Which lens to take on safari to tanzania

[cor_bosman]

Hi all, im going on a safari in a few months and am in doubt which lens to take/buy.

I currently do not own a lens beyond 85mm, because I mostly use the camera for

underwater photography.

 

I have a D100 with a 12-24 AF-S, a 24-85 AF, and a 60mm. I was planning to buy an

80-400 VR, but the 70-200 VR with 2xTC seems like an option too because of the

AFS. It might be a hassle though having to switch between TC and no TC.

 

Any opinions? Im open for anything since I have no experience with this kind of

traveling.

 

Thanks,

 

Cor

[kostak]

When I was in South Africa, I did most of my shooting with a Canon 100-400 IS lens. I'd recommend having 28-105 lens handy as well. I'm not too familiar with the Nikon line, so I'm not sure what zooms are close to that. I'd strongly recommend the 80-400, sometimes with a multiplier (if you are interested in bird shots).

 

Have a great trip!

[louie]

Michael Reichmann just got back from a safari in Tanzania. You can find his report along with recommendations for equipment at Luminous Landscapes:

 

http://luminous-landscape.com/locations/tanzania.shtml

 

Shun Cheung has a trip report on his safari to Kenya here on photo.net:

 

http://www.photo.net/nature/kenya

[alex_lofquist]

When I was on my last safari in Kenya, I found that I used my 70-210mm lens the most, however some photos could not have been done without my 400mm. VR lenses, while nice, are not a necessity as safari vehicles usually come to a full stop and turn off their engines. A "bean-bag", or a sweater thrown on the window or edge of the roof hatch works well as a camera mount. I would tend to lean towards the VR 70-200 f/2.8 as it will enable faster shutter speeds in the evening or early morning when most of the action occurs, and switching to a TC doesn't take all that much time either. I would suggest using the 1.4X TC rather than 2X. It is less of a compromise, and will get you plenty of magnification for your digital cameras.

[cor_bosman]

The 70-200 2.8 VR with a 1.4 would give me 420mm on a D100. Is that enough? As

with anything people seem to disagree. Some say they shoot mostly with about

200mm, other say they use nothing but 500mm. Guess it depends what you're

interested in.

 

The 80-400mm cant do any converters I think, so id be using a 600mm max. I played

around with it on my D100 and the AF is just terribly slow. It does seem to perform

really well with static subjects. If only it had a faster AF :)

 

Would getting both be silly?

 

Also, do people bring wide angle lenses on safaris? Id think the 12-24 would be nice

for scenics.

 

Thanks,

 

Cor

[pf]

I leave tomorrow for 2 weeks in Tanzania. <br><br>

With a 10D, 17-40 f4, 70-200 f4, 300 IS f4 and 1.4x.<br><br>

I'll let you know how it was when I come back.<br><br>

[herman_hiel]

What do you intend to photograph?

I take at least two bodies, a 17-40f4, 70-200f2.8 and either a 300f2.8 or a 600f4 and 1.4 and 2x multiplier. That is the Canon version.

You'll see lots of birds and then you'll wish to have a long(er) lens.

The scenics are great, so you'll want a wideangle.

And for mammals you'll want a 70-200 or 100-400.

Why don't you rent one for your safari?

Enjoy.

[cor_bosman]

To be honest, I just dont really know what'll capture my interest on this trip. My main

passion is underwater macro photography. The goal of the trip is not necessarily

photography, but the overall experience. But there is going to be enough photography

to care about what to take, if that makes sense. I like nature, both big and small, but

I'll probably be more looking at mammals, scenics and people than birds.

 

I dont really want to take a huge heavy expensive long lens. Even to rent one. Thats

why I figured a 70-200 2.8 VR or the 80-400 4.5-5.6 VR would be a good

intermediate choice. Not terribly expensive, relatively small and usable for me in the

future. If I want to spend $6000 on something I prefer to do it on underwater gear :)

Maybe I'll buy the 70-200 2.8 VR, take the 12-24 and the 24-85, and see if I can rent

the 80-400 (which gives me 600mm on the D100). Does that sound reasonable?

 

Thanks,

 

Cor

[jay_.]

I owned the 80-400 VR just before I finally bailed on Nikon, in fact the 80-400VR was the straw that broke the camel's back because it wasn't AF-S. When I got my EOS outfit together I bought the 100-400IS (with Canon's USM which put it light years ahead of the Nikon in AF speed and quietness but optically the same unimpressive performance)because at that time the 70-200/2.8IS wasn't out yet. As soon as it came out I quickly sold the 100-400 and have used the 70-200 with 1.4x, 2x and even both stacked, with much better results than the 100-400 gave. So my advice is forget the 80-400 altogether and get the 70-200 VR and the 1.4 and 2xTC--oh, wait a minute I forgot, you can't stack Nikon's AF TC's together without grinding the flange,that's another reason I got out of Nikon.

[astral]

I was out there many years ago and a long lens is certainly essential. However, working apertures of f4 or lower can be tricky in some conditions, particularly low light before and after sunrise/sunset. Also, while the magnification of a tele might be great, the min. focus distance can be too long for some shots.

 

I found that I took a significant number of pics with a fast (f1.8) 50mm lens, especially for closeup & near-macro of tiddly likkle things, for indoors & available light work and, especially for the fantastic night sky long exposure shots that you may not even see in the viewfinder with a 400mm f5.6 lens attached.

 

I'd suggest, therefore, taking one short, reasonably fast semi-wide or 50mm prime. Apart from anything else, they are light and save getting a hernia carrying the "elephant guns". "Big lenses means big tripods". Eg I have a hand-held 1/16th f1.8 sec shot (Kodachrome 25) taken in a luxurious cave entrance at Sinoia, Rhodesia (sic) with a Takumar 50mm - no other lens in my bag was any use - the shot is still stunning nearly 30 years on!

 

Good luck

 

Alan C, UK

[joseph_verdesca]

I own the 80-400 VR and the 70-200 VR with teleconverters, and would strongly suggest the latter. The 80-400 is the only lens in the Nikon line that I regret having purchased, finding myself frustrated by the focussing speed, slow maximum aperture and general build quality. It's not a terrible lens, it's just disappointing.

 

The 70-200 is excellent - fast, well-built, bright, handles well, etc.

 

Perfect other than the price might be the newly announced 200-400 VR, but at $5500, that's probably over the top.