Safari lens advice: 200-400 or 500 f4 and 70-200 or 200 f2

[kyle86]

Hi

Im hoping to hear from anyone who has had experience at safari with either of these lenses. I will be on safari for a week in January (VERY excited lol) and am taking my 1DX, 1.4 extender and 16-35mm. I need to decide on either taking my 200 f2 or my 70-200 (leaning towards the 200f2 as can use extenders and possibly the 7d mk ii to get further reach if i need) and will hire a long lens in SA. I was thinking the 200-400 but wondering if it would be better to get the 500 f4. I will be driving myself around but will also have the opportunity to walk around the campsite where they have bucks, zebras, birds etc. I am also thinking about hiring a 7d mk ii

So im asking should I
1. take the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM II or 200 f2
2. rent the 200-400 or the 500 f4
3. hire a 7d mk ii to compliment the 1dx

Any advice will be greatly appreciated

Thank you

 

[takesome1]

One size doesn't fit all Safari, I would contact your guide service and see how close you can expect to get.
That will get you an answer on the 200-400 v 500.
Forget the 7D II, I own it and the precision AF of the 1D body will do more for you than any perceived "reach" advantage.

 

[Yankeedog]

I does matter a lot on where and when exactly you're going. Tromping around the Miombo woodlands during the wet season generally means shorter sighting distance and often lower light due to the vegetation. Desert Safari, OTOH, means an excess of light and often long distances.

In general:

It sounds like weight is not really an issue to you, and you have a fair amount of money to burn. If these assumptions are correct, of the choices you offer, I would strongly suggest either going with the 200-400 if you want to stick with just the 1Dx or hiring a second body and going with a mix something like the 70-200 f2.8 on the 1DX, and a longer prime on the second body.

Not all shot opportunities on Safari are long telephoto. Especially when you're in a vehicle, you can get VERY close to some animals -- I've had an elephant literally stick its trunk into the sun roof of the land rover I was riding in, and I've been close enough to e.g., hippo and many types of antelope that I could have touched them by leaning out of the vehicle. Some of the big carnivores are also remarkably blase about humans in vehicles and will allow very close approach -- I've been within 3 meters of lions resting around a kill.

So you will find yourself missing shots if you limit yourself to longer focal ranges. Swapping lenses is always an option, but can be tricky in the often dusty safari environment and it also seems that animals have some sort of 6th sense that allows them to time really cool moments for exactly when you're between lenses on a swap.

So to me, either one body with a flexible zoom, or two bodies, one with a mid-range zoom, and one with a long prime, is the way to go. Exact details of which bodies/lenses to use depends on details of where you're going and what types of animals are your higher priority for shots. You won't need 500mm for shooting lions. You will for shooting bee eaters.

Happy safari!

 

[Chisox2335]

On my recent safari I used a 70-200 f2.8 on my 6D and a 100-400 on my 70d for the first 8 days. At the last place I rented a 500mm which I put on my 70d and put my 100-400 on my 6d. Things happen quickly and you don't want to be constantly swapping lenses. You want to be able to cover a wide range.

My wife was using a bridge camera from 24-1200 effective zoom. She was even able to get a few shots I couldn't.

 

[Warrenl]

You already have the 1DX. Go with the 200-400, and a 70-200 on the other body. The only thing you need a longer lens is for small birds. Don forget you can add a 1.4x to the 200-400

 

[FEBS]

A few months ago I did a safari to Zimbabwe. It was the first safari I ever made. So was not knowing what I would get at that time. During my safari, we only managed a few times to come very close to the animals, most of the shots are above 200mm, even for the bigger mammals.

I posed almost the same question over here about a year ago. During the game drives I mostly used the 1Dx with the 200-400. To be honest, you need some space in the jeep. If your are sitting in the middle then you really have a problem with such a lens. I always had the 5D3 with 70-200 2.8ii with me. The number of photos I made with that combo is very low. The 200-400 is really a very nice and versatile lens. Hard to beat on safari.

The 200..560 range is a very nice range covered by the 200-400 lens. However, if you want to shoot birds, then the 200-400 is not sufficient. Adding a supplemental 1.4x on top of that lens is possible, but then you have the problem of exchanging frequently the extender. I only did it a few times. For birds I really would go for the 500 or even 600 with the 1.4x on top of it. But keep in mind that those long lenses mostly beg for a tripod.

Most of the game drives are in the morning are evening. The light is not that good at that moment. A 2.8 lens might be great at that moment. For that reason, I always had the 70-200 with me.

That trip was my first extensive use of the new 16-35 f/4. What a great lens. A must have when you are on safari.

A second body really has it advantages. If I would go back today then the following combo would be used:
5D3 + 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f/2.8ii lens to exchange depending on situation
1Dx + 200-400 1.4x f/4

However, if birds were my main target then it would be:
1Dx + 600 f/4 + 1.4x or 1Dx + 500 f/4 + 2x
5D3 + 16-35 f4
7D2 + 70-200 f/2.8

So in your case with focus on mammals:
I would go for the flexibility of the 70-200
I would go for the 200-400
I would not hire a 7D2 in that case but rather a 5D3.

If birds are your main focus point, then I would use the 500 or 600, and take the 70-200 on a supplemental 7D2.

I was lucky to fly British Airways. they allow 23kg of hand luggage. Please do check this in advance. I would not place a 1dx or big lens in the regular luggage.

Have fun over there soon

please do tell us what you decided and post a few photos afterwards.

 

[DavidA]

I am going to reserves in Botswana and South Africa next spring and here is what I plan to take based on my research plus recommendations from my tour operators:

Canon 1dX
Canon 5dIII
Canon 16-35 f4 L IS
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II
Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II
Canon 200-400 f4 L IS /w 1.4x TC
Canon 1.4x TC

As noted in previous posts, this was the recommended gear if you are not heavily focused on small animals/birds. We were originally scheduled to do Botswana/Rwanda/Tanzania and I was considering renting a 600mm in Tanzania since animals might be at longer ranges. I am fortunate that there is a generous weight allowance and I will be working out of either private vehicles or with small groups. If I had to leave something behind, I would probably leave either the 16-35 or the 24-70. If I was adding something, it would be the 7dII.

BTW - I have used a 1.4x TC on top of the 200-400 TC and the image quality is great. Only disadvantage is that you drop to a f8 center point only. Makes it tough in the low light of early morning/late evening.

David

 

[FEBS]

I am going to reserves in Botswana and South Africa next spring and here is what I plan to take based on my research plus recommendations from my tour operators:

Canon 1dX
Canon 5dIII
Canon 16-35 f4 L IS
Canon 24-70 f2.8 L II
Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS II
Canon 200-400 f4 L IS /w 1.4x TC
Canon 1.4x TC

As noted in previous posts, this was the recommended gear if you are not heavily focused on small animals/birds. We were originally scheduled to do Botswana/Rwanda/Tanzania and I was considering renting a 600mm in Tanzania since animals might be at longer ranges. I am fortunate that there is a generous weight allowance and I will be working out of either private vehicles or with small groups. If I had to leave something behind, I would probably leave either the 16-35 or the 24-70. If I was adding something, it would be the 7dII.

BTW - I have used a 1.4x TC on top of the 200-400 TC and the image quality is great. Only disadvantage is that you drop to a f8 center point only. Makes it tough in the low light of early morning/late evening.

David

I almost had the same with me. No 24-70 but a 100L macro instead. The last I did not use except 2 photos. I would leave the 24-70 at home. I never missed the range 35 to 70 on safari. But the 16-35 did gave me Real keepers

 

[Jane]

You mention South Africa and driving yourself so I am assuming Kruger or one of the Natal parks where you have to stay on the road. I did this very many times while living in South Africa. I suggest the 1DX with 200-400 and 5D3 with 70-200. I believe this will cover you for birds/wildlife. Take a wide angle for scenery shots. My last trip to South Africa (2013) I mostly used the 1DX with big zoom but the 5D3/70-200 was perfect in some instances like a leopard coming down a tree.

 

[RGF]

Not sure which parks / reserves you will be visiting.

After numerous trips to Namibia, Botswana, SA (Saba Sands), Zambia, Zimbabwe, I plan to take on my next trip

I don't own a 7D2 but will order one soon.

For Sabi Sands - 7D2 and 200-400 and 70-200 (zooms are much more usefully the 200) and 1Dx.
For Botswana - I took my 600 on 1Dx last trip and next trip may be 7D2 and 200-400. I shot a fair amount at 1200 (600 + 2x) so the 200-400 w/ the built in 1.4 and the 1.6 crop should suffice.

Zimbabwe - only went to Vic Falls
Zambia - 1Dx and 200-400. at time could have used a long reach.

A couple of strong recommendations

1. Minimize changing lenses in the field. Dust is a real problem.
2. Carry extra equipment. Equipment will fail. SA is not too bad to extra equipment (except for the price). Other areas are much harder and regardless it will take precise time. A 3rd body is not out of the questions.


Consider the 100-400 II and a 600 for max reach and flexibility.

 

[Marc J]

Re: Safari lens advice: Personal Experience

Hi,
About a month ago my wife and I were on a safari in Kruger National Park in South Africa. I went there with all the gear I had - 70D crop body, 10-18 EF-S, 17-55 EF-S, 100mm L macro, 70-200 f/4 IS L, 150-600 Tamron IS, and 1.4X Extender III. My wife also had an EOS-M and an 18-200mm Tamron IS lens.

Looking back on the trip, while travelling in the safari vehicle, 99% of my pictures were with the Tamron 150-600mm lens. There were only 2 situations when this lens was not appropriate: on entry to Orpen Gate into Kruger on the first day - the Kudus were very close and I had the 70-200mm lens already mounted, and once when a giraffe was too close to the vehicle and the big Tamron lens at 150mm was still not wide enough. My wife got a really good image here! The rest of the time the big Tamron lens was perfect. I never had need for more reach. Maybe it was just my luck.

When we stopped for lunch, the 17-55mm was perfect for landscape shots, and the 150-600mm lens was perfect for birds in the trees there.

When in the safari vehicle you need to be aware of the cramped space for passengers and gear. There were spots for 3 passengers in 3 rows in the back of the open-air tiered pickup vehicle. We were VERY fortunate that we never had more than 2 in our row, so that left space for my modest camera bag on the bench seat. This would have been not possible with 3 in the row, and would have made changing lenses impossible. Extracting my camera bag from under my legs for this exercise would have been out of the question.

My advise would be to have a moderate-to-long reach camera+lens while travelling in the vehicle (or more if you want to have them around your neck for hours on end), and additional shorter reach lenses while on breaks and lunch. Please note that while travelling you cannot get out of the vehicle except at designated rest/lunch stops.

I think on balance I was fortunate in my selection and use of camera gear. The pictures from the safari turned out well for both my wife and I. This was truly a trip of a lifetime.
Marc

 

[kyle86]

Thank you all so much for the advice!! Yip i will be driving myself around (going to Pilansberg Park) so will have lots of space in the car and will be able to drive and (try) get as close as I can but it definitely sounds like the 200-400 will give me more flexibility than the 500 so I think I will go with that Thanks guys really appreciate it!

Think thats a great idea about the 5d3 too... The only thing is i worry it doesnt have a very high frame rate but then it is full frame and the 16-35 will be perfect on it

Will post pics when im back Fingers crossed hehe

thanks again!

Kyle

 

[JumboShrimp]

My response pretty much sums up what others have said before: Do not underestimate the pervasive fine dust that will get in every nook and cranny. Perhaps the best approach would be two bodies, one with a WA zoom and the other with a normal-tele zoom. That way you won't be changing lenses and getting dust on your sensor. Also consider large memory cards so you won't need to open that compartment either.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Carry a second body really has it advantages and minimize the need of swaping lenses. I would use:

5D3 + 16-35 f4 and 70-200 f/2.8ii lens to swap depending on particular situation (lanscape & close objects)
1Dx + 200-400 1.4x f/4 for capturing long-distance mammals

I would go for the 200-400 and rent a second body like the 5D3.
Keep in mind that you may not want to haul maasive quantity (weight) of equipment so, carrying 3 lenses and 2 bodies would be more than enough

 

[sanj]

I know 'Pila' very very well.
I think 200f2 is the last lens you should consider.
500 is an absolute must. 200-400 would be better than 70-200. If left to me I would take the 70-200 (on 7d2) and 500 on 1dx.
Pila is a very small reserve but animals are faaaar from the roads.
Enjoy.

 

[martti]

In the case that you slip an intervertebral disc while lugging around your heavy artillery, a long reaching P/S or bridge might come in handy. Are you working on a book or something? Sounds like quite a project!

 

[kyle86]

I know 'Pila' very very well.
I think 200f2 is the last lens you should consider.
500 is an absolute must. 200-400 would be better than 70-200. If left to me I would take the 70-200 (on 7d2) and 500 on 1dx.
Pila is a very small reserve but animals are faaaar from the roads.
Enjoy.

hahaha I keep changing my mind, now Im back to thinking the 500 and have a 1.4 and 2x extender lol.

Love to know if you have any tips for Pilansberg? Ill be there in late January so im thinking it might be quite dry and waterholes might be popular?

Thanks

 

[amazin]

Hi,

i was in Namibia in january 2012 and going again next september to caprivi strip and victoria fall.
I had the following equipment :
5D mark III
24-70 2.8L II
70-200 2.8L II
2x extender III
low range tripod

Was happy of the pics i took with the gear i had.
Though a lens wider than 24 would be better for landscape.
70-200 is quite versatile, but you find yourself often short of range, while along with the extender it does the job bug can get slower.

One important advice is to be careful with dust. I tried not to change lens on field. Having the 70-200 with extender when it was full day safari, 24-70 during transition between locations or 70-200 alone when our guide told us we might encounter wildlife. You will see for yourself after a couple of days.

Big animals was ok with the 70-200 alone or with extender but forget about birds or maybe when quite close.

I was shooting always handholding while in the car, which is doable even with the extender but impossible with bigger lens. You might consider a good bean bag and a wimberley head on it.

If you can afford it the 200-400 seems like the best option to me. It covers a wide range which means you would not have to switch lens a lot and yet is not too heavy (well as i've read because i've not had the luck to use one).

Easiest option :
- your 1DX
- your 16-35
- rent a 200-400

Best compromise option :
- add a 7d2 for the 200-400
and keep always the 16-35 on the 1DX and the 200-400 on the 7d2 (with the internal 1.4 converter + the crop factor of 7D2 sensor, it's like having a 900mm lens on your 1DX)

Better options :
well i'm sure you will find people saying you need to carry all your lenses to have them in specific situations... dont forget all the shoots you might miss if you dont have your cameras ready all the time.


Enjoy your time in SA

 

[sanj]

I know 'Pila' very very well.
I think 200f2 is the last lens you should consider.
500 is an absolute must. 200-400 would be better than 70-200. If left to me I would take the 70-200 (on 7d2) and 500 on 1dx.
Pila is a very small reserve but animals are faaaar from the roads.
Enjoy.

hahaha I keep changing my mind, now Im back to thinking the 500 and have a 1.4 and 2x extender lol.

Love to know if you have any tips for Pilansberg? Ill be there in late January so im thinking it might be quite dry and waterholes might be popular?

Thanks

Yep the waterholes have hides from where you can do bird photography. You may want to use the services of Jaco Rautenbach <[email protected]> You may drive with him day one and then from day two be on your own. But not necessary as Pila is very very small and very easy to navigate. But if this is your first Safari you may miss out on spotting animals and this guy is a good guide.

 

[RGF]

My response pretty much sums up what others have said before: Do not underestimate the pervasive fine dust that will get in every nook and cranny. Perhaps the best approach would be two bodies, one with a WA zoom and the other with a normal-tele zoom. That way you won't be changing lenses and getting dust on your sensor. Also consider large memory cards so you won't need to open that compartment either.

Bring a couple of extra pillow cases and keep your equipment in these when the vehicle is moving. That will helps with dust protection.

There are two options to handling cards

1. Buy large cards and recording to both cards simultaneously. That will provide redundancy in case a card fails.
2. Buy smaller cards and set the camera to switch cards when the first one gets full.

There are benefits and downsides to both. With the 1Dx I use #1, with my 5DM3 I use the latter.