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.

Thanks so much for these ideas. I didn't know the 2x wouldn't work, I thought it did for all L lens, so that changes things. I will likely rent the 100-400, I think it will be great for safari but I do not think I will want to use that lens regularily (too heavy). I can decide after the safari, and I will be in the US right after the safari where it will save me a bit of money to buy a lens (probably the 70-200 f/4) there rather than in Europe. Thanks once again !