Which lens do you prefer, money aside:

Long shots:

28 -300 IS Canon or
70 -200 2.8 IS w/ 1.4x


Veratility:

24 - 70 2.8 or
24 -105 4.0 IS

I might rent a 100 -400 but the 28 -300 was great on my last safari.

This is for next safari and hopefull polar bears in churchill next year.

What would you choose? We have 580 external flash.


Thanks

<b>28 -300 IS Canon or
70 -200 2.8 IS w/ 1.4x</b>

For me the 70-200 ... optics are much better than a 10-1 zoom (the lens designers have to make a lot of compromises once the zoom ratio gets above 3-1 or 4-1) and you lose little optically with the 1.4x on this lens.

<b>24 - 70 2.8 or
24 -105 4.0 IS</b>

24-105 is a very sweet lens, smaller than the 24-70 because it's a stop slower but with a wider focal range, plus IS.

On our last trip I took a 24-105 f/4 IS (have the 28-70 f/2.8 but rarely use it anymore), 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and a 500 with 1.4x and 2x converters. Covers most safari situations very well, I feel.

Bill

I agree with Bill's comments 100%. I would choose the 70-200/2.8 over the 28-300 for the reason Bill stated. I would also choose the 24-105 over the 24-70 because of the greater flexibility afforded by the wider zoom range, and the slower aperture (4 vs 2.8) would be compensated for in SOME situations by the 24-105's IS.

If you are buying lenses from scratch for safari, I would also offer you two other alternatives to consider on the telephoto end. One is the obvious Canon 100-400L, which gets talked about a lot on this forum as well as on any other photograpgy forum, because it is a very popular general wildlife photography lens. The other one, which I am planning to get for our next safari, is the Sigma 120-300/2.8. I am not generally a proponent of third-party lenses, but the reviews and sample images I have seen with this Sigma are excellent. It gives a lot of flexibility because of its fast aperture -- you can use it as a 300/2.8 in lower light, and when the light is better, use a 1.4x or 2x TC with it and have a good longer telephoto reach (420/4 or 600/5.6). It is big and heavy, though -- weighs about twice what a 100-400 or 70-200/2.8 does.
Chris

I definately agree with Bill as well..
But why only use a 1.4x?
Last safari I used a 2x extender (cheap one) on my 80-200 F2.8 (Nikkor) and it worked like a charm!
good quality and performance...

Thanks for the feedback.

Should I go with Canon extenders 1.4 and/or 2.0 or are the other brands &quot;good enough.&quot;

Stay clear of the extenders, rent the 100-400 if you need to. The 70-200 is a great lens but it is not good enough for the long shots. The extender slows down the focusing and the quality takes a hit on the 1.4 and a bigger hit on the 2x. 90% of my africa shots are taken with the 100-400, its a great lens. I agree with the others to also avoid the 28-300.

Mike
www.pbase.com/mytmoss

Further to Mike's point about the 100-400 vs. a 70-200/2.8 + 2xTC, check out this side-by-side test of the two setups by Luminous Landscape:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../400v400.shtml

The tests clearly illustrate the image quality difference between the two approaches, not to mention the AF speed issue Mike mentioned.

I also love the 100-400 -- it is excellent for general purpose wildlife photos, and is OK for birds as well. You can see my pictures with the 100-400 at www.pbase.com/cwillis.

Chris

Last year on safari I used a Sigma 170-500mm with my Canon Dig Rebel XT and got some really nice shots. The reach was excellent and that is what I found very important to really capture the animals the way I wanted. My only disappointment was the lack of IS even though I was using a monopod from the vehicle. Made for several shots I had to reject because of camera shake. For that reason I have traded the 170-500 and have purchased a used Canon 100-400. So far the shots are great, but real test comes later this month on a trip to Alaska

Chris,

Those are extremely interesting tests in Luminous Landscape, especially for this family: I use the 100-400 IS, while my wife uses the 70-200 (non-IS) with the 2x II.

I also use the 300/2.8 with the 2x II, and it's interesting to note that in his <i>Nature Photography Field Guide</i>, John Shaw says a 300/2.8 is about the only lens he feels comfortable using a 2x converter with.

John

John, I thought it was really interesting too. I have never used a 70-200 with a TC, although I did use a 70-200/2.8 that I rented once and really liked it. I have a friend who shoots all of the pictures for our local zoo calendar, and he uses the 70-200+2xTC combo and loves it. So it must work pretty well.

But, like you, I use the 100-400 pretty much all the time.

For our next safari in 2008, we will go equipped with not only the 100-400, but also a 70-200/2.8 and I think the Sigma 120-300/2.8 and a 2x TC. And this time both my wife and I will have cameras, so we will take double the pictures!

Chris
www.pbase.com/cwillis

Chris,

I expect to take the 300/2.8 IS with 2x and 1.4x on our next trip, as I did last time, while my wife expects to use her 70-200 with 2x (instead of borrowing my 100-400). We'll probably also share her 24-105 IS. She shoots digital (1D Mark 2 and 5D), while I shoot film.

I'd be sorely tempted to get the Canon 400/4 DO IS if I could afford it.

John

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), the 400/4 DO is so far out of my camera gear budget that I am not experiencing any temptation -- it's on my &quot;dream list&quot; along with the 1D Mark III and a 500/4, but it'll be a long while before any of those things make it into my actual inventory...

Chris

I have a 400 DO and I put a 1.4 extender on it, however it is NOT my primary lens on my primary camera. If you have one camera, take the 100-400, you need the versatility of a zoom.

Mike

Mike,

Depends on your objectives and weight limitations, I guess. I've had my 100-400 for 7 years and love it, but as good as it is, image quality doesn't match that of a good prime lens. So I'm willing to sacrifice its flexibility and leave it home. The prime suits my aims to a T.

John

I used a 'cheap' converter (soligor) and I must say it worked very well. Didn't slow down the focus to much (I still could capture birds in flight) and with the F2.8 I could afford loosing some light.

If you're interested; you can find my recent safari photos here:
http://flickr.com/photos/nikao/sets/72157594524618438/

John, when are you going to switch to digital? Hope you don't mind my asking.
Chuck

Chuck,

I don't mind at all. I doubt I'll ever switch. I do shoot digital...as back-up to my wife when she does weddings and other social functions where candid and long lens shots from different angles are valuable. I use her gear and enjoy the photography, but I leave all the post-processing to her because it doesn't interest me (other than the work I do on scans of my own slides).

John

afrigalah

I love prime lenses, just not when on in Africa. Animals often get too close to effectively use a prime. Also a great prime with a 1.4 or 2.0 is not that much different than a 100-400 and I said, I would not give up my flexibility. My best suggestion is for those who can afford it is to take two camera bodies, one with a great prime and the other with a 100-400.

Mike
www.pbase.com/mytmoss

John,
Thanks for the reply. I understand your rationale entirely. I switched a few years ago (film to digital) and initially I was surprised at the amount of time I had to spend post processing. I'm used to the &quot;workflow&quot; now so I don't mind it. At first I missed the film medium but the newer wave of digital SLR's have given me what I'm after. I have seen your work and it is wonderful. whatever you are doing, don't stop.
Chuck

P.S. I know you have the 300mm 2.8, I'll be taking my 300mm 2.8 IS to Botswana as well.

To the camera pros on this forum:
If I may ask what is your workflow with regard to processing your photos on the computer? Do you store in Aperature or Photoshop or something else? I am just changing over to a 5d from a 20d. I love the new camera but at this time I am having to crop more often. I guess I am getting used to the full frame of the 5d. Sorry if this all sounds stupid.

I love the Luminous Landscape website.