DianeJF

Aloha all. We leave September 19 from Maui for Cape Town, 7 nights and on to Botswana -- Chitabe 3 nights, Kwetsani 3 nights, Selinda 3 nights and then Victoria Falls/River Club 2 nights. We are upgrading from our point-and-shoot Canon to a Rebel XT. If I could only take one lens what should I take? If you know we need two what should they be? Mahalo. Diane

hills27

What's your budget?

mistadobalina

When will you be in the respective places? We leave September 14 for Cape Town, Selinda, Chitabe, Mombo, and Vic Falls. Seems like we'll be following each other, if not outright tripping across one another.

cary999

The Canon DSLR lens I see most often on safari is the Canon EF 100-400L. Goes for around $1,300 USD. This takes care of the telephoto range nicely. For a second lens of "normal" range, around say 40-90mm, I'm not sure what is a good choice. Or even if you would skip that range and go wide angle with perhaps the Tokina 12-24mm ($500).
(Do, I have these lenses? No, I use Nikon gear).

regards - tom

africaddict

Can vouch for the Tokina 12-24 f/4, very good lens and a must for those African landscapes. ;-)

Cheers
Marc

safarichuck

Diane,
The 100-400mm L, IS Canon lens is ideal for safari. If budget is an issue use your point and shoot for wide angle and camp images and take only one lens. If you have a bit left over after buying the 100-400 get the 28-135 IS Canon lens, it's about $400-500 U.S.. and a pretty decent lens. The manager at Kwetsani, Shane, is an avid photographer so make certain you let him know you are enthusiastic. He can give you some useful tip and he has a laptop full of good stuff.
Regards, Chuck

DianeJF

Dear Mistadobalina,

We arrive Cape Town on September 22, Chitabe Sept 29 thr Oct 1; Kwestani Oct 2 thr 4; Selinda Oct 5 thr 7 and River Club Oct 8 and 9. Do any of these dates match yours?

Hills27 No budget at present for the lens but we are novice photographers.

afrigalah

Good advice from Chuck, but if budget is even more of an issue, Tamron has a nice 'super' zoom 28-300. That's a less expensive brand and its wide zoom range means you wouldn't need a second lens of shorter focal length (though 400 mm is more appropriate at the long end). Again, in the cheaper brands, you could look at the Sigma 80-400 OS (but it's not a patch on the Canon 100-400 IS) or Sigma 50-500 (a nice lens, but a bit of a brute).

John

fbirder

Knowing how much you are willing to spend really is important. If you really only want to take one lens then I'd take the 70-200mm f2.8 and the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (yes, OK, that's cheating).

For a real single lens solution I reckon the 28-300mm can't be beat - but it isn't cheap.

But taking one lens really defeats one of the main advantages of a dSLR. Personally, I take the 100-400, 24-105 and 10-22. Most of the time the 100-400 is on the camera, next most used is the 10-22 for landscapes.

mistadobalina

Diane,

We're going to miss you by 2 days in Cape Town and 3 in Chitabe. Perhaps we can leave random "clues" for you on where to find a buried Canon EF 100-400L at Selinda Camp.

scubatv

I have not read the above post, but here is another suggestion.

https://www.adorama.com/TM18250EOS.html


The Tamron is a bit more expensive, but you get a six year full, everything warranty. That’s a great feature.

The lens is an 18-250 designed for digital cameras, equivalent to a 27-387mm , which for one lens is a pretty good deal.

PacoAhedo

Hello,

i am a Nikon user but have notice that nobody mentioned to you the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.

You can have it for 529$ at B&W PHOTO VIDEO witch is not a bad price.
It could be another option for a novice DSRL pothographer and not bad at all for safari,good range and light at the same time.

However if i had a Canon ,the Canon 100-400 would be my first choice for safari,that is a great lens for the price and weight.

Paco.

tuckeg

I agree with those that said 100-400mm L, IS Canon. I took a bunch of lenses on our 7 month trip and used it 90% of the time (sometimes with a 2x extender for bird shots at a distance).

Chris_GA_Atl

I will also recommend the 100-400, it is an excellent and very versatile lens and I really love it. It does struggle in low light, so be aware of that, and if that is a concern, the 70-200/f2.8 IS is an excellent choice for those kinds of situations. My personal view is that 200mm is not long enough for a primary lens for safari, but the 70-200 is a wonderful all-around lens that really shines in poor lighting conditions.

Also, my experience with the 100-400 is that, although it is very sharp at 400mm wide open, stopping down just 1/3 of a stop to f6.3 yields a visible improvement in image quality. This will become an issue if you have to do significant cropping of a far-away or very small animal.

You can see examples (gorillas, chimpanzees, birds and animals at the zoo) taken with both lenses at my photo site, www.pbase.com/cwillis. Each picture has the lens used listed right below it. I only got my 70-200 less than a week ago, so I only have a few shots with it so far.

I will reiterate what others have said about practicing at the zoo. It is a really helpful exercise to learn the characteristics of a lens and to see what kind of results you can expect with different settings under different conditions.

Chris

ShayTay

I'll second Paco's recommendation of the 70-300mm IS lens. I use an older version of this lens and love it for safari. It's easily hand-held and the image stabilization factor is helpful. I also take a 28 - 200mm for landscapes and other wide angle shots (Cape Town and Vic Falls.) You could also forego the wide angle lens and use your point and shoot for landscapes and the like.

tuckeg

I can see some people might prefer the 70-300mm for weight so DianeJF should check it and the 100-400 out in a camera shop and see which she wants to use.

ShayTay

Cost is a factor for some of us. Has anyone ever rented a lens? I was looking at ziplens dot com and they rent the 100-400 for $120 for three weeks. If it's something you'd only use once every year or two, that might be the way to go, versus spending $1300 to buy it.