Nikon 300mm 2.8 Vs 200-400mm for Safari

[gary_mayo1]

<p>Anish, the 200-400 is in round numbers, half the size of the larger 300-800mm lens, and that would make it an easier travel lens, but any super telephoto lens is going to be a burden on vacation.</p>

<p>Have a good trip! If you need someone to tote your lenses, I am available! I am 6'7" tall, so I can act as your personal body guard as well! lol</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/safari.htm">http://www.bythom.com/safari.htm</a></p>

<p>Recommendations by Thom Hogan, as good of advice as you are going to get. He says, get the biggest lens you can get your hands on.</p>

[Mankuthel]

<p>Gary,<br>

I have carried my gear including the 300mm on my travels and have no problems with the weight. But thanks for the offer to carry my lenses and be my personal body guard.</p>

<p>The reason why I’m not considering the Sigma 300-800 lens is that it’s too big for one and I don’t see myself using the lens after the trip as often as I’d like to. The focal length range is beyond what I normally use.</p>

<p>I did read up on a lot of advice on the net including Thom Hogan’s and decided that I would be fine with either my existing 300mm 2.8 +TC or rent/buy the 200-400 for the trip.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For whatever it is worth, I just talked to a friend who went to South Africa for photo safari over Christmas/new year. She uses DX-format DSLRs, and her telephoto lenses were 200mm and 300mm plus 1.7x TC for the trip. Quite to her surprise, even 200mm was too long in a lot of situations mainly because the subjects were large and she could get fairly close. I myself am a bit surprised by her description.</p>

<p>For me, part of the problem for going to Africa is that I typically need to fly European airlines through Europe, where luggage restrictions tend to be stricter than US airlines. Back in 2000 we flew KLM via Amsterdam to Tanzania, and I got into a major argument with a KLM ground crew because he thought my carry on was too big and heavy. On that trip I had both a 500mm/f4 and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S. In 2005 we went through Paris on Air France to Madagascar, and we were fined over 100 Euro for excessive weight; our tour leader was fined 600 Euro.</p>

<p>In these days, I carry at most one big lens on international trips. Nikon re-introducing the 200-400mm/f4 as an AF-S VR was great news to me and so is the DX format. But do keep a 70-200mm type zoom handy. Typically it is dusty in Africa; the animals are large and used to safari vehicles. Unless you have no other choices, I wouldn't use a very long lens to shoot through great distance because there is a lot of dust between your lens and the subject; that is going to rob some quality from your images.</p>

<p>The attached image is among my favorites from East Africa. I captured it with a Nikon 80-200mm/f2.8 AF on my F4 with Velvia film. Typically I wouldn't use Velvia for wildlife, but that morning we had just finished a hot-air balloon flight and I only had Velvia for landscape photography from the air, and the 80-200 was the longest lens I had with me. This shows the entire 35mm frame and I typically crop out the right side as indicated when I print it.</p><div></div>

[chris_kidd]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I am a canon user and cannot attest to the quality between the two lenses in question but from everything i know the 200-400 lens is the most versatile and 'safari perfect' lens made. It has a great range that should cover you fro 75% of your shots.<br>

If money is not an option then go big, especially for East Africa where it is normally not possible to drive off track.<br>

I run a photographic safari company in Uganda and if i could afford to change over to Nikon i would do it just for this one lens alone.<br>

Have a great safari</p>

[senthil1]

<p>Yup, 200-400mm can the ideal safari lens, but for whatever reason, I see significantly better sharpness with 600mm. Since shooting with D700, I also think most times 600mm is very ideal even for bigger mammals, so that u don't get too close. Of course, u get better out of focus with 600mm.</p>

<p>To give more info - I shoot alongside my friend - who's a prof wildlife photog and camps in Masai Mara for majority of the year. He has been shooting 600mm on FX & 200-400mm on both FX and DX bodies for a while now. Initially, wn I was shooting D300 + 200-400mm, similar images had much better sharpness on his setup of D700 + 600mm even at lower ISO's; I guess that might be explained by me shooting at 400mm, which is likely the weakest fl of 200-400mm. On top of that, there are a few situations where adding 1.4x was necessary; needless to say 400mm x 1.4 on 200-400mm is even better worse. That's wn I bought the 600mm after waiting for a long time. Since then I have seen a huge improvement in my results. This has been the experience for this friend too, when he started out with 200-400mm, then moved onto 600mm.</p>

<p>The 200-400mm might also be very useful in situations such as what Shun has explained. That's why I think having both 600mm and 200-400mm on separate bodies ready to shoot might be ideal. ie. in addition, 70-200mm & 24-70mm. Yup, its gets very heavy, but I guess that's the price u pay for quality. Not sure how long I can do that...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sen, no offense, ever since I bought my 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR in 2006, I have gone on a number of wildlife photography trips, and it is essentially a "must own" lens for any serious wildlife photographer who uses Nikon. If you are unable to get critically sharp images from it using recent DSLRs with current AF technology, I am afraid that the problem is probably not the equipment, although I have heard of a case or two that some 200-400mm/f4 AF-S VR required adjustments from Nikon repair.</p>

<p>In my case, ever since I bought the 200-400 in 2006, both of my 500mm/f4 AF-S and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S have never left my home state (California). That is, in these days I only bring them on "local" driving trips.</p>

[senthil1]

<p>@ Alvin & Carl - Thanks a lot for your comments.</p>

<p>@Anish - yup, I try to go to Africa 2 times a year. Last year was there 3 times. As I said, its addictive. Enjoy the ride...</p>

<p>@Shun & Bjorn - I do acknowledge your liking for 200-400mm. But I'm not too happy with it, esp wn comparing to 600mm. Sharpness in question. Sorry, I didn't do formal testing with resolution charts, but just seeing the results from real life images. Have been sometimes thinking about selling it and getting 300mm 2.8, but I do realize 200-400mm is much more flexible; that's the reason why I'm still keeping it. And shooting tigers in India, 200-400mm is almost a necessity, though used 600mm mostly on a shoot during summer when visibility is more from a distance.</p>

[senthil1]

<p>@Shun - I typed the prev post before u had posted urs but hadn't submitted it.</p>

<p>Yup, I do realize your concern for my technique. I was also concerned, but then with 600mm I get perceptibly sharper image. If my technique were in question, images should actually be worse with 600mm than with 200-400mm, given weight difference, right? At least, that's the reason 'm giving myself. BTW - to my knowledge, 'm using the same stabilizing setup & technique for both the lenses. Another reason might be - 'm comparing 600mm on FX to 200-400mm @ 400mm on DX, ie. the weakest focal length of 400mm on 200-400mm to 600mm prime. Any thoughts please?</p>

<p>Again, my thoughts are shared by my friend, who's is a fulltime professional wildlife photographer, has won awards on these big competitions, and has been on the cover of BBC Wildlife magazine. Of course, I know many ppl getting great pics with 200-400mm. That's my dilemma...</p>

<p>'m contemplating on sending it to Nikon to see whether they can to calibrate so that sharpness improves.</p>

<p>"In my case, ever since I bought the 200-400 in 2006, both of my 500mm/f4 AF-S and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S have never left my home state (California)"</p>

<p>Hmmm... for me its the other way around. For most of my trips, I can think abt forgoing 200-400mm but certainly take 600mm, though I end up taking both. During my recent trip to Borneo, used 200-400mm on quite a few occasions and have been largely disappointed. Again, images with 600mm are much better...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sen, my point is that pretty much everybody who owns the 200-400mm/f4 can get great results from it. If you are not, I think you should investigate why. Most sharpness issues are the result of insufficient camera support or focusing errors. Of course trips to Africa and the Antarctic are rough on equipment. If you can eliminate other factors, you can always ask Nikon to check your lens, as you did with the 600mm/f4.</p>

<p>A 600mm/f4 would be great if I only shoot birds, especially little birds. The problem with long teles is that when a lens is too long, essentially you are stuck. When I was traveling to Africa with a 500mm/f4 on film SLRs, I also had a 300mm and a 80-200mm to back it up, and I used those shorter lenses a lot. E.g., lions, buffalos, elephants ... frequently appear in groups. Shorter focal lengths that can include multiple animals are very useful.</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>If someone was paying me for images, I would go all out. On vacation, iPhone and postcards.</p>

<p>Watched a 200-400mm VR referb (return) sell on eBay yesterday for $4300. Tempted, but I need more glass (not)</p>

[senthil1]

<p>Thanks a lot Shun. Sure, as I said 'm using the same support - window mount + wimberley or bean bag + sufficient shutter - for 200-400mm as I use for 600mm. That's why 'm a little disappointed with it. U r right - 200-400mm is very nice; that's why I prefer to carry both the big lenses despite the pain of taking them all the way.</p>

<p>Anyways, here are some ex - of course to judge composition from focal length point of view (too small for sharpness check, but believe me these are sharp)<br>

with 600mm - <br>

http://senthil.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Leopards/G0000DmjlmRf8B8M/I00007nU3GG4NJP4 (all images in this gallery r with 600mm)<br>

http://senthil.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Lions/G0000_CTWjOqDMuo/I0000.PXhHZSxMkY (most images are except the obv wide-angle pic)<br>

http://senthil.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Other-Wildlife/G0000ePGeaI44Z3s/I0000k2GVB2upiPA</p>

<p>with 200-400mm - <br>

http://senthil.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Other-Wildlife/G0000ePGeaI44Z3s/I0000r5M6wfE1b9o (cropped for compositional reasons)<br>

http://senthil.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Borneo/G0000oW.J.IqgZvM/I0000goPDsmwKEsU (not 100% sharp)<br>

http://senthil.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Cheetahs/G00007NINYtCgmcs/I0000EWMHQ6oUyRU</p>

<p>"When I was traveling to Africa with a 500mm/f4 on film SLRs, I also had a 300mm and a 80-200mm to back it up, and I used those shorter lenses a lot."<br>

My experience has been the other way around; most of my images are with 600mm with 200-400mm as a backup. May be just different shooting preferences? Again, may be the examples above and other pics on my site might point to the reason?</p>

<p>Having said all the above, I totally agree with you - I've been stuck on many occasions with the animal being too tight during action situations, when changing to another body + 200-400mm might be impossible as I wud just miss the action.... That's the biggest challenge for me on 600mm.</p>

<p>Yeah, I've been reading great reviews of 200-400mm. In fact, I believe that my first copy of that lens was sharper than the current one I have (never compared side-by-side though). Our discussion is making me think more that I should send it to Nikon at the earliest and then check the sharpness. Thanks again.</p>

[dallas_dahms2]

<p>Every person who has come on safari with us, including Bjørn, has recommended the 200-400mm f/4 as being the perfect safari lens. There's a good reason for that. Mobility.<br>

There is no way you want to be lugging around a 600mm or even a 300-800mm lens when you are on a photo safari. The simple reason is because finding adequate support for your big lens on an open 4x4 game vehicle is a tricky business. Do you really want to travel with a Wimberley?<br>

Something else to consider is getting through airports with a lot of carry on luggage, such as cameras and lenses. I can't speak for anywhere else, but in South Africa, if you are flying from JHB to KNP there will be severe limitations on the amount of hand luggage you are allowed to carry onboard. On our last trip my camera bag containing everything swung in at around 15 kilos, which is almost double the allowed amount.<br>

Fortunately they didn't weigh it because I had it all in a 20L backpack which, while it was killing my back and compressing my vertebrae, didn't look all that heavy. Had I tried to get a 300-800mm in there, I would almost certainly have aroused unwanted attention from the check-in clerk and had to pay in extra.<br>

For ultimate quality I would recommend a 300mm 2.8 with a couple of converters (2x and 1.4x), paired with a 70-200mm 2.8 zoom.</p>

[grover_larkins2]

<p>Guys,<br>

Nice to see you are still active Shun!</p>

<p>As for some lens choices here goes:<br>

<strong>300-800mm </strong>-- this is purely insane unless you are trying for a shot at 40m or some such nonsense. A lion will more than fill the frame at 20m with a 400mm lens on a full format camera. A Jackal will be about full frame at 30m, Bat Eared Fox at 20m. What in the world requires an 800mm lens?</p>

<p><strong>200-400mm f4</strong> on a crop camera is equivalent to a 300-600 f4 -- plenty w/out teleconverter! If you want it sharper stop down to f8 -- you will want the dof anyhow. Depth of Field is tiny at f4 even at 1/20 lifesize when you are looking to pull a lion sharp from nose to ears -- stop down for DOF!!!</p>

<p><strong>600mm f4</strong> -- great lens. Are you all alone in your vehicle? If yes then OK!! If not, does everyone else have a fixed 600mm or equivalent? If so great -- tell your driver to back up so that the minivan can get between you and the Leopard (trust me they are gonna try to!). If not then either get used to head and shoulders shots or loads of complaints from the folks with 300mm-400mm lenses -- they are gonna outnumber you pretty handily. For birds smaller than the bustards the 600mm is great as long as they are sitting. In flights -- that is a fantasy unless you have a Wimberley set up through the roof hatch. Shooting through the hatch = bad angle compared to through a window.</p>

<p><strong>500mm f4</strong> -- Great Lens. Even if everyone else has a 400mm you can shoot from the far end of the vehicle and get pretty similar framing to the folks with 400mm lenses (easier compromise = happier times). Weight is doable for in-flights. Can shoot through windows easily.</p>

<p><strong>Recommendations:</strong><br>

<strong>Bring 2 or 3 cameras and sensor cleaning kit! </strong>Dust and vibration are rampant and you will have a far better trip knowing that if one camera or lens dies you are still "in the game."<br>

<strong>Crop camera (APS-C):</strong> 100-400mm or 200-400mm "L" or "ED" as prime with 1.4X and 2X TC, and a 70-200mm high quality zoom on the second body with a 18-XXmm zoom in the bag for scenics and "macro" stuff.</p>

<p><strong>Full Frame Camera:</strong> 500mm f4 "L" or "ED" plus 1.4 and 2X TC, 70-200mm zoom on APS-C camera as a backup and a 28-1XXmm zoom in the bag for scenics and "macro" stuff.</p><div></div>

[grover_larkins2]

<p>Reduction in size has really hurt the image quality -- in the original every whisker and hair is sharp.....</p>

<p>Grover</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Grover, nice to see you post again after like a decade. You can always post a crop of the head.</p>

<p>People need to keep in mind that the main subjects in an African safari are very large mammals and your primary lenses need to match your subject matter. The 200-400mm/f4 is wonderful for wildlife photography and I am gald that Canon has plans to introduce their version, hopefully soon.</p>

[grover_larkins2]

<p>Hi Shun,</p>

<p>Darned right, in Africa the Big 5 are BIG.... A tiny adult Elephant is the size of a Bison..... We tend to think of things as being "hawk" sized or "Deer" sized... a costal Grizz is a tad shorter than an adult Lion (Tail INCLUDED!). </p>

<p>A real risk in Africa is transportation -- vibration and dust. I bungee my gear to seats and keep it in cases with a towel over the case to keep dust down. Pelican cases are clumsy but they work pretty good.....</p>

<p>Final word about the Mara in Kenya for those that have never been there: until late September the grass will likely be 2-3' tall in much of the Mara. You will want to be in close to the animals to get decent shots. In October, January, February the grass is MUCH shorter and longer lenses are OK from windows. You want to shoot from windows if at all possible due to the angles involved.... Get 2 Bean Bags -- one for the window and one for the roof... that way all you have to do is move the camera once your vehicle is positioned....</p>

<p>Once again, nice to "see" you here Shun!</p>

<p>All teh Best,</p>

<p>Grover</p>

<p> </p>