Is this a stupid idea...? Safari Lens question

[Amp34]

I've finally booked my 3 week camping safari and so am now looking in ernest for a decent lens to take with me...

I currently have a D7000 (for about a year) and a 70-300 VR. The 70-300 is ok... as a stop gap but not what I want to be taking with me.

I've been searching around for options over the last few months and drawing blanks a lot of the time. I'm not too keen on a super zoom (80-400, 50-500) because they are fairly slow at the long end and also soft where you need them most (the long end). That leads me to one of two options, either a nice prime or a shorter zoom.

With the shorter zooms I'd be looking at using a TC as well and from what I can see I have two options, the Nikon 70-200 VR or the sigma 120-300 OS. Both f/2.8 so I can stick on a TC and still have a fast zoom (with good AF) but the 70-200 I think will be just too short? The Sigma is subsequently my preferred option, I can get 420mm f/4 or a 600mm f/5.6 out of it, although with the 2x TC it's supposed to be a bit soft? The other problem is it's huge... 3kg...

For the prime side of things I only really have one option with Nikon... the 300 f/4, however it's expensive for what it is, and most of all it doesn't have VR which for me is a killer (having owned a 300 f/4 without IS/VR before). I could use a tripod all the time but that removes all the spontaneity, I'm not sure companions and guides would be very happy either... An f/2.8 OS/VR lens would be great, but out of my price range.

Now to the "Is this a stupid idea" part... I still have my old 400D, works fine and it's a great little camera... The Canon 300 f/4 IS is also several hundred cheaper than the Nikon non VR, and the Canon also has IS... For £1k I could get a 300 f/4 stabilised lens and a good 1.4TC... and take two bodies with me, the 400D and the D7000 (for the landscapes)... Am I being stupid? Are there any other options I haven't considered? Anyone want to sell me a Nikon fit f/2.8 300mm prime for less than £1300...?

And for those that have done safaris what lenses did you use (going to several locations, including the Ocavango and Namibia, so I'm guessing long is the call of the day)?

Thanks

 

[Journey]

Thought about renting a lens for a couple of weeks instead?

 

[King Damager]

If you're only going to use it on safari have you considered renting one for three weeks?

Edit: damn ginger!

kd

 

[DBT85]

My FIL took the 70-300 with him when he went on a safari and got some great images with his D40. What is it about the lens you think isn't enough for your trip?

Also I don't know if you want to consider hiring rather than buying whatever you go for? Sure you won't own the lens, but you'd be spending a couple of hundred for a months hire rather than £1000 to own it. I suppose it depends on your bank balance and how much use it'll get after the trip!

I've never been on a safari () so can't really give you any advice other than that.

I had a search on talkphotography and several threads popped up on the subject with people banging the drum for both the 70-300mm VR and the 70-200mm 2.8

 

[D.P.]

I would rent a Nikon 200-400mm F/4.0 VR. That lens is design for safari work.

Otherwise on a crop sensor the 70-300 does very well on Safaris. My Paretns went to South Africa last year and took back some great images, my sisters has been on several safaris with a 70-300VR. You don't need too much reach on a Safari and it is helpful to have a zoom because sometimes you get surprisingly close and you don't want to swap lenses in the dust.

For primes if you want reach on a budget you can't go wrong with the 300mm f/4.0 + 1.4xTC. But you would ideally have a second camera with a wider zoom lens on it.

 

[Nexus]

Another vote for rental.

 

[Auraomega]

I'm lucky/stupid enough to own both the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and the Sigma 120-300 f2.8

First thing I can tell you, the Sigma is a beast, make no mistake it's pin sharp if focused correctly (often it's mistaken for being soft as the depth of field is razor thin and often the lens is misfocused, hence it's reputation). I buy most of my kit through work, but we haven't had a bargain 1.4x converter in yet, however the 2x converter I did manage to grab... I've nicknamed it my soft focus converter, it's amazing to have a 600mm f5.6 lens and ideal for what I bought it for (airshows), but there are no feather details in birds.

Now the Nikon; it's smaller, lighter and easier to find second hand, it's pin sharp like the Sigma and a little more forgiving of misfocusing (although in my experience Nikon lens tolerance is closer to the Nikon bodies than the Sigma's anyway). Now while I've not got any example shots with the 1.4x and 2x converter, I can say the 1.4x is amazing and the 2x is still of decent quality if not a little softer than I'd ideally like.

On the D7000 you have fine focus adjusting which makes misfocusing a null point as long as you check it all over before heading out.

Now the big questions you have to ask yourself, do you:
A) Want to spend £900-1500 on a telephoto, more to the point, will it get enough use to justify the cost? Would renting a better lens be a better route, even though at the end you don't get to keep it, or would you prefer to have the lens at the end, in which case the above lenses would be ok?
B) Absolutely need the 300 f2.8? I mean, it's not exactly an easy to use lens and it's physically huge and not easy to carry. I find mine rarely sees the light of day compared to the 70-200. As a bare minimum you'll also need a monopod... don't even think about using it on a tripod if you're not going to invest in a gimbal head, a ball/3 way is just horrific to use something this big on.
C) Really want your trip dominated by a huge, overweight lens which offers a wide aperture when you'll likely be using it in an extremely bright environment anyway.

As for the Canon/Nikon question: take both, you never know when a second focal length might come in handy; anyone who does weddings and sports will tell you from the off having a second camera with a second focal range allows you to get shots you'd miss changing lenses (besides, out in a dusty environment you don't want to be changing lenses).

Hopefully my ramblings will give you something to mull over.

 

[Phal]

I'm tempted to hire stuff just so I can try it lol Quite fancy trying a Sigma 150-500mm which might be a contender for you? Fairly portable with plenty of reach.

 

[Amp34]

I have to admit I hadn't even contemplated renting. I always buy used from members markets so when buying and selling it evens out in the end, so even if I only used it for a few weeks I wouldn't lose much, whereas renting is just a money pit as it were. However I will seriously look into the 200-400, although it is £300 to rent for 3 weeks and I can't afford to buy it used* (if it came up). I'm also sharing a tent with an unknown, not sure if I can contemplate leaving £4k of lens in a piece of cloth next to someone I don't know... At least with my own £1k lens it would just be a bit gutting (I doubt insurance would ever pay out...)

It is also as big and heavy as the 120-300 and as Auraomega rightly points out it would make it more of a feature of the trip rather than just a tool to use... I'm not set on a 300 f/2.8, however I get the impression that a lot of animals will be a long way away and I've always had the issue with reach... A 2.8 can take both TC's ok, alongside the fact there doesn't appear to be a 300 f/4 in the Nikon camp (Nikon or 3rd Party) that has VR/OS that I could use a TC on. One of the big issues I always have when shooting with a long lens is getting a high enough shutter speed, with good light (i.e. softer light) shutter speeds can tumble, but then with the 400D I've never been able to go over ISO800 without it looking terrible... I'll be taking both a lightweight tripod (mainly for landscape and night/stars) and a separate monopod, probably a beanbag as well so support won't be a huge issue, I'm just not a fan of having to set them up when travelling around with others, it spoils their trip. One of the big negatives against the Sigma is the fact I can't find any*****where that stocks it so I can actually get an idea of the size of it...!

The 70-300 questions. On my 400D I got used to having long L lenses (300 f/4 and 70-200 f/4) and the 70-300, although good just isn't in the same league, especially focal speed wise. It was always a stopgap lens really.

Good suggestion about the second body though, versatility was one of the reasons the Sigma was high up the rankings, being a zoom, however a second body with a long lens would definitely help... But then I start thinking... For £1200 I could get a used Canon 300 f/4 IS, 1.4 TC AND a 40D... But then I start thinking well I also have my Canon fit Tokina 12-24... And the slippery slope of just saying stuff it, sell the D7000 and Nikon lenses and get 7D and a couple of short lenses... Not what I want to do!

*What is the used price of the Mk1?

 

[King Damager]

The sigma 120-300 seems to be in stock at wex. No idea where you are in the country, but if you're nearby you might be able to phone up and ask them if they could get one out for you to have a look at.

I recall them having the 150-500 on display when I was in, but can't remember about the 120-300. I'd say I'll have a look for you when I'm next in there (late next week), but frankly I'll probably forget. Also they seem to be charging £300 more for the Nikon fit one...

kd

 

[Auraomega]

Where are you mate? If you're local(ish) you're more than welcome to give my 120-300 a whirl to get a feel for it. The 150-500 is roughly the same length, but the 300 is both wider (105mm filter) and heavier (full metal construction).

If you're not from 'round these parts, I can try and get a shot of it in scale with something of a similar size (if I can find something) to give you an idea.

Also, check my DeviantArt, my profile picture has my 70-200 (in my hand) and 120-300 (hanging on my shoulder) on bodies, and a blog post to give you an idea of size.

 

[Amp34]

The sigma 120-300 seems to be in stock at wex. No idea where you are in the country, but if you're nearby you might be able to phone up and ask them if they could get one out for you to have a look at.

I recall them having the 150-500 on display when I was in, but can't remember about the 120-300. I'd say I'll have a look for you when I'm next in there (late next week), but frankly I'll probably forget. Also they seem to be charging £300 more for the Nikon fit one...

kd

If I buy it it'll be used, which is one of the problems. I'd feel guilty getting someone to order it in knowing I wasn't going to buy it. I'm London based so WEX is a little far for me. I've tried Calumet, various Jessops and Digital Depot but they never have them in stock, both have them available in the warehouse so next time I go past Calumet I may ask them to get it transferred, or see if they have the 200-400 which I think is around the same size.

Where are you mate? If you're local(ish) you're more than welcome to give my 120-300 a whirl to get a feel for it. The 150-500 is roughly the same length, but the 300 is both wider (105mm filter) and heavier (full metal construction).

If you're not from 'round these parts, I can try and get a shot of it in scale with something of a similar size (if I can find something) to give you an idea.

Also, check my DeviantArt, my profile picture has my 70-200 (in my hand) and 120-300 (hanging on my shoulder) on bodies, and a blog post to give you an idea of size.

I think you may have offered before, both offers very kind, however as you probably just read I'm London based, bit far to travel! A size comparison would be great actually if not too much bother, not sure with what though!

I don't suppose you could upload a full resolution shot taken with the 120-300 with the 2x TC (and maybe one without it as well - doesn't need to be a work of art, just any image in a real world situation rather than an mft chart). I'd love to see how "soft" it actually is. I asked on TP and got a single reply with an 800x600 image and a comment not to pixel peep which is very useful..

 

[DoubleCheese]

a lot depends on where you are going on Safari. I've been a number of times and what I've found to be really useful (essential now) is two camera bodies and two different lenses on each. You don't want to be changing lenses while out on your game drive. It's dusty and you could miss a great photo opportunity.

Depending on which Parks or Reserves you visit you'll experience a whole range of shooting opportunities and distances. In some circumstances 120 or 150mm might be too long, e.g if the animals are somewhat habituated to cars (depends on where you're going) they often walk right up alongside the vehicle or allow you to drive close to them if they are along the road/track.

I've used both the 70-300VR and 300mm F4 non VR on Safari and had great results with both. The non VR wasn't really a problem as it was really bright so I could use high enough shutter speeds to get good results. It's a great lens but I used the 70-300VR more due to the zoom range.

I'd think about two bodies, two D7000's say, and lenses to cover 18mm to 300mm. Have a read of Andy Biggs' Blog and what he takes with him.

 

[D.P.]

I do most of my recent wildlife work with a 300mm f4 +1.4xtc and don't for a second miss any stabalisation. I also own a 70-200mm f2.8vr and a 70-300vr, the 70-300 gets far more use than the 70-200. I don't knew why o dismissed the 70-300 because it in general reaches critical sharpness (although stopping down at 300mm helps) throughout the range. CA is about the only downside obvious downside, and that can be corrected in PP.

 

[Amp34]

a lot depends on where you are going on Safari. I've been a number of times and what I've found to be really useful (essential now) is two camera bodies and two different lenses on each. You don't want to be changing lenses while out on your game drive. It's dusty and you could miss a great photo opportunity.

Depending on which Parks or Reserves you visit you'll experience a whole range of shooting opportunities and distances. In some circumstances 120 or 150mm might be too long, e.g if the animals are somewhat habituated to cars (depends on where you're going) they often walk right up alongside the vehicle or allow you to drive close to them if they are along the road/track.

I've used both the 70-300VR and 300mm F4 non VR on Safari and had great results with both. The non VR wasn't really a problem as it was really bright so I could use high enough shutter speeds to get good results. It's a great lens but I used the 70-300VR more due to the zoom range.

I'd think about two bodies, two D7000's say, and lenses to cover 18mm to 300mm. Have a read of Andy Biggs' Blog and what he takes with him.

My first thought looking at that link was "wow! wouldn't want to be travelling round with him...!", second thought was, "no way am I going to be able to fit that kind of kit into a small daysack and small duffel bag..." and my third thought was the far more sensible "interesting comments about focal lengths..." Seriously I've just spent the last couple of hours browsing through some of the articles on his site and it has been very illuminating. Thanks for the link

I'm going to the Okavango, Etosha (Namibia) and a couple of other places, including hopefully the Cape seal colony as well. From the sounds of it a 300 with a TC for occasional use will be good enough for those situations. I'm loathe to take two bodies because of the space, especially if I end up with the 120-300 which is huge anyway, the zoom range would hopefully give me a lot of options anyway. I'll be in a mid size group with space at a premium which is something I need to remember. I can normally change a lens in a few seconds anyway so not a huge issue there.

When you mention good enough light are you also talking sunrise and sunset? From my experience you never get enough light on a clear summers evening in the UK to use a 300 hand held.

I do most of my recent wildlife work with a 300mm f4 +1.4xtc and don't for a second miss any stabalisation. I also own a 70-200mm f2.8vr and a 70-300vr, the 70-300 gets far more use than the 70-200. I don't knew why o dismissed the 70-300 because it in general reaches critical sharpness (although stopping down at 300mm helps) throughout the range. CA is about the only downside obvious downside, and that can be corrected in PP.

The focus speed is one of the big issues, slow wide open and so so IQ compared to a 300 prime or high quality "pro" lens. Unless mine is broken...

I think VR/IS is definitely a love hate thing, some people swear by it (inc. the guy in the link above), some people think it's pointless. Depends on your style of shooting and other things. Each to their own but as I said before having used non VR/IS long lenses for a couple of years I was really missing IS/VR. COming back to it is like a breath of fresh air. For me it means I can spend more time composing the picture, working out the best aperture and keeping the ISO as low as possible while not having to worry too much about the shutter speed causing camera shake.

My kit list at the moment is going to be something along the lines of:

D7000 and second battery
64 GB SD cards (4x16GB)
17-55 f/2.8 DX (everyday landscape lens)
Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (star trails, night shots and occasional closeup landscapes) - To buy...
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (wildlife lens) - To decide...
Lightweight travel tripod - 190 CXPro, 3LT Adrian etc with ball head (landscapes, stars etc)
Giottos Monopod - Maybe
Beanbag - to buy - Which one?

Think that's enough at the moment...

EDIT: And one more thing, I may add an iPad mini as a portable photo viewer and general playing/browsing device..

 

[bigredshark]

Personally I like the 70-300 VR on a crop body for a safari, reasonable focal length, it's small and light enough not to be a pain and it's decent optically.

If it's a once in a lifetime trip and you must have the best then the 200-400 is where it's at generally (though sometimes you'll want a 500 or 600, depends where you're going...).

If it's somewhere in the middle and you really aren't happy with the 70-300 then personally I'd try and rent a 300 of some kind in your position- though I think you're possibly worrying about nothing - focus isn't super sharp but it's good enough bearing in mind you likely won't be moving focus much, optically it's as good as my 70-200 f/2.8 to my eye in that range and is good out to 300.

It's not perfect no, but you'll need to spend significant amounts of money to best it at the long end of its range. I'd buy a second body from your list myself. You will want to swap between landscape and wildlife shots frequently if you're anything like me and in most places if you keep swapping lenses out in the bush then your body *will* end up full of dust. That and you really don't want to be swapping lens when you've just taken a landscape shot and a lion wonders out of the bush 150m away...however quick you are it's still slower than an extra body.

 

[Amp34]

Which 300mm are you recommending, I'm a little confused about the second paragraph! Are you actually talking about the 70-300? I've been using that for wildlife the last 9 months (previously using a 70-200 f/4 and before that a 300 f/4), I also took it to Costa Rica with me* and I just didn't find it in the same league as the other lenses I used before, as mentioned the inability to use a TC is another issue** and at 300mm (and under canopies) it really, really struggled with things like monkeys which I know from experience the 300 f/4 and 70-200 wouldn't have, although the VR was invaluable ( the 70-200 wouldn't have the length).

I am still tempted by a 300 f/4 IS prime but I'm starting to err back to the 120-300 for the extra stop and the extra versatility. With the prime I would definitely use another camera however, although the 400D and 40D would be a big step back from the D7000... It's not really a trip of a lifetime either, I'm plannng on doing another Jungle/nature place early next year and may do a trip or two that would use the lens in the mean time, if not I'll just sell it again and get something more useful for the trip I want to do at the time, it's what I do with all my lenses.

*I had planned on getting a replacement for that too but didn't get the time in the end.

** I'd say either the 300 f/4 or the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 are the cheapest good options to get to 400+mm

 

[Auraomega]

I'd feel guilty getting someone to order it in knowing I wasn't going to buy it.

I wish everyone was like, I get far to many customers order something and never actually buy it.

Anyway...

I think you may have offered before, both offers very kind, however as you probably just read I'm London based, bit far to travel! A size comparison would be great actually if not too much bother, not sure with what though!

I did indeed, I didn't realise it was you last time! I've been racking my brain all day to find something to compare it against, but it turns out it's rare to find anything large and of a standard size that most people have. I'll try and do it against a 2l bottle of something fizzy later

I don't suppose you could upload a full resolution shot taken with the 120-300 with the 2x TC (and maybe one without it as well - doesn't need to be a work of art, just any image in a real world situation rather than an mft chart). I'd love to see how "soft" it actually is. I asked on TP and got a single reply with an 800x600 image and a comment not to pixel peep which is very useful..

If you shoot me a message in trust I'll email a couple of full res samples, although bare in mind that the 300mm is on a D300, and the 600mm are on a D3.

It's not really a trip of a lifetime either, I'm plannng on doing another Jungle/nature place early next year

To me that sounds like a definite buy over rent, if you were to rent something like the 200-400 (which is a better lens, but for the record is a heavier and significantly larger lens than the 120-300) 3 times over you'd have paid for the 120-300 outright.

 

[bigredshark]

Which 300mm are you recommending, I'm a little confused about the second paragraph! Are you actually talking about the 70-300? I've been using that for wildlife the last 9 months (previously using a 70-200 f/4 and before that a 300 f/4), I also took it to Costa Rica with me* and I just didn't find it in the same league as the other lenses I used before, as mentioned the inability to use a TC is another issue** and at 300mm (and under canopies) it really, really struggled with things like monkeys which I know from experience the 300 f/4 and 70-200 wouldn't have, although the VR was invaluable ( the 70-200 wouldn't have the length).

I'm not sure which, the 300 f/4 is underrated in my view and the 300 f/2.8 is obviously fantastic, I think on a crop body I'd take one of those if I wasn't satisfied with the 70-300 and wanted more reach than the 70-200 (oh, and didn't fancy paying for the 200-400). On a full frame body I'd take a 400 or the 200-400. Obviously

I'm not convinced any zoom other than the 200-400 would be enough of an upgrade to be worth the money personally but I don't know the 120-300 at all.

 

[Auraomega]

Right, I've done some very poor phone photos of the 70-200, 120-300 with a 2x converter (extrapolate the height of the lens without it on) and a 2l bottle of Pepsi all taken in a rather messy kitchen

First off, the lenses without their hoods on properly:

The 120-300 + TC is the same height as the bottle, wider and to my inquisitive hands (oo-er) about twice the weight of the Pepsi.

Secondly, the hoods on:

Hoods are about the same height due to the Sigma having a relatively wide setting, and not being a petal shape.

Third, with a D3 on:

The D3 is hardly a small camera but the Sigma swamps it, I mean really swamps it!

Final one, a shot of it balanced on my arm, remember that the further a weight is from your body, the harder it is to hold steady:

...yeah... my arm was shaking holding it in that awkward position. You can't exactly carry that around town either... and yes I tried when I lived slap bang in the city centre, I might as well have been a victim of the plague!

A photo I've posted a number of times on here as it's about the only decent shot I've managed with the 120-300 (again, comes round to a lens that you go out to use, rather than use when you're out):