New lens for Safari

I

iamnew

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
My parents have recently bought a canon 400D and have the standard 18 - 55 lens as well as a sigma 55 - 200 lens.

They are going on Safari at the end of the month and are looking to buy a new lens for distance shots. It will probably only be used for a couple of weeks so spending thousands of pounds is out of the question.
Could anyone pass on any advice?
Am I right in thinking the 200 would be too small?
Would buying something like a 70 - 300 be a worthless upgrade?
I have borrowed a manual focus 420 - 800 lens, will this be any good?
I have noticed a few cheap cheap lens on Ebay such as 15-30x Telescope 1200-2500mm for all Digital SLR Camera, am I right in assuming they are a waste of money?
What about something like the Opteka 650-1300mm Super Telephoto Zoom Lens?
What are extension tubes and their purpose?

Sorry for all the questions but I don't really have much of an idea!! All comments welcome, thanks.

Stuart
 
No extreme zoom is going to be good, double so if it's cheap.
The telescope will be impossible to shoot with while hand holding the camera.

If you think your parents have a good eyesight and they are comfy with manually focusing that lens, it should be enough. Why won't you give it a try if you've borrowed it?

A 70-300 lens is usually OK, the extra reach is nice, but you might want to consider something like a new Sigma 170-500 mm (even though that one is pretty expensive and probably way over your budget).
I don't think your parent will be running around with a tripod the whole day and 300 mm lens is about what you can usually hand hold even if the weather isn't perfect.
Full manual mode is better in that case, though.
 
The Opteka would come in handy if you want to defend yourself against prowling lions or subdue a hyena so you can take a shot of a concussed beastie.

I guess the Telescope thing fits in the same category. Notice that none of the "shots" are moving. They are all of static objects. I guess it starts at f16 or greater....?

Nothing wrong with manual focus lenses.

You'll still need fast apertures tho'f f8 or below as (f2.8 if you've the wonga).
 
I think 200mm will be fine for most things. Agree with the comments about super-zooms - the results will probably be hopeless. With lenses you mostly get what you pay for.

By way of example, here is my flickr set from Tanzania last year. Most of the animals were shot with a 200mm on a Canon 350D. The only other lens I had was the kit lens. I'm going to Namibia next week - I'll take the kit lens, the 200mm and a 300mm. I've got a 100-400mm but I'm leaving that at home.

One possible option is to buy a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to put behind the Sigma.

A tripod will be nothing more than a hindrance. It may, however, be worth thinking of a bean bag that can be rested on a car window or similar. I bought one of these.
 
I can't comment on brands etc... However, I took a Canon 70-300 IS USM... and it done the job pretty well.

However, it was only good at getting close up shots of animals close/medium distance away.

I could have done with a lens that had a slightly longer range!! maybe a 100-400 L ;) but funds didn't let me stretch that far.

Looking back, taking photos on the highest quality and biggest resolution ment that for the range I couldn't get, I can crop - and it'll still give full frame pictures. If I had the money, I would have loved to have got something with a 400mm range - or even the Sigma 50-500 !!

I tihnk I cope okay with the 70-300... but I knew I couldn't have gone any lower.

By the way - where are you going?
 
You can hire lenses, which I think is the route your parents should take.
If they can get hold of a 100-400is it will cover most of their needs.
When hiring make sure the correct insurance is purchased.

HTH
 
Just a side note. From the pictures of safari's that I have seen a 200mm lens is generally quite good as the beasties can get quite close. Your 55-200 will fit the bill. Personally, I wouldnt bother with a 70-300. The second hand market is full of great deals. For instance the Canon 70-200 f/4 L can be had quite cheaply and although it doesnt offer you anything over your current budget zoom the quality of the results will be far superior. This can also be mated with a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter. The Kenko Pro 300 1.4x teleconverter is a pretty damn good lump of kit and can be had for less than £100 if you shop around.

You didnt really mention a budget but the above combo could be had for less than £500.

King.

EDIT: A beanbag is a must, you will need something to support the camera as the days are quite long apparantly.

Have fun :-)
 
300mm in my opinion is a must, try and get as much reach for your money but try and get as much to the low end as possible, you dont want to be stuck over 200mm then have an animal come really close, but i would stay clear of those opteka things they look nasty and as mentioned before no way could you hand hold a telescope at 1000mm+
 
Thanks for all the posts so far guys, surprised how many there are!!!
I have got a bean bag from my boss to try with his manual lens. Thanks

What would the Canon EF 75-300mm F/4.0-5.6 III USM LENS be like? Any advantage?

Edit - What is the advantage of a teleconverter? I assume it just magnifys the lens...
and they are going to South Africa I think...
 
ive got the 90 300 with out the III USM and its pretty good, so im guessing the 75- 300 should be better !
 
iamnew said:
Edit - What is the advantage of a teleconverter? I assume it just magnifys the lens...
and they are going to South Africa I think...
Click to expand...

I would not put a tele-convertor on anything but the best of glass because the effect on the quality of the image can be quite bad.

As for range, I agree with David above that 300mm is a must. On my trips to Africa I will use the whole range of 17mm out to 600 on a non-cropped (full frame whatever ;) ) body and I would suggest that you'll do fine with something that reaches to 300mm.

The de-facto most popular and most versatile lens on a Canon is the 100-400mm. I see bloomin loads of them over there and for good reason. :) It is worth stretching the bank balance for IMHO. Especially if you can use it for other things. :D

I don't start many threads here at T.P. I just tend to pimp the old ones over and over again. Just can't help myself. :naughty: You can see what I have done with various focal lenses in Africa on Safari here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=15826

Mostly 100-400 L IS.

and here:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=26372

Mix of 17-40, 70-200 f2.8 L IS, 300 F2.8 L IS and 300 with x2 convertor.

Remember, have fun and enjoy yourself out there. :D
 
I'm off on Sunday. Again, another vote for 300.

You don't actually say where you are going. "Safari" and "Africa" cover a multitude of sins. You generally benefit from longer glass in East Africa than you do in the scrubland of Southern African (there are exceptions).

I've readily used 600mm in Kenya and wished for more. Further south, 400 was enough on the last few trips.

IS is well worth having if they/you can stretch to it. A lot of interesting stuff is in low light and IS helps reduce camera shake.
 
grumpybadger said:
IS is well worth having if they/you can stretch to it. A lot of interesting stuff is in low light and IS helps reduce camera shake.
Click to expand...

Doesnt stop a cheetah from running at 60mph though. A bean bag and steady platform (edge of jeep I assume) is all you need. But I agree, IS is a life saver in some situations.

King.
 
I'd go with the 100-400 L IS, a great lens and the IS is excellent. Also take a good monopod, eases the weight and helps stability
 
King_Boru said:
Doesnt stop a cheetah from running at 60mph though. A bean bag and steady platform (edge of jeep I assume) is all you need. But I agree, IS is a life saver in some situations.

King.
Click to expand...

Having spent 6 months of my life taking photos in Africa I would have to disagree. IS is a lifesaver for panning shots of animals moving. You cannot pan on a beanbag. I could not have taken this shot using a beanbag.

WPOTY-12.jpg


Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be without a beanbag, but they have their place and are not the universal panacea. If the camera is light, a rolled up fleece works well in place of a beanbag too.

IS serves a similar purpose to a beanbag, in allowing a slower shutter speed without shake - it's not as big an effect as a beanbag but you can pan and remain mobile.

I stand by my statement that IS is well worth having.

Paul
 
King, I'm with Paul on this one. I've recently gone from a 35/350 L non-is to a 100-400IS and it is chalk and cheese. GET IS IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN!!!!
George
 
grumpybadger said:
Having spent 6 months of my life taking photos in Africa I would have to disagree. IS is a lifesaver for panning shots of animals moving. You cannot pan on a beanbag. I could not have taken this shot using a beanbag.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't be without a beanbag, but they have their place and are not the universal panacea. If the camera is light, a rolled up fleece works well in place of a beanbag too.

IS serves a similar purpose to a beanbag, in allowing a slower shutter speed without shake - it's not as big an effect as a beanbag but you can pan and remain mobile.

I stand by my statement that IS is well worth having.

Paul
Click to expand...

George said:
King, I'm with Paul on this one. I've recently gone from a 35/350 L non-is to a 100-400IS and it is chalk and cheese. GET IS IF YOU POSSIBLY CAN!!!!
George
Click to expand...

Now re-read what I said.

King_Boru said:
Doesnt stop a cheetah from running at 60mph though. A bean bag and steady platform (edge of jeep I assume) is all you need. But I agree, IS is a life saver in some situations.

King.
Click to expand...

And although you have managed to capture the cheetah, where I am sure your IS has helped given the low light situation, the cheetah remains unsharp and blured. Like I said, or I will re-word it, IS will help in some situations but it isnt be all have all. The fact remains that IS stabalizes the image but it doesnt freeze a fast moving cheetah. When time elapsed image stabalization exsists then this would be possible of course.

Again dont get me wrong, IS works, it works well, but it isnt essential in every sngle situation your in.
 
Thanks guys, IS are heading at £300 and over for the canon though... Do Tamron or Sigma do a similar version not branded 'IS'?
 
King_Boru said:
Now re-read what I said.



And although you have managed to capture the cheetah, where I am sure your IS has helped given the low light situation, the cheetah remains unsharp and blured. Like I said, or I will re-word it, IS will help in some situations but it isnt be all have all. The fact remains that IS stabalizes the image but it doesnt freeze a fast moving cheetah. When time elapsed image stabalization exsists then this would be possible of course.
Click to expand...

It's a leopard and the head is sharp - I was panning with the head, something you can't do from a beanbag. And slow shutter speeds, unless the entire animal moves in an arc with the lens, you will get some parts soft and some parts sharper. My point was, having spent lots of time doing this, I genuinely belive a beanbag is less help than IS. IS can really help in panning as it provides stability in the vertical plane - this can only be done with IS or with mounts and gimbals.

Re-reading what you said "A beanbag ... is all you need" I still beg to differ.

I don't believe anyone does a 300mm IS apart from Canon. Tamron don't have the technology and the Sigma 80-400 OS is considerably more expensive.
 
Joe T said:
I havent heard good things about the 80-400 I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

And if you know where to look you can get a new Canon EF 100-400 L IS for just a little more. :)

Oh and you might as well save money over the 80-400 and get the 50-500 Sigma Bigma thing even though it hasn't got OS but is better regarded amongst users of such things. :D
 
Slapo said:
What would be the nasties?

I mean, I know Sigmas are a hit and miss on Canons in general, but maybe that was something else.
Click to expand...

This particular lens has slow noisy AF, probably due to it not being HSM. Its a lot of money to pay for a non HSM lens I think. When shooting wildlife AF speed is pretty important. :)
 
Ok thanks for all the help so far.
I am currently looking at the canon IS lenses which seem to range from £200 - £350 or there abouts.
Anyone know any good shops / websites that I should look at for cheap deals?
 
oldgit said:
The Opteka would come in handy if you want to defend yourself against prowling lions or subdue a hyena so you can take a shot of a concussed beastie.
Click to expand...
:clap: :agree:


Where are you going S. Africa or E. Africa?
As the types of safari vehicle vary, In E. Africa the vehicles will be enclosed with open sides & roof so a bean bag will be essential. S. Africa on the other hand will have open roofless jeeps rendering a beanbag virtualy useless unless you are in the front seat next to the ranger.

The location also applies to the lens as you will get much closer to animals in S. Africa so a 300 will just about suffice.
Kenya on the other hand my 500mm & 1.4 TC rarely left the camera and i still needed more!!

I agree the 100-400L would be a great choice if you can stretch to it.

A site for price comparison www.camerapricebuster.co.uk
 
South Africa, the current lens I am looking at is the canon EF 70 - 300 F4-5.6 IS USM. This is not really within budget but I am trying to strike a deal!!
 
 
 
 
Cape Town & Kruger i presume?
 
Hello Dotty and welcome. :wave:

I hope you had a great time there. :D

Now to put my forum party pooper hat on. You seem to have accidentally turned this into a 56k modem AAAAGH keep away thread. :eek: Not so bad on my 8mb link but others may have a bit of trouble with the pictures being overly large. Shrunk down to 800 pixels on the long side would help keep the file size down and help everyone here have a happy day. :thumbs:
 
Hi Dotty, welcome to the forum.

You have a couple of real corkers in amongst all those :thumbs:
Sorry to have removed the image tags but pics were oversized.
Rule is 800px on the longest side or links only.
Ta! :)
 
No worries Admin, My bad.

It was Cape Town and also Kruger park.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top