Best lens for a safari

Richard32

Richard32

Suspended / Banned
Messages
13
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys I have seen 2 lenses that I'm after that are in my price range and I have seen some good images on both of em.
The lenses are Sigma 120mm-400mm f4.5, sigma 70mm-200mm f2.8, or the tamron 70mm-200mm f2.8?
 
Last edited:
Not sure if 70-200 will be long enough for you (but you always could use teleconverter when needed) and have fast 2.8 lens. What sort of photography you usually doing?
 
Hiya I will be doing mainly landscape and nature photography.
 
what camera you using?

P.S.
try posting new post instead of editing all time :) as it makes everyone confused.
 
I not long brought a canon 550d.
I no it's cos I realised I posted the wrong post in where you introduce yourself, probably being half asleep don't help
 
Richard32 said:
I not long brought a canon 550d.
I no it's cos I realised I posted the wrong post in where you introduce yourself, probably being half asleep don't help
Click to expand...

:lol:


So, if you get something like 120-400mm, 150-500mm from sigma you have long reach (but i don't think that optically they are very good). personally i would go for 70-200mm f2.8 (sigma version as tamron is slow AF) and get teleconverter. in that case you gonna have fast 70-200mm lens. good for everything really from portraits to landscapes.
 
I was thinking the same about going for the sigma 70-200 over the tamron as I was reading reviews that it's slow. What teleconverter would be best to buy?
 
not sure about prices for canon ones... but saw some good reviews about Kenko/sigma. they are cheaper. and if you not gonna use them very often don't see a point to spend more £££. it's all depends what a budget you have in mind
 
That's true as I won't really be using it alot, I would say up to £200-£250, will have a look on ebay and see if I can get a good deal.
 
Hi Richard, I think if you're off on safari, you don't want to be under gunned by restricting yourself to a lens with a maximum 200mm focal length.All of the above lenses have a good reputation, I would have no problems using the 120-400 sigma, optically I've found sigma lenses to be very good. I have the 120-300 sigma and whilst its fine on its own or with a 1.4 teleconverter, it's not up to the mark with a 2 x tc (purely subjective of course), I'm not convinced the 70-200's witha 2x tc would be better than the longer zoom? Bouncing around in the back of a vehicle in dusty conditions I would advise against taking lenses and converters on and off if you can avoid it. On that note make sure you've got a 2nd body with a shorter standard zoom around as we'll if poss. Enjoy your trip. Mark
 
You have a Canon? So you need 'the' safari lens, the 100-400.

Honestly, forget about 70-200 with a TC. You've paid a lot of money to go on holiday, get some decent pictures. Buy a second-hand 100-400 for £880 from MPB, use it on safari then flog it when you return for £800.
 
hollis_f said:
You have a Canon? So you need 'the' safari lens, the 100-400.

Honestly, forget about 70-200 with a TC. You've paid a lot of money to go on holiday, get some decent pictures. Buy a second-hand 100-400 for £880 from MPB, use it on safari then flog it when you return for £800.
Click to expand...

Only problem with this idea is when you get back you won't want to flog it. ;)
 
Richard32 said:
Hi guys I have seen 2 lenses that I'm after that are in my price range and I have seen some good images on both of em.
The lenses are Sigma 120mm-400mm f4.5, sigma 70mm-200mm f2.8, or the tamron 70mm-200mm f2.8?
Click to expand...

200 isn't really long enough at the long end, and 70 is a little too long at the short end.

If you search the forum you'll find a few threads that will provide a lot of pertinent help.
 
Just been on safari in Tanzania last week.

I reckon a decent 300mm on a crop body is enough for pretty much everything - anything longer than that and given the climate, you start getting issues with atmospheric distortion (assuming you're shooting stuff a long way away).

Much more useful is a second body I reckon so something like a 70-300 on one and a standard zoom on another. This means you can get good close ups and then quickly switch to get a shot of an animal in its surroundings (which I reckon is far better than a million mega close ups anyway).

What people never tell you is just how dusty these places are, changing lenses all the time is a recipe for a filthy inside of your camera (the outside WILL be filthy whatever) I know this now...
 
Nawty said:
What people never tell you is just how dusty these places are, changing lenses all the time is a recipe for a filthy inside of your camera (the outside WILL be filthy whatever) I know this now...
Click to expand...

And you'll probably never get all of the dust off the outside of the camera. I took a bridge camera to Kenya a few years ago and it was impossible to clean the very fine and bright orange dust from Tsavo from it. Getting it out of my hair and off my skin in the shower each night was also pretty difficult after a day standing in an open top Land Rover!
 
Nawty said:
I reckon a decent 300mm on a crop body is enough for pretty much everything
Click to expand...

300mm may be long enough for larger animals in Southern Africa. But the animals tend to be further away on the East African plains - so you definitely benefit from more length. And for birds 300mm is woefully inadequate.

Most of my Tanzania shots were with the 100-400.

Oh, and after my first safari (when my 70-300 DO stopped working two days after our return) I never found dust to be a problem. When driving about my main camera is on my lap, under a fleece. It's ready for use but the fleece keeps the dust off. Spare camera is in a bag under my seat.
 
Last edited:
I find 300mm is nearly always woefully inadequate for birds :)

A lot also depends on the practicalities of shooting from a vehicle, if you are on your own then it won't be too much of a problem wielding a huge lens (saw one chap with a 600mm f/4 :eek: but if your Toyota is full then you won't be thanked for having a monster lens.

I guess it depends on expectations of what the OP wants - I've not been through my photos yet (only got back this morning) but on only a few occasions did I find myself wanting more than 300mm on FF for which I swapped to a D3200 I had as backup, which worked fine.

On the occasions 300mm wasn't enough then 1000mm+ wasn't really enough to fill the frame either (I had a Nikon J1 with FT1) so for me it is about compromise (as it always is) and I think most people would find 300mm sufficient considering the options for longer aren't small or cheap.

Of course, I can only talk from my experience in Tanzania (Serengeti is pretty damn large though!).
 
Thanks for the advice, from my budget which I should have mentioned to start with, I could go up to £750. I don't go till October the 5th I go to Nakuru then to the Masai Mara, but paying the last of it of when I get paid this month. From reading about problems with dust, would it be advisable for me to take a camera cover.
 
Richard32 said:
From reading about problems with dust, would it be advisable for me to take a camera cover.
Click to expand...

Not really. Dust is really only a problem when you're travelling. Once you stop moving the dust soon settles. That's why I just cover my camera with a fleece or a towel while it sits on my lap as we drive from one spot to the next.
 
Rent a 100-400mm L it was the best decision I made before we went to India to see tigers got loads of great shots and while loads of people thought I must have spent a fortune I'd actually spent about 100 quid!

It's a great lens and if I had any interest in shooting wildlife in the uk I'd buy one!
 
Big Andy said:
If you go down the rent route then take a look at the Sigma 120-300 and a 1.4 convertor, that will give you a very flexible range with f2.8 for those early morning game drives.
Click to expand...

But, at 3kg it's a bit bulky for swinging around in a crowded vehicle. The 100-400 is less than half that - which can be vital if your weight limit is strict.
 
I was thinking about renting the 100-400 lens, due to my budget being only £750, as I want to get as many quality shots as possible, the lens that comes into my price range is the sigma 120-400 but I have heard mixed reviews on that so bit unsure weather to buy that one.
 
decisions decisions decisions... So do you want to rent or buy a lens? My suggestion was for buying a lens (70-200mm f2.8) and converter as this combo is gonna be good option for you. Don't forget you have x1.6 crop factor on focal length too.
get something like x1.7 converter.
example:
200mm x 1.7 (converter) x 1.6 (crop factor) = 544mm
It's not gonna be too heavy or big.
You use it in safari. Coming back to UK and you have superb 70-200mm lens. good for many types of photography :).
 
Richard32 said:
I was thinking about renting the 100-400 lens, due to my budget being only £750
Click to expand...

Hiring is good, but expensive. Renting a 100-400 for 10 days is likely to cost around £100. If you can stretch your budget a little then you can buy one second-hand, with 6 months warranty, for £880. That means you could buy it a few weeks beforehand to get some practice with it.

When you return it should be easy-peasy to sell it for around £800. You get to use the lens for a longer period and it costs less.
 
I've taken both lenses Sigma 120-400 and Canon 100-400 on safari in the past.

The 100-400 is the better of the two, you would expect no less as it costs 2x as much! It is sharper at all apertures, has (sllightly) faster autofocus and is lighter. On the downside it is a push pull lens, which some folks don't like. It is also 20mm wider - I find that makes a big difference particularly on a cropper

The Sigma is heavier but has far better stabilisation. While not able to quite produce the image quality of the canon, it will perform perfectly well. It is a great safari lens - although not quite as good as the Canon. In summary if you budget is restricted this lens will not disappoint. I bought mine in 2009 and had to buy new as it had not been out very long - these days I've seen used examples for around £400

Although I think Frank's suggestion for looking at a used 100-400 is probably the best - if you choose to keep it you get a great lens, if you choose to sell you will get your money back (they always sell well as they are v popular lenses)

One other thing to factor in is that both these lenses can be a handful - they are relatively large in comparison to most 70-300 f4/5.6 type lenses. On cameras like the 550D they can be a little front heavy. Using a bean bag to support is a good idea, but also adding a battery grip to give the camera a bit more "chunk" is worth considering (I hate grips, but in this instance they server a useful purpose!).
 
Last edited:
Some good advice there about the 2 lenses, if I was to buy the 100-400 lens I don't think I would want to sell it though as it will come in useful for when I go to away next year to Costa Rica and Finland as I will be photographing more wildlife.
 
hollis_f said:
Dust is really only a problem when you're travelling. Once you stop moving the dust soon settles.
Click to expand...

In my experience, if you wait for the dust to settle you may well lose the shot. And some shots need to be taken on the move.
 
digital said:
And some shots need to be taken on the move.
Click to expand...

On African roads! Your image stabilisation must be amazing. When driving fast enough to kick up dust, the bouncing around is so severe that I doubt I could even keep the viewfinder close to my eye, let alone take a shot!
 
Some parks (like Tsavo) are so dry and dusty that the dust rises without any excuse. You don't need to be going at speed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top