Recommendation For Long Lenses

[smirkypants]

That, my friend, is a ton of gear. As I said, the bodies act as teleconverters to cover focal ranges. The 7D is a 1.6 and the 1D4 is a 1.3. If you think of it that way, there's a lot of overlap everwhere.

• The 17-40/4 + 70-200/2.8 with the various bodies makes the 24-105 irrelevant.
• The 70-200/2.8 + 500/4 with various bodies completely overlaps the 300/2.8 (but the 300 is sweet).
• The 8-15/4 with various bodies completely overlaps the bulky 14/2.8 (though not the same kind of lens)

Three lenses, two teleconverters, about 15 pounds, your back and sherpa saved with no loss in focal length coverage. Keep the long mainly on the 7D, the medium mainly on the 1D4 and the short mainly on the 5D2. Play to their strengths but swap out when needed.

[cfargo]

dont forget to add a sherper to the list to carry all that

No hiking on this trip and in the bush they don't let you out of the land rovers too much.

[TMan]

dont forget to add a sherper to the list to carry all that

No hiking on this trip and in the bush they don't let you out of the land rovers too much.

I had few instances in Kruger National Park where my 70-200 f/4 lens felt short -- lion kill and and a resting leopard. A 5D Mark II with a 24-105 lens or 24mm L lens will be very handy as animals do get very close in most cases.
You can also visit this website and pose your question there: http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums/. This forum has lots of experienced wildlife photographers that regularly go to the national parks in South Africa and therefore can also assist you.

[Zo0m]

I did a safari in serenghetti last year and would say that there is an overly big fetish on millimeters amongst people... Dont get me wrong, sometimes youll need those 500mm or even more. I just want to state that some of my best shots i got with a standard lens allowing me to encompass the animals as well as their native enviroment in the same shot.

[willrobb]

I'd take the 300/2.8 II + 1.4x III over the 400/4 DO - the IQ of the new 300/2.8 even with a TC beats the 400/4 DO lens. 

I haven't used either of these lenses, but I know a few people who use them and everyone loves the 300 2.8II and those with the 400DO aren't so enamoured with it (but that's only 2 people I've met with the 400, so not a good sample of people).

[aldvan]

I have ruled out taking the 100-400 as it is too soft.

May be I'm quite biased about the 100-400, since it is a lens I adore. I'm afraid you get a bad example of it and that is a shame, since, I know that for personal experience in photosafari in SA, the 100-400 has the perfect zoom range for the business. By the way, what do you mean by 'soft'? Is the following image (100-400 at 300) soft for you? (Unfortunately I had to resize it to allow uploading it, loosing a lot of IQ)

P.S. I think the following article could be very useful.
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

[TexPhoto]

Why not just take a 50mm f1.8 and zoom with your feet?  when people tell me that I offer to let them shoot from my 25th floor balcony.

Seriously though, I like the 500mm plus 70-200 plan plus a good medium to wide zoom. Take the teleconverters, and the 5d as a backup to the Mk4.  Anything more as space/weight allowance and your ability to carry it allow.  I can't see picking up the 400 DO or the 300 II as there are so big and expensive. Unless you have a paid assistant, or are seeking to end a marriage.

I never travel without my 8-15, but maybe that's just me.

Oh and  interestingly, if your main (normal) camera is a EOS 1 MK4, then the 7D is a 1.2 crop, and the 5D is a .77 crop.

[cfargo]

I have ruled out taking the 100-400 as it is too soft.

May be I'm quite biased about the 100-400, since it is a lens I adore. I'm afraid you get a bad example of it and that is a shame, since, I know that for personal experience in photosafari in SA, the 100-400 has the perfect zoom range for the business. By the way, what do you mean by 'soft'? Is the following image (100-400 at 300) soft for you? (Unfortunately I had to resize it to allow uploading it, loosing a lot of IQ)

P.S. I think the following article could be very useful.
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

I'm very well aware that the 100-400's are not all created equal. There are good ones out there and there are bad ones.  I agree the focal length is awesome for a safari. But what made me stop using MY 100-400 altogether is when I tried to micro adjust it, the output was too soft that I wasn't even able to find the sharpest point. I do own the 70-300L also but I opted for the 70-200 f/2.8L II along with the 300mm f/2.8L II instead because I can put converters on both of these lenses, their faster and sharper.

As for TexPhoto's idea of zooming with feet, I'm just crazy enough to do that but I want to be able to shoot again the next day not being the days kill. I love a wide angle, I like getting right into my subjects face but they won't let me in Africa for some reason.

[gak]

Let me offer a different perspective, one gained on dozens of photo safaris. I lived in South Africa for several years and have gone back twice in the past few years.

Unless you are going on a safari organized by and for professional or seriously advanced photographers you will be too weighted down by all that gear to react quickly.

My suggestion is that you buy a high quality compact like a canon G1X or Fuji X10, and carry the 5D II with the 70-300L as your two main pieces of equipment. Unless you are making room-size prints this combination would give to the ability to react quickly to fleeting opportunities and still get very good quality images. IS and the ability to hand hold the 70-300 will serve you better in the bush than a longer reach setup that requires a tripod.

[cfargo]

Let me offer a different perspective, one gained on dozens of photo safaris. I lived in South Africa for several years and have gone back twice in the past few years.

Unless you are going on a safari organized by and for professional or seriously advanced photographers you will be too weighted down by all that gear to react quickly.

My suggestion is that you buy a high quality compact like a canon G1X or Fuji X10, and carry the 5D II with the 70-300L as your two main pieces of equipment. Unless you are making room-size prints this combination would give to the ability to react quickly to fleeting opportunities and still get very good quality images. IS and the ability to hand hold the 70-300 will serve you better in the bush than a longer reach setup that requires a tripod.

Thanks, this is Organized by a Pro Photographer for Photographers. At this point I'm planning on hand holding everything except the 500 while in the vehicle.

[wickidwombat]

wow that price is insane... seriously insane... I just go hire a 4x4 and can hire a driver for a small fee then its just me and my wife so there is no schedule and we can do what we want when we want. and it probably costs half that amount for 2 of us... just saying... can pick up a 1Dx with the savings

[aldvan]

wow that price is insane... seriously insane... I just go hire a 4x4 and can hire a driver for a small fee then its just me and my wife so there is no schedule and we can do what we want when we want. and it probably costs half that amount for 2 of us... just saying... can pick up a 1Dx with the savings

Too much money is at the present in too few people... 

[wickidwombat]

I have ruled out taking the 100-400 as it is too soft.

May be I'm quite biased about the 100-400, since it is a lens I adore. I'm afraid you get a bad example of it and that is a shame, since, I know that for personal experience in photosafari in SA, the 100-400 has the perfect zoom range for the business. By the way, what do you mean by 'soft'? Is the following image (100-400 at 300) soft for you? (Unfortunately I had to resize it to allow uploading it, loosing a lot of IQ)

P.S. I think the following article could be very useful.
http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/

I'm very well aware that the 100-400's are not all created equal. There are good ones out there and there are bad ones.  I agree the focal length is awesome for a safari. But what made me stop using MY 100-400 altogether is when I tried to micro adjust it, the output was too soft that I wasn't even able to find the sharpest point. I do own the 70-300L also but I opted for the 70-200 f/2.8L II along with the 300mm f/2.8L II instead because I can put converters on both of these lenses, their faster and sharper.

As for TexPhoto's idea of zooming with feet, I'm just crazy enough to do that but I want to be able to shoot again the next day not being the days kill. I love a wide angle, I like getting right into my subjects face but they won't let me in Africa for some reason.

Actually they do, in many of the south african private game parks you can go on guarded hikes with several armed guards and spotters who are in radio contact so they can take you directly to the animals, i have never done one but would love to, they are definately not cheap and there is still more risk than shooting from within a vehicle however it allows you to get angles you simly cannot achieve from a vehicle. i'm going to look into it for a trip next year.

[Caps18]

You will be better off with no lens in the 200-500 range, but with different cameras that can make up the difference.

If you have a second person, have them take the 7D with 70-200+/- TC, Mk4 with 500+/-TC, and the 5Dm2 with 8-15 and a fast portrait prime.  If you only want two camera, the 70-200 would work on the 5Dm2 as well.

[bycostello]

have you considered hiring a lens?  might make more sense as safari as bit of a specialty situation and if just a one off...