seem to be taken at 300mm (all are taken at least 350-400mm on non full frame cameras).</p>

<p>Hence that brought me to the Sigma 120-400 and 150-500mm. The 120-400 is faster and 400mm should be enough for my safari purposes so I is probably my preferred option out of the two. But I've read varying reviews about both these lenses so if someone has a preference between the two your opinion is much appreciated. I should say I am not much of a birdlife watcher so do not absolutely need a very long zoom.</p>

<p>I know there is a significant price variation between these four lenses and price is definitely a factor in my choice but I don't mind paying extra if it means I'll have the capability of taking some really sharp and memorable photos (and particularly if i will use the lens after the safari).</p>

<p>Sorry about the long post but I hope all the info helps people with their replies. Thanks everyone in advance - any help would be very much appreciated.</p>

 

[paul_revell]

<p>Hi,<br>

Never been on safari but I own the 70-300 mm VR which I find is a wonderful lens everything just works. I also just purchased the Sigma 150-500 mm the lens works great with the following two issues that affect how you use it. 1. The lens requires a lot of light, depending on the situation it may not auto focus even in the evening. 2. The OS (Sigma for VR) works a bit different that Nikons VR. It usually takes about 1 second from the time you achieve focus for the OS to activate. Once it activates it is great, but this delay does not seem to occur with the Nikon VR. Hope this helps your decision making.</p>

[User_1172872]

<p>You might find the review of the manual focus 300 interesting:<br>

<a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/70300.html">http://www.dantestella.com/technical/70300.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/30045nikkor.html">http://www.dantestella.com/technical/30045nikkor.html</a></p>

 

[Nowhereman]

<p><br /><br>

<strong><strong><strong><strong> </strong></strong></strong></strong></p>

<p> </p>

[Two23]

<p>For a trip like that, I would get on E Bay and buy a used D80. I would also buy a used Nikon 80-400mm VR. Resell the lens when you get home. The Sigma 120-400mm is a good lens for the D40 if it has HSM.<br>

Kent iN SD </p>

[elliot1]

<p>My choice would be the Nikon 70-200mm and Nikon's 2x converter so you have the best of both worlds - a fast lens for low light (which you will surely need) and a long enough lens when the light is good. I have the combo and it works well.</p>

<p>I also suggest you get a battery grip for your D40x which will help stabilize your camera with a large len (costs less than $50).</p>

[evilsivan]

<p>It will be good to have a back up camera and some spare batteries. The sigma 150-500 uses a lot of juice. If you have the $$ I'd go with what Elliot suggests.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I would probably go with what Elliot recommends. But the lens is heavy so some support of some kind may be needed. You know how strong you are - I don't. Also, as discussed in oh so many threads here - in regards to TCs - - max I've ever used is a TC-17E II & you'd probably be happy with the result. I've gone away from using any more strength. I would not go as far as 2 personally. In a crunch - 1.7x max.<br>

Sounds like an amazing trip, but like both my husband & best friend from home says - - we've made out life choices & have to live our lives accordingly. I have too many pets to be able to walk away & make such a trip - - maybe one day....<br>

JMHO<br>

Lil :-)</p>

[naturegirl99]

<p>Hi Billy,<br>

I joined a photographic safari to Kenya while I was still using film cameras in the 90s and wish I could do it all again digitally, and with what I've learned since then.<br>

I have, and love, the 70-300 VR lens BUT please remember you cannot use a TC with it--it won't even fit on the lens and the loss of light is prohibitive. Stick with the 2.8 which will allow you to use the TC, and I would purchase the 150-500. My longest lens when on safari was a 300 (true 300 mm, not 450l) and I was really happy with the results. Can't speak about gorillas, but you can approach wildlife fairly closely in safari vehicles. The 150-500 will allow you to pull in the birds--which you will want to do, since they are spectacular. My safari photos are in my PN portfolio--"Journey Through Kenya"--if you want to see what a 300 mm can do there.<br>

I'd love to hear how the Sigma 150-500 performs, since it will be my next purchase (just can't afford the big prime Nikon telephotos). <br>

Have a great safari!!</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Nancy, You are correct that you cannot use Nikon's TC with the 70-300mm but you can use Kenko's 1.4x on my 70-300mm (I don't recommend it as IQ is no better (and perhaps a bit worse) than cropping the original image and autofocus tends to hunt a bit).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>a good rule of thumb is go with the longest lens you can for wildlife. no matter the FL, you will always wish you had more zoom. the sigma 120-400, 150-500 and 50-500 all cost around $1000 new. you may want to ask around in the travel forum about whether you really need a 2.8 lens for safari.</p>

<p>also, there's a significant price difference between the 70-200 and the sigma options--about $800; more if you factor in the 1.7 TC. that's enough to add an ultrawide lens like the sigma 10-20 HSM which you'll also appreciate in Africa as well as a sturdy monopod to stabilize one of those Sigmonsters AND a 35/1.8 for low-light conditions. as Elliot says, a grip is a very good idea if you're shooting with a D40x.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Hi Billy,<br>

You already got some good advise on the long lens issue. One thing to add: the 70-200 will be rather long for taking pictures of gorillas. I used a 28-135 on a cropped body (Canon) and that was a bit on the long side. And take a monopod, you will use it on several occasions. Enjoy your trip.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have both the Nikons 80-400mm VR and 70-200mm f2.8 VR, plus a TC-17E. Some thoughts. The 80-400mm VR is a very good general purpose lens, but is slow to focus. Plus, it's not AFS so it won't work on your D40 anyway. As for the 70-200mm f2.8, I tried it with a Nikon TC-20E but did not like the results. The sharpness just wasn't there, and this was even when I used a solid Gitzo 1325 tripod. The TC-17E shots are acceptable to the editors I sell photos too, so it's good enough for me! That lens is long & heavy, but the f2.8 really shines when the sun isn't or in dim forrests. The VR works well too. Of the two lenses I have, it's probably the one I'd take with the TC-17E, mainly because of the f2.8 capability. Since you have neither lens and are using a D40, I'm thinking your best value would be the Sigma 120-400mm OS HSM. To get the Nikon 70-200mm VR + TC-17E will cost you twice as much. If you bought a used D80 you could ramp up ISO to 800, maybe 1600. With a new D60 or 5000D you could go to ISO 1600 or maybe 3200. That would work nicely with the SIgma lens. I probably would avoid the 150-500mm because it's f6.3, and that's probably too dark to use in a dim forrest.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

 

[james_meketa]

<p>You are asking the wrong question. What are you going to do when, in the middle of Kenya, your D40x fails?<br>

Don't go anywhere important without complete redundancy.</p>

[gogu]

<p>Billy,<br />fist of all great holiday, enjoy it:-)<br />Second, regarding gear I'd suggest:<br />1) buy a second hand back up body (search e bay for a D80 for instance) because you never know what's going to happen in a safari.<br />2) go for the 70-300 VR. It has VR <strong><em>(*very*</em></strong> important while shooting in the jungle or from a moving vehicle) and on a DX camera like yours its long end is exactly what you are looking for: 450mm! A very good lens and cost efficient.<br />Enjoy your safari and come back with great photos;-)<br>

<br />gogu</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Several have recommended the D80 over the D40x for its ISO performance. According to the DXOMark site, the D40x and D80 give basically the same results when it comes to higher ISO settings. Shooting RAW and using good post processing software, both cameras can deliver very good results at ISO 1600 and even 3200.</p>

<p>Billy, your choices are only limited by your budget. </p>

[billy_senior]

<p>Thanks everyone for all the replies so far - they have been extremely helpful.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f2.8 seems like a great lens that people regard highly but like a few of you have commented, it is significantly more expensive than all the other lenses - i could probably use the price difference for a second camera body (which is another very good idea some of you suggested - i'd be devastated if my one and only camera malfunctioned on safari), or even a shorter lens (thanks Jos for the advice re focal length for the gorillas). </p>

<p>I think i might try out the above lenses my local camera shop tomorrow or over the weekend to see if that will help my decision (if lenses like the nikkor 70-200 f2.8 or sigma 150-500 are too heavy that may be a deal breaker). </p>

<p>Thanks again everyone, i'll let you know how it all works out. Any further suggestions/opinions in the meantime welcome.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Billy, I have not been of a safari, but if I were going, here is what I would take, at a minimum:<br>

1. two bodies, neither a D 40, because it will not drive any lens except an AFS lens. So I would sell your D 40x and buy two other bodies, D 80, D 90 or a D 300. You have to have reduncancy on a trip like that. And because of dust, you do not want to be switching lenses all of the time. <br>

2. tele lenses. I would have a long lens mounted to one of my bodies, either a Nikon 300mm AFS f 4.0 or the older and less expensive f 4.0 AF version, but it will not work on your D 40 as Kent has mentioned. You can add teleconverters to these lenses as needed. The AF version lens is optically very sharp and can be bought used for about $450. The AFS is "better" because of the faster AF, but it will cost more than twice as much.<br>

If I had a rich uncle, I would buy a Nikon 200-400 f 4.0 AFS VR and take it in lieu of the 300mm. Then sell it when I got back.<br>

3. Other lens. The 70-200 f 2.8 AFS VR is a good recommendation. I would mount this on the other body. If this breaks your budget, then mount another zoom in about this focal range. And I would also take a wide zoom lens too. And maybe a price lens like a 20mm or a 35mm.<br>

4. Other stuff. Bean bag for support. Mine is a Molar. Bring it empty and then fill it with rice or beans or similar product obtained in Africa. Maybe a monopod. High capacity Hyperdrive to download your images from your CF cards. You need redundancy in image backup too. Plenty of CF cards.<br>

Joe Smith</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>One other thought, if you get the Sigma 150-500mm , do not add the tc until you need it for images beyond 500mm. Optically, the lens works best from 150-500mm w/o a tc. Add the tc only when 500mm is not long enough. Joe Smith</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>To be honest I am currently very much just a casual hobbyist, usually only taking photos at celebrations/parties/on holidays etc,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The inherent problem is that the equipment you need for a big-time African safari is drastically different from what you typically use in parties and vacation. Therefore, if this trip is more a one-time deal, I would consider renting a big lens or buy it used and sell it after the trip.</p>

<p>Other than the well known corner issue on FX, the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR is an excellent lens. However, as I have pointed out over and over, zooms don't work well with teleconverters, even a 1.4x TC. There is no point to put a 2X TC onto the 70-200 or you would be spending well over $2000 and still get very mediocre optics from the combo. If you don't mind such mediocre optics, there are much cheaper ways to ge there.</p>

<p>Instead, I would get the 300mm/f4 AF-S, which can still work well with the 1.4x TC-14E. In the longer run, a 300mm is still a useful focal length.</p>

<p>A 2nd backup body is important for this type of trip. You'll never know when your camera body may fail.</p>

<p>Shooting gorillas has different requirements. This article is a bit dated but still has a lot of useful information: <a href="http://www.photo.net/travel/africa/flynn/gorillas">http://www.photo.net/travel/africa/flynn/gorillas</a></p>

[bmm]

<p>I wonder if there isn't room here for an alternate train of thought.</p>

<p>The original poster Billy is a self-avowed casual hobbyist who is going on an amazing trip which is obviously much more to him and his partner than just a photography-based expedition.</p>

<p>And yet what I see in response has 2 outcomes - significant weight, and fear of failure. Can I suggest that we should at least consider maximising Billy's enjoyment in our suggestions as an alternative route.</p>

<p>1. Look at flexible, lightweight kit which will complement his overall travelling experience and be enjoyable to use (and not obstructive to the overall trip).</p>

<p>2. And not worry too much about failure and redundancy. After all the best form of redundancy by far - unless you are a pro and relying on a shoot for income and/or to meet a client's needs - is to have relaxed attitude and an acceptance that even on the RARE chance that your camera should fail you are having an amazing experience, and that the inability to capture every last minute of it on a digital sensor is next-to-insignifiant in the grand scheme of things.</p>

<p>As a result of the above view my vote for kit is the 70-300VR lens (I think an 'effective' 450mm plus VR plus the ability to crop in post equals plenty enough reach). For redundancy as long as Billy's partner has a decent quality P&S so that they can still capture some memories and experiences, that should be more than adequate - remembering of course that this is the way that 95% of people perfectly happily do it.</p>

<p>In closing and to be clear, I am writing this in no way disrespecting the posts above which are written with care and with people that put real primacy on photographic quality and professionalism. Nor am I trying to second guess Billy's position on this, and I wish him a wonderful trip whatever he chooses to do gear-wise. I just want though to put into the mix this alternative approach for consideration.</p>

[billy_senior]

<p>Hi again all. Thanks for the further replies. You make very good points Shun and Bernard, and some of my indecision regarding lenses is indeed related to the fact that I still don't know exactly how far I want to take things for this safari from a photographic perspective. </p>

<p>Anyway, I went to a reputable specialised photography store yesterday and briefly tried out a few lenses. The assistant seemed to think highly of the 120-400mm Sigma lens for my safari trip but who knows... i'm always sceptical of shop assistants! He thought the Nikon 70-300VR was also reasonable, as was the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 with TC - although he did seem hesitant whether it was appropriate because of the significant price premium (although he did have very high praise for the lens without TC). He felt the Sigma 150-500mm was a less worthwhile option because it was slightly more expensive than the others except the Nikon 70-200, max aperture at the long end was f6.3, and was overall slower with AF. I have read on safari you will often wish for more zoom and then even 500mm may not be enough, but for the majority of times, 400mm should be ok (ie. 600mm equivalent on the cropped D40 sensor). I think I was pretty satisfied with this overall assessment, so have decided to remove the Sigma 150-500 from my shortlist (sorry Nancy!). The Nikon 70-200 f2.8 was heavy, although even the 120-400 Sigma wore me out reasonably quickly - it's been a while since i've hit the gym. =P</p>

<p>One thing I did realise was that unless I get the Nikon 70-300VR, I will still need a shorter midrange zoom to cover the ~55-150 range (presumably for elephants or close wildlife). The Nikon 70-200 seems excellent for this but if I'm using it already for the longer range (ie. with a 1.7 TC on), I don't think it's going to be practical to keep taking the TC on and off (especially in the dusty environment). And then it seems unusual to take another 70-200 type lens (without TC) when I have already splashed out on a nice Nikon f2.8 one lol. </p>

<p>So that means I'm now looking at either:<br>

1. Sigma 120-400mm OS, and a ~70-200 VR type lens (or even the Nikon 18-200VR, which may also be handy for future use).<br>

2. Nikon 70-300VR.<br>

3. Nikon 70-200VR f2.8, and ?another ~70-200 type lens.<br>

The third option seems unusual and expensive so is close to getting cut - my only reservation is I suspect I will probably need f2.8 capability for the gorilla trek.<br>

Decisions decisions.... ><</p>

<p> </p>

[nikofile]

<p>Don't run away from the 70-200 unless the cost is to big a portion of your budget for the trip. I have a 70-300 VR, and I dearly love it for birds and even for animal portraits. I also use it for sports and it is terrific. However, when the overcast rolls in you will be scrambling for shutter speed. I want a 70-200 VR with a TC-17 II. And I am trying to work out how to get it and still keep my 70-300. I love that lens, and if I let it go I know someday it will come back to haunt me. But for you, I think the 70-200 is your best bet for a bullet proof lens. I doubt any of those other choices can withstand the punishment that big Nikkor pro glass will handle. You would be sick if you got all ready for the shot, only to find your HSM has croaked because of humidity or a bump against a wheel well. Just me, but if you can swing the big 70-200 and TC I think it is something that could serve you for years and keep you from swaping lenses as I do. That should actually be a net savings for you. But if you must go slow, get the 70-300 and live with the range. It is a fabulous lens, fast to focus and accurate. Reasonably light and fast handling. You will love the pictures, and if you can shoot at f8 for 300mm you are going to get fantastic shots hand-held.</p>

[pierre_claquin1]

<p>I have both the Nikon VR 70-200 and the Sigma 120-400 APO HMS. I use them on a D700 and a D2X and I have been on safaris. I love the 70-200 and I found it a stellar lens for animal shots as well as for people. The Sigma is good but I found that I have to pay more attention on how I handle it . At 400 mm you have to use bean bags or a monopod.But the 120-400 is probably a better choice than the bigger/longer Sigma brother at least according to last year review of Chasseur d'Images.<br>

You must take 2 camera bodies as breakdown do happen. I have watched a few.<br>

I do not use converters beyond X 1.4<br>

Your safari sounds like a lot of fun. I realize that money is dear these days but to have reliable equipment to reach out will bring you great satisfaction.<br>

Pierre www.ventsdest.net</p>

<p> </p>

[billy_senior]

<p>Thanks guys for the further opinions.<br>

Pierre did you find on safari you used the 70-200 very much for wildlife shots? Or did you usually need more reach (ie. requiring the 120-400)? In particular did you find you took a lot of photos in the 300-400mm range?</p>