another camera lens question
 

We leave this week for Namibia and South Africa. We have a canon 20D with a wide angle lens and a 70-2002.8 with a 1.4 extender. Should we consider renting a 100-400 lens or will it really not give us much more than the 70-200 with the extender? We need to make this decision by Monday morning in order to get it by Wednesday since we leave Thursday.

I do understand the converter cannot be used with the 100-400 lens unless we want to manually focus everything and I do not think we do. Also we have only one camera body so switching lenses is possible -- but if we are not going to get much for it, then we would not want to do it. On the other hand, if we get a bit of added benefit with this lens, I would want to do it.

Thanks all you great photo people!

mpkp,
The 200mm will give you the equivalent of a 448 mm lens in 35mm terms if you use the 1.4 X TC on a 1.6X frop body like the 20D. By most accounts the image will not be quite as good as a 100-400 at the long end but not enough to make switching between both and using a single body worthwile. You don't say where in South Africa you are going. In my experience you don't need as much reach (focal length) in SA or Botswana as in Tanzania and Kenya (unless of course you are shooting birds). I would take a second camera along, even if only a good quality point and shoot. Back up cameras are a great idea on trips like these. Be prepared for an onslaught of opinions on which lens is best, next to politics it seems everyones favorite topic.
Chuck

We have a canon A-530 point and shoot that we are also taking. And a video camera.

Thanks

Chuck, I would say that lens selection is more like religion than politics, don't you think? :)

I own both the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 and I would not use a teleconverter on either one. Neither one is sharp enough to accept the degradation from the teleconverter, and on a 20D, the TC will also slow the autofocus speed of the 70-200. The 100-400 will give you better image quality, more zoom range, better reach and faster focus. That makes this a really easy question for me -- I would take the 100-400 for sure. The 70-200 is a great, versatile lens but in my opinion it is just too short for wildlife photography unless you are within a very short distance of the subject.

Chris

Chris,
I agree with all you have said about the merits of the two lenses, I too have both. Still in South Africa and Botswana I have found the 70-200 to hold up my short end and I go to the 300/2.8 with or without a 1.4X TC for the long reach. I was surprised how much less reach I needed in Bots or SA versus Tanzania or Kenya. I really try and use my 300/2.8 whenever possible (I'm using a 1.6 Crop body right now) except for East Africa where I might want more reach. I keep looking to Canon to come out with something more along the lines of the Nikon 200-400mm or even a 500mm DO lens. Buty back to the original posters question, it just seemed that with only one body, changing lenses frequently would cause a lot of dust problems. The 20D doesn't have any sort of dust elimination system. But I agree that while I would never use a TC on the 100-400mm, I might get by with a 1.4X on the 70-200mm. So-things not to discuss with friends 1)religion, 2)politics, 3) the "ultimate lens kit". :-) As I recall you used the 70-200/2.8 to great advantage on a gorilla trek? What do you think of Rawanda right now-safe or not?
Chuck

Chuck, you will never hear me doubt the divine nature of the 300/2.8 -- I adore that lens and get super results with it by itself, with a 1.4x and even with a 2x. My Mark III focuses it fast enough that I can use it for BIF shots even with the 2x! And it is light enough to handhold (at least for a little while) and travel easily with. I regard mine as a holy object!

Going back to the OP's question, if switching lenses is a concern (as it should be), I still favor the 100-400, as it covers a wider focal length range than the 70-200 and so can be used in more situations (when the light is good) than the 70-200.

I actually did not own my 70-200 when we did our trip to Rwanda and we took all our shots with a 100-400 on that trip. But having done four gorilla treks, I believed that some of our treks would have been more succesful photographically with a 70-200, basically because we were really close to the gorillas and the light was poor on two of the treks. On the other two, the light was great and the shooting distances were greater, so the 100-400 was the better choice.

I do not believe that fighting in the Congo affects safety in Rwanda because the rebel group at issue (Gen. Nkunda's group) is friendly with (and rumored to be supported by) the government of Rwanda. His group has never crossed the border into Rwanda and there is no reason to believe he would want to, or would have any motivation to harm tourists given that gorilla tourism is what puts Rwanda "on the map" in the minds of many westerners and occupies such an important place in the eyes of the current government.

Indeed, when we visited Rwanda in January 2007, there was intense fighting in the eastern DRC, lots of refugees near Kisoro in Uganda, and Nkunda's group had just captured a couple of towns near the Uganda-Rwanda-DRC border. It didn't affect us, even though we were just over the border from where the fighting was occurring. So I would be perfectly willing to go there again today and the recent developments would not deter me. That conflict has been going on for years and it has not shown any tendency to spill over the border into Rwanda.

Chris

I second the opinion of the teleconverter and finally just gave it to Bruce at Mala Mala as he had an 2.8 70-200mm lens that allowed enough light in to use it. It just took long to focus on a bird or cat's eyes to make it worth the hassle. I travel with two, and used the 70-300mm most of the time, except in late evening or night shots.

I took a JVC video camera on the trip I just returned from, and loved the quality and movement of the animals. Two tips Nils Kure gave me at Mala Mala to make it worth watching were......use a bean bag or a neck pillow and rest the camera on it to avoid shake. I have the stablilizer, but still, this worked much better. If you can, ride shotgun to the guide and rest the camera/bean bag on the roll bar. Secondly, zoom in or out just before shutting the camera down for better transition to the next section. I also found the bleed in/out button very nice to watch later. Pretty tough to keep the surround sound of cameras clicking or silly comments made by fellow passengers make, but fortunately, that does type of remote sound does not record well. Your voice does, so be careful who watches it later.

I found it was better to focus in and shoot in short segments. Also, did not mess with changing any special effects or fstops, just point and shoot-with a steady hand.

One last great idea from someone on my trip was a gadget from Epson that looks like a gameboy, but you can download any meg card and maybe your video. I would think Best Buy or a like kind store would sell these. I have had a corrupted card before, and was quite sick at losing photo's. I was amazed how many people were travelling with laptops this trip and could edit, download and clear out the meg card every night. Just more weight for me.

Lastly, one great thing about have a guide who is also a photographer is he puts you in a position for good light and angles to start with. Really made a difference on my last trip with Bruce at Mala Mala. Especially on Leopard shots when the animal was in the tree.

Hope this helps a little, have a super trip!


Have a super trip!

I would agree that the 100-400 will give greater versality without needing to add/ remove teleconvertors.
However, I have recently been viewing the RAW files from my last trip and am amazed at the sharpness of teh 70-200 2.8 (non IS version) even WITH a Canon 2x convertor attached. I was expecting the quality to be significantly less in sharpness and vibrancy of colour but it's really very good indeed, in those images where I've kept the lens still enough/ achieved a high enough shutter speed to get a crisp image. I'm viewing the images at 100% and I'm impressed.
That said, I'd still go for the 100-400 over the 70-200 with convertor.

"but it's really very good indeed, in those images where I've kept the lens still enough/ achieved a high enough shutter speed to get a crisp image."

For me at least, this is the almost always limiting factor, not the lens itself. And IS is good but if the subject is moving at all you still need a high shutter speed.

regards - tom

I realize this isn't the sort of thread that should morph into the sort of topic best covered on a photography forum however, it has attracted some interesting discussion. I hope the original poster does not object. I would like to add that in my humble opinion, there are other aspects of lens performance that cause me to favor one lens over another. Focal length aside, fast lenses (2.8 or faster) are great for isolating the subject and making it appear 3D like. The design of the focal blades themselves together with the size of the opening have a lot to do with this. Somehow I always find that my favorite shots are taken with these fast lenses. This is emphasize is entirely subjective and my own personal bias. When I shoot landsacpes I want everything in sharp focus and sometimes even when I'm trying to show an animal in its environment. Other times I want subject isolation. All of this has led to me carring around a much too large bag of gear. Fortunately my wife is a good sport and enjoys the results. I think that for the first time safari traveler a 100-400mm lens is ideal for 80% or more of the opportunities. If they already owned a 70-200mm and teleconverter and were using it on a 1.6 crop camera (Canon 20D) then it is a simple matter to test out that combination at home and see if it yields the kind of result they are looking for. Lens lust is the second most expensive lust to satisfy.
Cheers-Chuck

I hope the originator of this thread doesn't mind either, but I appreciate your comments, Chuck! So Thanks! I can always benefit from the knowledge of others more experienced!

To go further down the road Chuck is walking, the other advantage of a fast lens is that it will autofocus faster and more accurately, especially in low light. This is because the camera AF sysem acquires focus with the lens wide open, then closes the aperture to actually take the shot.
But there is also a big difference in AF speed between zoom and prime lenses, with the primes being much faster. I can't tell much difference in AF speed between my 100-400 and my 70-200/2.8 except for a moving subject tracking in AI servo, then I can see that the 2.8 zoom is faster and holds focus better. This difference is quite pronounced on my 40D and much less pronounced on my 1D Mark III. The area of wildlife photography where you will really see the difference is shooting birds in flight, where you need all the AF speed you can get.
Although I agree that a faster lens is better for blurring the background, I usually find the background blur to be more strongly influenced by the relative distance between me, the subject and the background, and when I shoot I always look for a subject that is well-separated from the background to obtain better subject isolation.
The disadvantage of the faster lenses, of course, is that they are bigger, heavier and more expensive. I have a good friend who shoots all the time with a 400/2.8 and I have no idea how me manages such a heavy rig, but he does -- using a beefy tripod and a Wimberley Head.

Chris

Yes, I must admit I'm a sucker for shallow depth of field. As well as wildlife photography I love playing with macro photography where the depth of field can get extremely shallow - gorgeous!
And I agree that the fast lens makes it easier to achieve acceptable shutter speeds.
My comment was simply that, assuming I am shooting in a situation where there is either enough light for that not to be an issue or a method of stabilising the camera adequately, the image quality of the 70-200 2.8 L + 2x convertor was actually surprisingly comparable with the quality of the same lens without the convertor and also a 100-400 L I've borrowed from a friend.
Essentially, all I wanted to point out was not to dismiss the 70-200 2.8 + convertor on image quality grounds.
All other kinds of grounds, absolutely!
:D

Chris, that's a very good point. On our last trip my husband shot primarily with his 400 5.6 prime. Whilst he did struggle in low lights, he achieved some lovely images of birds in flight.

Kavey, I have never used one of those 400/5.6 primes, but many of my bird photographer friends use it, and brag about the sharpness and AF speed of that lens. It is definitely a "fair weather" lens, but from what I have heard, it really excels in good light.

Chris

Yes, my husband has enjoyed using it.

I don't mind.

I ended up asking Roger at the rental place and he thought we should go with what we have already -- that we would not gain that much with the 100-400 over the 70-200 with the extender. I appreciated his honesty as I would have rented it if he thought it was the best way to go.

We are basic amateurs hoping for a great shot! We really don't take photos unless we are traveling -- which is why the 70-200 was a better lens for us to purchase as it would be more useful traveling other places.

I hope we don't regret the decision!

Thanks for your input. Enjoy the discussion

I think you'll be happy with your decision... it's a good quality lens that also gives you flexibility.

This is the point where I always put in a plug for cropping. You can take a good sharp photo and crop it to look like it was taken with a lens twice the focal length. Instant new lens!!! As long as your not wanting 16x20 inch prints it will look good. If you're not now cropping and processing your digital photos, you are missing out on half of the capability of digital photography. And for me half of the fun. You don't need big expensive Photoshop to do this, there are many other free easy to use programs. I like to recommend Irfanview - http://www.irfanview.com/ It is free, it can crop, resize and do a lot of color control/enhancements including sharpening.

regards - tom

Were you talking with Roger Cicala from LensRenstals? He is a first-rate guy and is very involved in the online photography community. I am renting a 10-22 from him for our upcoming trip to Antarctica. He is a real pleasure to deal with.

Chris