My wife and I are taking a month's trip to southern Africa (SA, Botswana, Zambia) and I'm an enthusiastic but probably not all-that-talented photographer. It's our first trip to the region. My current lens is a Nikon 18-200mm on a D70 Nikon body. Do I need a lens that goes up to 300mm for shooting animal life or is my current lens going to be adequate? I don't want to be constantly fumbling as I take off one lens and put on another.

My second safari (2006) to SA, Zambia, Kenya I took only a Nikon D200 and the 18-200 zoom. Worked out fine, all around good lens. Although today I take a 300mm zoom and back up body (with the 18-200). Also, by cropping a 200mm photo you can make it look like it was taken with a 300mm lens. A LOT can be done with digital images and post processing. FWIW, here's some photos from that 2006 safari using the 18-200 and a Canon P&S.
http://tomgraham.smugmug.com/SAFARI-2006
Have a great safari.

regards - tom

"Enthusiastic but probably not all-that-talented photographer" describes many of us, I'd think, but we still manage to come home with some keepers that tide us over until the next trip! I routinely suggest a lens that at least goes to 300 for wildlife photography on safari. You'd probably do OK with the one going to 200, but you may find yourself saying over and again, "I wish I had something with a bit more reach." If you want to avoid that possibility, I'd recommend the 70-300 VR. And if you didn't want to buy one (~$470) there's always renting. I've used LensProToGo in the past and liked them. They rent that lens for $154 for 30 days.

Like Tom, I carry an extra body so switching out lenses is unnecessary. But with the 70-300, I don't think you'll be needing to switch lenses very much. You'll likely be able to take the vast majority of your shots with that one lens.

Good luck, Steve

jessicacate-I've had the same question as we get ready for our 1st SA trip soon, too.
Not that I know from experience but here is rental info. from another travel forum that has gotten good reviews.

"have a look at www.outdoorphoto.co.za
They are setting up or already have set up stock to rent in Nelspruit. They even deliver the lens to the accommodation place (even into Sabie Sands) nearby so you can spare yourself from having to bring it in and the weight to carry."

Tom-as usual, great pics!

I've seen the same info on www.outdoorphoto.co.za . The delivery of a rented lens to your destination is a definite convenience. On the other hand, as best as I can understand their pricing, it appears you will pay significantly more (~100%) for their lenses.

i'm not sure about the apperture of your lens, but I've used a 2x converter on my 80-200mm F2.8 to get basically a 400mm F5.6 which worked perfectly.
But if yours is something like 5.6 already at 200mm this probably won't work very well (you'll end up at F11.2), but still a cheap way of getting extra mm's...

In general you will be quite ok on the 200mm, but don't expect to capture birds with this range.

More important to me than the focal length of the lens are (a) low-light capabilities of the camera; (b) vibration reduction, and (c) (mega)pixel capacity of the camera.

On many safari drives/walks you'll find yourself in less-than-ideal lighting conditions. Low light plus a long lens (and therefore the need to shoot at a wider aperture and/or longer shutter speeds) spells unsatisfying results unless you can push the ISO sensitivity of the camera and still have enough mp capacity to get a decent image, with something resembling depth of field. And obviously if you're zoomed out the vibration issue becomes more crucial. A really good autofocus system is also hugely important, as those same low-light situations will make it hard for you to focus accurately (and quickly) when you need to.

which is why you should also bring a monopod (or bean bag, depending on the type of car you are in on the gamedrives)

You can get great shots with up to 200mm but remember if you want to get close you are going to need the mm's

The Lion shot here http://www.depicus.com/africa/wallpapers/ was at 400mm but as you can see the rest are mainly wide shots.

If you are going for a month then get a good p&s as a backup, something like the Nikon s9100 would give you a good reach, video and not bad shots.

If you do think you need a new lens always comfort yourself that they don't depreciate like most other gadgets. I bought my 100-400mm 3 years ago for £900 and would get very close to that at resale.

depicus, just curious if you like, love or just tolerate the 100-400. I've grown increasingly ambivalent about its performance: I like the range but am not keen on its sharpness. Your thoughts appreciated. Steve

I'm a Pentax user. Took the Pentax K-x camera with a Pentax-DA 1:3-5:6, 18-55 mm and a 1:4-5:8, 55-300 mm on our last trip to Tanzania. We used the 55-300 all the time. On my next trip, I want something even bigger for birds. You can see my results at www.Tonna.zenfolio.com

Steve

I have mine fully services by Canon for £60 and it is very sharp, I use with a 7D and it's my main lens, so sharp for me. For a safari there aren't that many lens that are practical and light, would love a 300 or 400mm prime but they are way to heavy. So to answer your question i love it

Thanks very much for that answer, depicus. Like yours, my 100-400 is also 3 yrs old. Did you have yours serviced by Canon for a specific reason or was it simply maintenance? I'm readying mine for shipping to Canon to see if they can assess the lens and improve the sharpness. Best, Steve

sdb2 - I have had the 100-400 for about ten years and have come close to selling several times, but keep hanging on to it and it still gets used. At 400mm f8 it beats the 70-200 f2.8 II with a 2xiii teleconverter - not by much but a little so I guess I will hang on to it a little longer even though a lot of people give it no love.

Thanks for that, sperraglia. I've been thinking of switching over to the 70-300 L IS, but first must cope with sticker shock and loss of 100 mm. Steve

I actually had sold the 100-400 at one time and reversed the transaction and I am amazed at some nice sharp pictures it has given me even though folks trash the lens. If you can use it at f8 it is a pretty amazing lens. How about the 70-200 f4 is with a 1.4 tele instead of the 70-300? It is a few sweet little lens, not heavy at all and takes the 1.4 tele brilliantly. I had that combo for years before switching to the 70-200 f2.8 ii monster.

I have the 70-200 f4 L IS and love it for its color and sharpness. It's my favorite lens of all time. I have the 1.4 tele as well but always figured I'd lose something with the extender. Maybe I need to try that combo out and see if it works for me. Thanks for the idea.

sdb2 - definitely try the combo, I think you will love it. I wouldn't put a 2x on it but the 1.4x is lovely and so much lighter than by 70-200 f2.8 ii monster!

Interesting conversation! I don't know what body sdb2 is using but only the Canon 1 series can auto-focus when using the 70-200 f4 L IS with a 2x extender.

sperraglia you are quite right that the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200 mk2 with a 2x at f8. Sample: http://tinyurl.com/3oda9jt

However take the extender out and try it at any f stop from 100mm to 200mm and the 100-400 is no match. Sample: http://tinyurl.com/3q23eyq

sperraglia, for sure will give it a whirl. Thanks.

Hanuman, thanks for your input. I use the 40D and a 1.4 extender, so auto-focusing not a problem with the 70-200 f4 (I don't use the 1.4 with the 100-400).