Tanzania with minimal gear

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
Well thats it you say 400mm wasn't necessary but you were shooting effectively at 480mm which is 180mm more than 300mm on FF so more than 50% more than the lens produces natively.

So I would say 400 is a minimum with full frame.

If you'd had the 100-400mm you would have 640mm so that would have probably got you the cheetah.

Worth considering taking a 7D and a 5DMKIII crop can be useful as long as its under ISO1600.
 
Upvote 0
#42
I'm not sure I buy the crop factor advantage. If the extra reach is due to a smaller sensor, wouldn't it be the same as using a full frame camera and cropping the final image?

Vivid, thanks for sharing your experience. I am now leaning toward the 70-300.

Has anyone used this lens with the Kenco extender?
 
Upvote 0
#44
That is true, but you do get more pixels on the target. With cropping you loose pixels, but with FF you get reduced noise and better DOF with crop you get more DOF longer range but with more pixels more noise and less light gathering. The 7D is good to 1600ISO tho but sometimes thats not enough.

A 7D with a 70-200mm F2.8 IS with 2x is effectively 224-640mm F5.6 IS.

There are loads of adv and dis and the forum is full of material it depends how you feel. Personally I think filling the frame is better than cropping but filling the frame with FF is difficult and filling the frame with wildlife is the dream but it doesn't happen which is why any advantage in focal length is a bonus. The latitude you get with crop is poor compared to FF once you go full frame you get spoiled as 3200ISO is pretty much equivalent to 800-1000ISO.

Crop is also cheaper and lighter, gives you the 1.6x thats why many use crop with 400mm F5.6 as the go to amateur wildlife combo.
 
Upvote 0
#45
Well, the full frame 5d II and III have more megapixels than the 7D, so I'm guessing they get plenty of pixels on the target.

Right now I'm leaning toward the 70-300 L, possibly with the Kenco teleconverter.

For my other lens...I'd like to take my 16-35 f/2.8. When I go wide, I like to go really wide.

But will I miss that 35-70 hole in the focal range?

I could bring the 24-105 f/4 instead. Not as fast, but it has the advantage of being a very useful walkaround lens, should I find myself in a situation where I want to carry just 1 body and 1 lens.

Or I could buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L. It's only $900 if you buy it with the 5D Mark III.
 
Upvote 0
#46
The 5DMKIII does have more MP but has less density the chip is 1.6X bigger therefore pixels are more spread out. APC crams 18MP on a sensor that is 1.6X smaller therefore the 18MP APC chip has the largest pixel density of any Canon sensor meaning more pixels on target and a sharper image. That image sharpness depends on the ISO, 1600ISO is about as high as you would want to go. The density makes the sensor pretty noisy, which is the benefit of full frame.

Also if you use a 1.4 with the 70-300mm you will get a slower focusing high aperture lens so you will have to compensate with ISO on the 5D anyway. the 70-300mm with a 1.4 will be a 98-420mm F5.6-8 lens, which is pretty slow and the AF will be even slower.

With a 7D you get 112-480mm F4-5.6 lens with full speed AF and you could still put a 1.4 on it if you wanted making a 157-672mm F5.6-8 you also get 8fps rather than 6fps, and more depth of field on the subject.

An image cropped from a 5DMKIII and upscaled to 7D size will perform similarly. But the 5DMKIII needs more sharpening.

The fact is if your shooting in good light crop is better for wildlife if you want smaller, lighter and more length for your $ if you don't have the funds/don't want to carry the big whites.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2791104

Why not take the 16-35mm and the 24-105mm, the main reason for the 24-70mm F2.8 is the F2.8 will you need it? also has no IS, much heavier and much bigger (if your talking MKI). The 24-105 fills the gap has a better range and IMO is the best walk around lens maybe not the sharpest but its a very good lens. I would have two bodies with the tele you choose and the 24-105mm attached to the other.
 
Upvote 0
#48
The 24-105 would not be for wildlife. It would be for everything else. Landscapes, street photography, family photos, etc.

I think I have decided to take the 70-300mm as my telephoto.

Still making up my mind on what else to bring. I'd really like to limit it to two lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#49
I would take an apsc camera, the 70-300L and a 10-18 if you want to go light, or maybe a 17-50 if you're not into ultra-wide.

Full-frame, I'd look at the Tamron 150-600 and a 16-35/4is.

If you want to get candid stuff you could take a 50/1.4. It'll be a relief after the zoom, and you could get some really interesting cultural and people shots.
 
Upvote 0
#50
The Tamron 150-600 is way too heavy for me, at least for this particular trip.

I have a 16-35/2.8 that I use a lot, but if I bring it and the 70-300, I wonder if that 35-70 hole in my focal range will be a problem.

That said...I'm also considering going with just the 70-300, and bringing a Fujifilm X100S for non telephoto situations.
 
Upvote 0
#51
dw2013 said:
I've just got back from 4 days in Kruger in SA...was also limited on baggage/weight. I took a 6D, 24-105, 70-200/4 IS, 300/4 IS and a 1.4TC. To be honest, I didn't need the 300/4 as the rangers we were driving with got us so close to all the wildlife.

The 6D was a great camera to have as most of our safari was early morning and late evening so light wasn't great..high ISO was required as didn't have a tripod.

You'll have a great trip, enjoy!
Click to expand...

You can't drive off-road and up close in Ngorongoro or Serengeti, very different than S.A.
 
Upvote 0
#53
randym77 said:
Thanks, lots of very useful tips.

The tour company says that every seat is a window seat in their vehicles, so that shouldn't be an issue.

However, we will be walking several miles a day over easy to moderate terrain, and so I'd like to keep my gear light.

I am going to try and bring two bodies (5d Mark II and 5D Mark III), so I have a backup. They take the same batteries, and I guess I could bring both chargers, too - they're pretty small. I plan to take only two lenses.

Still undecided about which lenses. Probably the 16-35 f/2.8, and a telephoto lens.

I'd like to have the range of the 100-400mm, but it's an older lens, and at 3 lbs. might be too heavy for me to hand-hold all day. Like TomScott, I also worry about its reputation as a dust magnet.

The 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS is newer and lighter (2.3 lbs). I've heard it also has better image quality.

Or I could go with the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 1.4x and/or 2x extender. That would actually be heavier than the 100-400mm, but I'd have the advantage of being able to remove the extender for low-light situations.

Also considering going super-light, with the 24-105 and the 200mm f/2.8 (and extenders). I'm quite fond of the 200mm f/2.8, because it's so light compared to the 70-200 f/2.8. It's also compatible with the extenders, and if it's true that 400mm is the most useful focal length, I won't miss the zoom range too much.
Click to expand...

your 5D3/5D2 have about the same reach my 20D/40D did and I found that 420mm (300 2.8+1.4x TC) was too short many times (although other times I needed to use 70mm for widlife!), you are often quite far in Serengeti
 
Upvote 0
#54
randym77 said:
Well, the full frame 5d II and III have more megapixels than the 7D, so I'm guessing they get plenty of pixels on the target.

Right now I'm leaning toward the 70-300 L, possibly with the Kenco teleconverter.

For my other lens...I'd like to take my 16-35 f/2.8. When I go wide, I like to go really wide.

But will I miss that 35-70 hole in the focal range?
Click to expand...

No, and as I said, Serengeti region is the sort of wide that 40mm is the same as 10mm, it all looks the same either which way (I'm being perfectly serious). The only place it makes a difference is Ngorongoro where you need UWA to get all the crater at once.

Also IS can be handy for the long lens, since vehicle rock about a bit evne with engine off, each time anyone takes a step.

The 5D2/5D3 have more MP than the 7D, but spread over a MUCH larger area so they both give noticeably less reach than the 7D, the 7D is like using an extender compared to the 5D3.

Or I could buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L. It's only $900 if you buy it with the 5D Mark III.
Click to expand...

heavy lens, better put the weight to the long lens by far
 
Upvote 0
#55
LetTheRightLensIn said:
too short and compromised, I'd look 100-400L (or at least 70-300L + kenko 1.4x DGX TC)
Click to expand...

I'm considering the Kenko. The 100-400 is too heavy. This is a trip where we will be walking a lot and staying in tents. I anticipate having to carry my camera gear with me on moderate trails and not being able to use a tripod or monopod.

FWIW, the tour company recommends a 300mm lens.
 
Upvote 0
#57
I just returned from a trip to Namibia (a little different from tanzania). Like you I had questions about the gear to take with me. In the end, as many members recommend, I went with 24-105mm and 70-300mm. It covers almost all my needs. You can take a look at some of my pictures if you want!

http://500px.com/Goulab

Personally I prefer the 70-300mm than 100-400mm especially concerning bokey (and weight)


Hope it helps
 
Upvote 0
#58
goulab said:
I just returned from a trip to Namibia (a little different from tanzania). Like you I had questions about the gear to take with me. In the end, as many members recommend, I went with 24-105mm and 70-300mm. It covers almost all my needs. You can take a look at some of my pictures if you want!

http://500px.com/Goulab

Personally I prefer the 70-300mm than 100-400mm especially concerning bokey (and weight)


Hope it helps
Click to expand...

Nice photos. I like the nightscape - "Road To Nowhere." I guess 24mm is wide enough.
 
Upvote 0
#59
I may be naive but it seems like you can have a one lens solution in the 28-300L lens. It seems to be a perfect fit. Wide and long. Although heavy at 3.7 pounds. I assume that most of the pictures will be in decent light so you wouldn't need an f/2.8. But I have never used it so I can't speak to its focusing ability or IQ.

Leo
 
Upvote 0
#60
Cariboucoach said:
I may be naive but it seems like you can have a one lens solution in the 28-300L lens. It seems to be a perfect fit. Wide and long. Although heavy at 3.7 pounds.
Click to expand...

I considered it, but it's definitely too heavy for me. Even the 100-400 is probably too heavy (at 3 lbs.)

I want something I can hand-hold all day without killing myself.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

tomscott
Traveling Part II Africa and South East Asia - Tom Scott
Replies
5
Views
11K
scottkinfw
scottkinfw
ahsanford
Upcoming trip to the US Southwest -- gear and sightseeing guidance appreciated
Replies
18
Views
11K
ahsanford
ahsanford
Vivid Color
  • Locked
Which lenses for Tanzania? Please advise.
Replies
6
Views
5K
eml58
eml58
T
  • Locked
First Time Travelling To Asia/Africa With My Gear: I Need Advice
Replies
1
Views
3K
Loswr
L
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu