Safari lens query

M

MelS

Suspended / Banned
Messages
33
Name
Mel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,
I am off to Botswana for a safari in July and am considering what equipment to take with me.

I have a Nikon D7200 with the following lenses:
- 10-20mm DX (small, light, not v fast);
- 35mm DX (v small, v fast, light)
- 18-55m kit lens (small, light, not v fast)
- 70-300mm G 4.5-5.6 AF-S (small and light for a zoom, not v fast)
- 500mm Sigma 4.5 prime (wonderful lens, but impractical as massive and heavy).

My thoughts are the 35mm is a no brainer for general stuff, with the 70-300mm being suitable for the wildlife stuff as the crop factor gives an effective 105-450mm zoom. However, we are told that we will be going early when the light is poor and it is not v fast, so I'm concerned I may struggle in those conditions.

Should I be looking for a faster zoom for low light conditions? If so, what?

Thanks!
 
Hi Mel,
I guess that you will be flying on a regional flight to get to Botswana, ie if you fly from Cape Town or J'Burg then you might fly with AirLink. Check the cabin baggage policy as some can be quite restrictive. 7KG for Qatar!!, unlimited BA. So that might stifle transporting the Big Sigma. That said the Sigma is only 2/3 stop lighter than the zoom...which won't make a huge difference.
Good that you have the D7200, was superior to D7100, so use Auto-ISO as the D7200 can handle much higher ISOs than you think.
A 100-400 or maybe the 200-500/5.6 might be options, still 5.6 but at least you get the reach of the Sigma, but more versatility if the animal comes closer.

Something like the Nikon 200-400f4 is close to the Sigma 500 size-wise, or an alternative would be a 300/4. Leave the 18-55 at home.

HTH
 
Thanks for the tip about luggage - I will have to check as I'm going from Jo'burg to Victoria Falls...

Honestly I don't think I would take the Sigma lens - I think it is too big and heavy and I may annoy the other people in the van! The 200-400 f4 is possible and may eventually replace the Sigma (I rarely use it as it is too big; may be twice a year. It is great for birding in a hide, or taking night sky shots, but is impractical for most other things).

Auto ISO often jacks it up very high and I do worry about the impact on quality; though honestly I have not really noticed much difference until now - I'm certainly not a pro and the glass I use isn't exactly top dollar (except the sigma of course, which was inherited from my father-in-law who was a very keen birder).

Maybe I should just get over it and stick with what I've got...but it does seem like a good opportunity to get a new toy :)
 
When we went to Zambia, I took a Canon 7Dii, 15-85mm, 100-400mm and 1.4x TC. The 100-400 was almost glued to the camera, very useful. Also recommend taking some decent* binoculars, ours were in use all the time.

*we have a pair of these for general uses and serve well as a minimum in terms of optical quality:
www.cameraworld.co.uk

Opticron Explorer 8x42 WA ED-R Roof Prism Binoculars

#html-body [data-pb-style=MIJJM3N]{justify-content:flex-start;display:flex;flex-direction:column;background-position:left top;background-size:cover;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-attachment:scroll}Opticron Explorer WA ED-R 8x42 Binoculars The&nbs
www.cameraworld.co.uk www.cameraworld.co.uk

We each took Swarovski binoculars (SLC HD 8x42 and EL SV 8.5x42) Africa (and on many other trips) and they are just excellent, but rather steep price wise.
 
Last edited:
Thanks very much for this - I have the opticron 10x42 explorers so hoping for the best with them. The Swarovskis are beautiful, but somewhat out of my price range!

With the lens, I am assuming it is the 4.5-5.6 version, so wondering if you ever had any issues with low light? Did you need the 1.4x converter on the big lens? I assume the Canon is also an APS-C so 400 is actually closer to 600?
 
Like the Nikon there are 2 versions of the 100-400, the IS II version is by far the better of the 2 variants (the older one is a trombone design) and is still highly regarded. On an EF body the maginfication is 1.6 (rather than 1.5 as the Canon APS-C sensor is slightly smaller), so 620 mm effective....

The Nikon 80-400 4-5.6G is the second of Nikon's 80-400 lenses. The original was slow focussing but optically excellent. Have a think again about the 200-500/5.6 Nikkor, you definitely can leave the TC behind then, now that people are trading them in for the Z180-600 prices have dropped. You can actually set a limit on auto-ISO on the D7200, either 1600 or 3200, if you want to, but software to reduce noise is getting better and better.
 
I was hoping for something a bit faster, but still small enough to be properly portable - do you think the 200-500 would be the best option (it isn't too big, but is quite chunky - around 2.3kg).
The 80-400 would be a replacement for the 70-300 I currently have and is a possibility, though still isn't any faster than what I have already. I have also heard that there were some quality issues with the G version of this lens (though presumably if they are still working, most are 10yrs old, so have already stood the test of time - I am only thinking about 2nd hand!).
The 80-400 is less than 1500g and a fair bit smaller than the 200-500, though it is also almost double the weight of the 70-300...

NB It was only when I limited the ISO that I realised the impact - shots that had been fine suddenly went black - even at 3200 with the 70-300 (though that may have been user error - I got it taking reasonable pics on aperture priority mode, rather than manual, after that).
 
MelS said:
Thanks very much for this - I have the opticron 10x42 explorers so hoping for the best with them. The Swarovskis are beautiful, but somewhat out of my price range!

With the lens, I am assuming it is the 4.5-5.6 version, so wondering if you ever had any issues with low light? Did you need the 1.4x converter on the big lens? I assume the Canon is also an APS-C so 400 is actually closer to 600?
Click to expand...
The 10x42 Explorers will be fine. Main challenge as always, is in low-light. The Swarovski would have been out of our price range too, but we used some money left to us when my Dad passed away. We remember him every time we use them.

The 7Dii has an APS-C sensor with a 1.6x crop factor.


Nikon APS-C are as mentioned slightly larger so have a crop factor of 1.5x

What is crop factor and how do I calculate it? DX and FX explained

How does sensor sizes affect me? Everything you need to know
www.nikon.co.uk


The tele-zoom I have is an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II. Yes, low light was/is a challenge, but still got some decent shots with it. Didn’t make a lot of use of the 1.4x TC, especially for Leopards, Lions and so on, 400mm with the crop was enough.

My other half took a Canon 80D (also 1.6x crop) and a 70-300mm, so a bit less reach. Most of the time it was fine and she took some great shots with it.

Main thing is to enjoy the experience and if you get some decent photos too, bonus!

If you do get some new gear, I suggest before your trip, giving it a good workout at your local zoo or just out and about taking photos of birds, sheep, cows. Especially in low light conditions.

Enjoy, good luck
 
GeeJay57 said:
The 10x42 Explorers will be fine. Main challenge as always, is in low-light. The Swarovski would have been out of our price range too, but we used some money left to us when my Dad passed away. We remember him every time we use them.

The 7Dii has an APS-C sensor with a 1.6x crop factor.


Nikon APS-C are as mentioned slightly larger so have a crop factor of 1.5x

What is crop factor and how do I calculate it? DX and FX explained

How does sensor sizes affect me? Everything you need to know
www.nikon.co.uk


The tele-zoom I have is an EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM II. Yes, low light was/is a challenge, but still got some decent shots with it. Didn’t make a lot of use of the 1.4x TC, especially for Leopards, Lions and so on, 400mm with the crop was enough.

My other half took a Canon 80D (also 1.6x crop) and a 70-300mm, so a bit less reach. Most of the time it was fine and she took some great shots with it.

Main thing is to enjoy the experience and if you get some decent photos too, bonus!

If you do get some new gear, I suggest before your trip, giving it a good workout at your local zoo or just out and about taking photos of birds, sheep, cows. Especially in low light conditions.

Enjoy, good luck
Click to expand...
Many thanks for your reply; its reassuring to know that it will probably be ok even if I just use what I have got - that takes the pressure off and makes it a fun thing, rather than a stressful one!
 
As a completely left-field choice, youi might be able to pick up a fast vintage prime and adapter for a lot less. If you felt like giving manual focus a try.

I've found it to be a great way of getting much better glass than I'd be able to buy if it was new. Learn to use it and it's as sharp as anything modern.

NB - I've no idea what would fit your particular camera, and whether or not it would do focus peaking, but I've really got into shooting this way over the last year.

I started this thread to celebrate vintage glass on modern bodies (not just my shots) so you can see the kind of results people are getting.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Let's see your... "vintage lenses on modern body" shots.

Can't find any other threads with this particular combo, but there must be loads of shooters doing this. I'm less than a week into this new (expensive) rabbit hole. But pairing my Minolta Lenses with a first gen Sony A7. These were all on a Minolta 35-70 f/3.5 Here's some from a (very) rainy...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

Just as a for instance, I picked up two 80-200(ish) length manual lenses and neither cost me more than £30. One's f/3.8 and the other's f/4. I also got a 200/3.5 prime for £29.

While I didn't shoot this way when I went on safari previously, I'd be tempted to give it a go if we went again. i've been on safari a couple of times now and everything was taken on 300mm or less as that's all I had.

The first time I went I took a Sigma 18-250, which was just OK for IQ. The second time I had a Canon 70-300 (non L) which is a 4-5.6 lens. It was quite dark then as it was rainy, and I still like some of those shots. Neither timer did I really want a longer lens, but I appreciate that's entirely specific to those occasions and there may well be times you'd ned a longer lens. NB both trips were with crop sensor cameras. A 600D the first time and an 80D the second.

ETA - I don't think i came away with any 'cracker' shots though.

Lastly, it depends on the trip. Both times I've been 'on safari' they've been a small part of a regular holiday, so wasn't just about going and getting (or trying to get) pics of animals. So my lens choices needed to try and cover more than just long lengths.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
As a completely left-field choice, youi might be able to pick up a fast vintage prime and adapter for a lot less. If you felt like giving manual focus a try.

I've found it to be a great way of getting much better glass than I'd be able to buy if it was new. Learn to use it and it's as sharp as anything modern.

NB - I've no idea what would fit your particular camera, and whether or not it would do focus peaking, but I've really got into shooting this way over the last year.

I started this thread to celebrate vintage glass on modern bodies (not just my shots) so you can see the kind of results people are getting.

www.talkphotography.co.uk

Let's see your... "vintage lenses on modern body" shots.

Can't find any other threads with this particular combo, but there must be loads of shooters doing this. I'm less than a week into this new (expensive) rabbit hole. But pairing my Minolta Lenses with a first gen Sony A7. These were all on a Minolta 35-70 f/3.5 Here's some from a (very) rainy...
www.talkphotography.co.uk www.talkphotography.co.uk

Just as a for instance, I picked up two 80-200(ish) length manual lenses and neither cost me more than £30. One's f/3.8 and the other's f/4. I also got a 200/3.5 prime for £29.

While I didn't shoot this way when I went on safari previously, I'd be tempted to give it a go if we went again. i've been on safari a couple of times now and everything was taken on 300mm or less as that's all I had.

The first time I went I took a Sigma 18-250, which was just OK for IQ. The second time I had a Canon 70-300 (non L) which is a 4-5.6 lens. It was quite dark then as it was rainy, and I still like some of those shots. Neither timer did I really want a longer lens, but I appreciate that's entirely specific to those occasions and there may well be times you'd ned a longer lens. NB both trips were with crop sensor cameras. A 600D the first time and an 80D the second.

Lastly, it depends on the trip. Both times I've been 'on safari' they've been a small part of a regular holiday, so wasn't just about going and getting (or trying to get) pics of animals. So my lens choices needed to try and cover more than just long lengths.
Click to expand...

Is a good idea in principle but in practice I wouldn’t want to be manually focusing , sometimes you only get seconds to get the shot before the moment is gone
Not always of course but I wouldn’t want to miss anything, certainly my ability to manually focus isn’t great

If you are taking one body I would hire or buy a zoom lens, Im not familiar with Nikon but something that covers around 100 to 400 , 500mm would be better
Certainly don’t want to be changing lenses in the jeep unless you have to
 
We were in Botswana a few weeks ago.

I mainly used a (not particularly fast) Canon RF100-500 on a (full full frame) R5 body.

The lens is and Ibis, allied to excellent high iso performance meant this combination worked well. Not sure how your Nikon kit compares/performs?I certainly wouldn't have wanted any less reach.

Early morning, deep bush, ISO12,800
 
Last edited:
whyone said:
We were in Botswana a few weeks ago.

I mainly used a (not particularly fast) Canon RF100-500 on a (full full frame) R5 body.

The lens is and Ibis, allied to excellent high iso performance meant this combination worked well. Not sure how your Nikon kit compares/performs?I certainly wouldn't have wanted any less reach.

Early morning, deep bush, ISO12,800
Click to expand...
That's a great pic!

I have a crop frame camera, so my current lens (70-300) will give an effective reach of 105-450. It sounds like that may be ok at a push, though better would be something a bit longer.

If I am going to go longer, I think the the 80-400 might replace the 70-300; though it is substantially bigger and heavier, I think it is a better class of lens overall even though they are both the same speed and, with my camera, that would be 120-600 which should be plenty. I think my camera can deal with high ISO pretty well TBH, so with weight and budgetary considerations, I think that sounds like the best compromise if I do upgrade. The 200-500 is more expensive and a lot bigger/heavier, whilst the sigma/tamrons are heavy, big and much slower.
 
LCPete said:
Is a good idea in principle but in practice I wouldn’t want to be manually focusing , sometimes you only get seconds to get the shot before the moment is gone
Not always of course but I wouldn’t want to miss anything, certainly my ability to manually focus isn’t great

If you are taking one body I would hire or buy a zoom lens, Im not familiar with Nikon but something that covers around 100 to 400 , 500mm would be better
Certainly don’t want to be changing lenses in the jeep unless you have to
Click to expand...
I agree it is a great idea and quite tempting as I'm criminally tight....but I also agree that my skills would let me down I think. I think VR and fast AF are important to compensate for user incompetence in my case!
 
MelS said:
That's a great pic!

I have a crop frame camera, so my current lens (70-300) will give an effective reach of 105-450. It sounds like that may be ok at a push, though better would be something a bit longer.

If I am going to go longer, I think the the 80-400 might replace the 70-300; though it is substantially bigger and heavier, I think it is a better class of lens overall even though they are both the same speed and, with my camera, that would be 120-600 which should be plenty. I think my camera can deal with high ISO pretty well TBH, so with weight and budgetary considerations, I think that sounds like the best compromise if I do upgrade. The 200-500 is more expensive and a lot bigger/heavier, whilst the sigma/tamrons are heavy, big and much slower.
Click to expand...
Thanks...I'd strongly recommend taking some shots before you leave using the various lens permutations you have in poor light to see if 'letting high iso take the slack' is a viable option. Much better to know before you leave than after!
 
whyone said:
Thanks...I'd strongly recommend taking some shots before you leave using the various lens permutations you have in poor light to see if 'letting high iso take the slack' is a viable option. Much better to know before you leave than after!
Click to expand...
Good suggestion! Perhaps I should focus more on improving my own competence (as well as the limitations of the camera) with what I have rather than hoping I can buy an improvement...I am fairly sure that I will be the limiting factor more than the kit!
 
I'm in 2 minds about putting my 80-400G in the classifieds - keep an eye out just in case I post.

Lovely shot of the young male Lion in Botswana - OH had a 100-500 Canon, couldn't get on with it, same with the Sigma 150-600, now has Canon EF300/2.8 Mk2.
 
LCPete said:
Is a good idea in principle but in practice I wouldn’t want to be manually focusing , sometimes you only get seconds to get the shot before the moment is gone
Not always of course but I wouldn’t want to miss anything, certainly my ability to manually focus isn’t great

If you are taking one body I would hire or buy a zoom lens, Im not familiar with Nikon but something that covers around 100 to 400 , 500mm would be better
Certainly don’t want to be changing lenses in the jeep unless you have to
Click to expand...
Definitely agree with the second point. Dust spots galore.

But on the first one, yes, there is that chance, but it's not like people didn't get amazing safari pics before AF.

Horses for courses, but when I was away there was plenty of opportunity to see the animals up close and they were mostly lethargic. I certainly had plenty of time on my drives to get multiple pictures of the animals. But... obviously YMMV.

I agree, in an ideal world, you'd have fast lenses, amazing autofocus and cameras capable of stratospheric ISO. And very deep pockets.

As for reach,

Taken @ 106mm (on a crop though so equivalent to 164mm).

Lions by Kell, on Flickr

Taken @ 73mm (116mm)

Lion love by Kell, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
Definitely agree with the second point. Dust spots galore.

But on the first one, yes, there is that chance, but it's not like people didn't get amazing safari pics before AF.

Horses for courses, but when I was away there was plenty of opportunity to see the animals up close and they were mostly lethargic. I certainly had plenty of time on my drives to get multiple pictures of the animals. But... obviously YMMV.

I agree, in an ideal world, you'd have fast lenses, amazing autofocus and cameras capable of stratospheric ISO. And very deep pockets.

As for reach,

Taken @ 106mm (on a crop though so equivalent to 164mm).

Lions by Kell, on Flickr

Taken @ 73mm (116mm)

Lion love by Kell, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Really nice pictures , nice to see then close up and stationary and do agree that it can be done without autofocus even most of the time
On our last trip we were lucky enough to see cheetahs on several occasions and they were mostly moving , I would probably have missed focus on those occasions if I had to manually focus
Maybe its a me thing but in the excitement of the moment I really just want to point the camera and just concentrate on framing and composition, my skill isn’t up to following focus on a moving subject
Sorry OP for going off topic as anyway most tele and zoom lenses have autofocus
 
Last edited:
Limited reach is much more of an issue for birds than large mammals....







 
Last edited:
You may want more than one body, changing lenses when out is a recipe for disaster with dust and missed opportunities, IMHO. You will want reach.
Enjoy your trip
 
nc_killie said:
You may want more than one body, changing lenses when out is a recipe for disaster with dust and missed opportunities, IMHO. You will want reach.
Enjoy your trip
Click to expand...
Yep, top tip!

Also take a cotton scarf, or pillow case or the like to drape over your camera whilst the vehicle is moving.
 
Last edited:
whyone said:
Yep, top tip!

Also take a cotton scarf, or pillow case or the like to drape over your camera whilst the vehicle is moving.
Click to expand...
I only have one body - was planning on using my iphone for close snaps and the zoom for everything else when in the jeep. Will have the 35mm lens for other stuff (around camp etc). I have a weather cover which I was planning to use, but the addition of a scarf or similar may be a good thing when we are moving (I am assuming that will be the max dust scenario).
 
welshwizard645 said:
I'm in 2 minds about putting my 80-400G in the classifieds - keep an eye out just in case I post.

Lovely shot of the young male Lion in Botswana - OH had a 100-500 Canon, couldn't get on with it, same with the Sigma 150-600, now has Canon EF300/2.8 Mk2.
Click to expand...
Will do - thanks :)
 
MelS said:
I only have one body - was planning on using my iphone for close snaps and the zoom for everything else when in the jeep. Will have the 35mm lens for other stuff (around camp etc). I have a weather cover which I was planning to use, but the addition of a scarf or similar may be a good thing when we are moving (I am assuming that will be the max dust scenario).
Click to expand...
Unless it is very windy (which does happen) moving is when there is most dust in the air - esp. if other vehicles in front or passing...try to avoid sitting right at the back...it's especially dusty back there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top