Botswana-fast lens recommendation
 

Can anyone who has been to Botswana recommend a fast lens that would be really useful to have? My cameras are a Canon 40D & soon a 50D. My 2 lenses are Canon 24-105 f/4 and will soon be buying Canon 100-400. These will give me the close and distance reach, but neither of these are very fast. If I were to buy 1 additional lens that was faster, what would you recommend? I would so appreciate your suggestions!!

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...is_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. [email protected]
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