Don't know. You probably already know what Canon has available, for those of us that would like to know, here's a Canon site listing their lenses.
http://tinyurl.com/23pzzs

regards - tom
ps - no prices shown

karn,
Your question opens the same door as one dealing with religion or politics. I'll take a stab at it and probably I'll regret it. O.K. here goes-I was faced with the same question a few years ago and my Botswana kit is different than my Tanzania kit. In Botswana you don't need quite the same range and unless you are mainly interested in Birds, a 500mm/4 is too long. I would recommend either or both the 300/2.8 and/or the 70-200/2.8. Both are Canon's best L glass and both take 1.4X Teleconverters well. Considering that both of your cameras are 1.6X crop bodies, the 300mm becomes 480mm at f2.8 or 768mm at f3.5. I have found that the 70-200mm/2.8 is usually plenty with a crop body in Botswana. The absolute sharpness of both of these lenses is hard to beat. A lot of people take a 100-400 but I save that for Tanzania, I really like the other two lenses better not only for speed but for the way they isolate the subject by creating smooth background blur (Bokeh). If I were going to Tanzania or Kenya, I would substitute the 500mm for the 300mm lens but not in Botswana. If you do decide on one of these superteles (300mm/2.8 or 500mm/4) then post back and I'll email you a copy of my setup to stabilize these longer lenses in the open safari vehicles used in Botswana. Well now that this can of worms has been opened, I can sit back and learn a bit ffrom some of the many good photographers who participate on this forum.
Cheers-Chuck

karn, FYI although you you allmost certainly know this the 100-400mm lens becomes an f5.6 lens at 400mm while the 70-200mm lens stays at f2.8 throughout its entire zoom range. You lose about 1 fstop going to a 1.4x teleconverter and 2 stops going to a 2x teleconverter. I'm sure you were aware of this but others might be interested.
Cheers again-Chuck

Safarichuck - I am fairly new to DLSR and I am trying to decide on a zoom lense. I was thinking of the 100-300. I don't understand what the advantage would be to have both the 100-200 and the 100-300. Is the quality better in the 100-200 range on the 100-200 ?

Hi Kelly,
If your question refers to the Canon SLR lenses then the following would apply. The 100-300 Canon f/4.5 lens is an inexpensive lens and does not have image stabilization. A feature that you would miss at the long end of the lens, particularly on a 1.6X crop body. In toehr words, it is very difficult to hold a a lens at the equivalent of 480mm (300 x 1.6 = 480mm) still enough to get nice images. It's not a bad lens but it isn't in the same league as the lenses referred to above. Cost wise it sells for about $300 U.S. while the 300/2.8 is over $4,000 amd the 70-200/2.8 is about $1,600 U.S. I mention this so that you get some idea of the cost difference. These expensive lenses offer super quality but at a price. If you are new to SLR photography I suggest renting a good high quality lens like those first mentioned above. The cost is small compared to the investment you would have if you purchased them outright. Many of us take two or more cameras, each equipped with a different lens. That way we minimize lens changes and the dust such changes introduce. Also, we are ready for anything, near or far. My advice to friends who enquire about lenses of the 100-300mm variety is to NOT buy them as I would not be happy with the result so I doubt they would. I don't like to spend other peoples money but sometimes you get what you pay for and with camera gear that always seems to be the case.
Cheers-Chuck

Karn, I think safarichuck has provided some excellent information and advice on lenses. You may wish to take a look at http://www.photosilha.cz/index_en.php.
The site has some good African photography and lists the photographer's equipment, which you'll see includes the 100-400 and the 300/2.8. Some of the photos provide the exposure settings and the lenses used.

safarichuck-

I'd really like to see your setup. Would you mind emailing it to me? Thanks.

Steve

Thanks so much for your reply. I was indeed referring to the the Canon SLR lenses, but actually I mis-spoke, I meant the Canon 70-300 IS which goes for about 550 USD. I thought there was a Canon 70-200 IS for about the same price but I think what I had seen was the 17-200 IS (595 USD). Sorry, I guess I better take a shopping break, I am getting confused!

I would love to be able to rent one of the high quality ones to test out, however I live in France and have not yet seen that available here.

So, if I can't afford one of the more expensives lenses at the moment, would you recomment the Canon 70-300 IS ? I already have the canon 17-85 IS, and will likely be getting the Canon 10-22, so I think I am covered on the wide side.

Thanks for your help and patience, you give a lot of good information.

Hi Kelly-

I like the idea of renting and I would chase it down through the internet until I was certain a rental was not available in France. You end up with a quality lens and, as safarichuck says, a rental is cost effective.

Whether you buy the 70-300 IS is certainly your choice. On my first few trips, I'd used the original 75-300 IS (the current 70-300 IS is supposed to be an improvement). I was happy with the results I got with the 75-300 IS, but I did move up to the 70-200/4 IS and the 100-400 IS after saving some money.

You might want to take a look at this site to help you make a decision on the 70-300: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html

Best of luck.

I use the 100-400L for the majority of my shots, as well as a 400 DO with a 1.4 extender. However in low light situations, I use my 70-200L 2.8 which is an outstanding lens. When thinking about big lenses, you also have to consider about how you are going to get them to where you going. Lenses like the 500 f4 create baggage problems to some locations.

Mike

Kelly,
The 70-300 is a decent lens and will do a nice job for you but read this review and summary before deciding.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

Consider the 70-200 f/4 as suggested here. It is about 1/3 less than the 70-200 f/2.8 and of about the same quality, image wise. This way you would have a stellar lens for future safaris and if you decided to sell it, you would recapture over 90% of you investment back. These high quality "L" lenses hold their their value very well. You can review the 70-200 f/4 at this sight. As suggested on this site, my own preference would be for the 70-200/4. Once you have seen the sharp clear images and great contrast and color this lens or indeed most L lenses provide, it is hard to feel the cost was unjustified.

Steve, I will email you the particulars on my safari mounting rig as soon as my high speed wireless comes back on. It's a sometimes thing here in rural Virginia.
Cheers-Chuck

Steve, email sent.

Mike, the 400 DO is an awesome lens with an awsome price to go along with it. Still, for travel it is a better compromise than the 500/4. AT over $5,000 U.S. it is not for everyone and should be rented before purchase. The early copies of this lens had some DO artifact that Canon later corrected. This gave the lens a bad rep initially and I think influenced Canon to not develop these DO lenses into an entire line as origianly reported. Nikon builds my ideal lens (200-400mm/4) but I am too heavily invested in Canon to switch. I wish Canon would get serious again about their higher end business. I have the 100-400/4-5.6 Canon lens and while it is decent, it is not up to the current standrds of professional quality lenses.
Cheers-Chuck

Chuck has already given a lot of very helpful info in his responses on this thread, which I missed because I have been spending every waking moment processing a huge batch of pictures from a recent trip to Antarctica.

I will throw in my 2 cents for the 300/2.8IS. I use this lens a great deal, and it is not only fast in the sense of aperture, its autofocus speed and accuracy are absolutely incredible, and the image quality is too. It is an expensive lens, but it always delivers for me, even with a 2x teleconverter, and it is smaller and easier to travel with and handhold than a 500/4.

Let me also comment on my experience with the 100-400. I agree with Chuck that it can't hold a candle to a lens like the 500/4 or 300/2.8, but one thing that has really struck me is that the image quality is markedly different with this lens depending on whether I use it on my 40D or on my 1D Mark III. On the latter, it seems much sharper. Because ease of carrying and the flexibility of the zoom were important in Antarctica, I used the 100-400 almost exclusively on shore landings, and the results I am seeing are really nice. When I finish them in a week or so I will post a link so that everyone can evaluate for themselves, but in my experience, the 100-400 is a lot better lens when used on a 1-series body than it is on a 40D.

Chris

Hi Chris,
Glad you had a good trip. I hope you are faster than I at processing your results. It took me three months to finish my September trip. Now we are off to Carnival in Trinidad and so I had to free up some card space. A question-do you think the better performance you see on the 1 Series is the due to being able to microadjust each lens? I agree, the 500mm is a beast and unless one is into birds it is hard to justify the aggravation involved getting it on and off the plane. I have been looking forward to Canon introducing something like a 200-400/4 lens with the latest generation of image stabilization. Many think it is overdue but this lousy economy might slow down the introduction of all sorts of new gear. I'm looking forward to hearing about your Antartica trip, obviously it was fantastic.
Cheers-Chuck

Chuck, I think I will have the Antarctica pictures done in about 2 weeks. The most time-consuming part has been finding the good ones among about 26,000 frames taken by my wife or myself over three weeks...

And I am with you on the 200-400/4, if Canon ever decides to make that lens I will be right behind you in line to buy one!

My theory for why the 100-400 looks better on the 1D is the following:

(1) pixel pitch on the 1D is larger and therefore less demanding on the sharpness of the lens.
(2) anti-alias filter on the 1D is lighter.
(3) 1D autofocus system is more accurate than 40D, especially with slower-aperture lenses. With 2.8 lenses I find them to be much more equal both in speed and accuracy.

I don't think microadjustment has anything to do with it, since I have not micro-adjusted any of my lenses (I can't tell that they need it).

I hope you have an awesome time in Trinidad, that sounds like a very interesting destination!

Chris

safarichuck,
Wow, I loved reading what you thought-thank you for your input!! I used to have a 70-200 f/2 IS but sold it a few years ago. I also have a 300 f/4, but am not going to take it, as I feel a zoom will be better use of the weight I am allowed on the smaller planes (44#, and of course I need some clothes, not only camera equipment). I am going to look around and see if I can find a 300mm f/2.8, used, or another 70-200 f/2.8. As you mentioned, the way a subject is isolated really makes a picture great-that is what I am looking for. I already have a 1.4X, so that would complete the good set up. You have really helped to clarify my thinking-thanks again! Yes, I would love for you to e-mail me with your set up to stabilize these lenses. karn@linkline.com
Steve-yes, I will e-mail you my set up once it is finalized. Thanks for your input and the website!

Chris, Chuck, et all-

Some great information in this thread from Chuck, for sure. Nothing else to add!

Hi Karn,
I just emailed you the info. Have a super safari.
Chuck

I agree the 400 DO is pricey. I bought a later copy which is nice and sharp. Renting one might be a good idea. I have been using the 100-400 with nice sharp shots, but it has been solely used on various 1D models. The reason I prefer the 100-400 is some of the animals do get very close and even if there was a 200-400 lens, the 200 would be too much magnification. If you have only one camera body, to me the 100-400 gives you the best flexibility.

The only bad thing I can say about the 100-400 is it does not take good pictures after it drops from a table. Unfortunately that's what happened to me on my last trip. Fortunately it was insured against breakage, but I lost a valuable flexible lens for about 2/3 of my trip.

Mike

It would be tough (for me) to loose my only telephoto lens on safari. That's why I take 2. Well, not exactly, 2nd only goes out to 200mm. But still better than zip. And with a little PP in Photoshop then presto you have a 300mm . Of course two bodies are also a requirement. And then...

regards - tom

Fodor's-One step forward, two steps back. I am now safarichuck1 (note the "1" added to my name). It seems Fodor's has suspended my account and will not reply to my inquirey. !@##%%$&#&& Thanks Fodor's for the ALL the help.
Chuck

I had two bodies, I also had my 400DO and the 70-200 and a 70-300DO, but its not the same. I love the 100-400 and I limped with it having to manual focus with it when I could.

Mike

Chuck, does this mean that you are #1 now?!?

Andy,
Darn, I never though of it that way. Too bad my parents didn't think of that, it would have eliminated all of that sibling rivalry.
Regard-"Chuck1"

oops- should read "I never thought"-Please note that safarichuck1 dosen't spell any better than safarichuck.

Karn

Unless your close to the 220lb mark, then they usually weigh your main bag, not your hand luggage. Just be sure to keep your main bag to somewhere in the 30"s and they wont even look at your camera equipment.

Thanks everyone-lots of good information,ideas & opinions. I hope this discussion has been as useful for others as it has been for me! I have decided the 300 2.8 is way too expensive and heavy for me, so I will buy a new 70-200 2.8 IS lens. Considering the 1.6 factor (40 & 50D cameras)and adding a 1.4X, I will have a 156-448mm zoom. Will also take 300mm f/4 which will result in a 672mm, with the 1.4X and the 1.6 factors. To me, this seems pretty good. Comments? Am I missing something? Will also take the 24-105, but will use it primarily in camp. I had considered a 2X for the 70-200 but everything I can find indicates a loss sharpness (not to mention light) so I dropped that thought. Comments?? Thanks again to all of you!!

You will never regret buying the 70-200/2.8. That lens is so versatile and of such great quality and comes in handy in so many situations. That is why it is so popular with pro photojournalists. I can't comment on the quality with the 1.4x, as I have never tried that combo out, but it seems somewhat duplicative with a 300/4 (i.e., 200+1.4x = 280 f4). And a 300/4 with a 1.4x seems to duplicate what you will have with the 100-400 (i.e., 420/5.6). So I am not sure there is a justification for taking a 70-200, 300 and 100-400. I would take two of those three, but not all of them.

Chris

Hi Chris,
Thanks for your input on the 70-200. I agree with you,and since I do not have the 100-400, I decided not to buy it. Instead I will buy the 70-200 2.8 IS. Also, will take the 300 f/4 I already own, for distance shots. So those are the two main lenses going along, plus a 24-105. Thanks again.

I'm a Nikon user and have the "legendary" 200-400VR, and love it so much that I even sold my beloved 300f/2.8VR to finance it!
It was the one lens that stopped me jumping ship (back) to Canon. The versatility of the zoom is what gave it the nod over the 300f/2.8. Despite it not being quite as good for BIF's (birds in flight).
My bag for Botswana Sept will include 2 X D300's the 200-400, 70-200VR, 17-55 f/2.8 & Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.
Just me 2c

Cheers
Marc

I am bringing this thread back up as I am back to shopping for a zoom lens and there is a ton of great information on this thread already.

I have a Canon 40D and I need a lens for a safari in South Africa. I only have a Canon 17-85 IS for now.

In my price range I am considering

1) Canon 70-300 mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM
2) Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM
3) Canon EF 70-200 mm / 1:2,8 L USM

I am leaning heavily to the the 70-200 f/4. I think this would be a great all-around lens to have. I could go for the 2.8 but I am concerned about weight. Besides the safari, I will want to use the lens for mostly travel photography where I do a lot of walking and hiking.

I am also concerned the 200mm is not enough zoom for the safari. I could get the 2x extender. Is this the way to go (considering this will now entail putting off getting the Canon 10-22 I have been wanting due to budget, but I think I am ok with that)?

I know the 70-300 isnt in the same league as the other 2 lens but the reviews I have been reading seem better than I had hoped and it would give me the longer zoom as well, so I am still considering it.

I have found out I can rent a 100-400L lens for about 157€ for 3 weeks but I have not seen a 500 as of yet. That is still a possibility but since I want to buy a zoom lens I am thinking I should just put the money towards a purchase.

Any more insight? Thanks again for your help.

Kelly

I'd choose neither of those three. The two last ones are too short, and the first is too slow (focus wise).

A 2x convertor will only work on a F2.8 lens (so your option number three). But if you can afford a 70-200 F2.8 then you may as well get an 100-400. That is the one that most people take I think.
A 1.4x will work on all lenses above, but does not add that much zoom. Plus, every TC does impact your image quality a little bit. I use it only if really needed "to get there".

There are a few options that are perhaps good alternatives:
- A Sigma 50-500 will give you incredible zoom range, but it has a slow focus and you need a lot of light (so during the golden hour it means cranking your ISO rather fast).
- A second hand Canon 35-350 L. Some say it is the "least sharp L-lens", but you have to compare apples with apples. So not compare it with, say, a 70-200 L but with another 10x superzoom like the 50-500 above. Then this 35-350 is way better (in sharpness and in focus speed). Warning, if you get one make sure you get a good one. One series has an inner lens coating that deteriorates. But you can easily spot it by looking into the lens, from the back.
- A fixed focus 400mm F5.6. Sharp as hell, and rather cheap. Of course; no zoom so you might miss a pic or two, or you might not be able to frame as you would have loved to.

I combine the 400 L fix and the 35-350, as I find that the 100-400 is not that great either (sharpness-wise) at 400mm. And let's face it; you use it most at full zoom.

B.regs,

J.

Kelly, here are my thoughts.

I have the original Canon 75-300 IS lens and was very happy with it. I think I got excellent results with it on my first few safaris (see for example: http://globitude.com/picture/5798/fullsize ). For the money, I think it's good value. I think having at least a 300 mm capability is best for safari.

I did decide to upgrade and now have both the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 L IS and the 100-400L lenses. I bring both with me, but mostly use the 100-400 which gives me the extra reach on safari. That said, I love the 70-200 f/4, probably my favorite lens ever---great color and sharpness (see for eample http://globitude.com/picture/7418/fullsize ). I also have the 1.4 converter, but don't use it too often. If you decide to buy a 2x converter you'll probably want to double-check whether the long lens you decide on buying will autofocus or whether manual focusing will be necessary. The 2x converter might be termed compatible with the lens but that doesn't necessarily mean it will autofocus.

Based on my experience I'd say, if it's one or the other, buy the 70-200 L which as you say is a great lens to have. The 100-400 is pretty heavy and may not be best for hiking. I'd recommend renting the 100-400 (your price seems reasonable) for your safari to see if you like it.

Best, Steve

I was in the same position as you earlier this year prior to our Kenya/Tanzania safari. I ended up buying that old safari work-horse- the Canon 100-400mm L lens and have been extremely please with it on a new Canon crop sensor body.My take is in Africa range is everything (I stand by that comment in East & South Africa but have'nt been to Botswana. If you want to fo with the Canon 70-200 the expensive F2.8 is the lens as you will have to use a 1.4 tc which will get you to F4. With the 70-200/F4 + 1.4 TC, the 100-400 at 400mm will be much sharper based on my tests even though the theoretical F stop numbers are the same at 5.6. I also have the Canon 10-22 which is great on a crop sensor and the Tamron 25-75 2.8 (another great lens for everyday use and in safari camps in the evening) to complete my set-up.