I am going on my one and only safari to Botswana in May and need advise on which lenses to take. Will be taking my Canon 40D and 20D as back-up. I wonder if I should buy the Canon 100-400 mm lens. I already have a Canon 300mm f4 prime lens, and ratings show it to be more sharp at 300mm than the Canon 100-400. I have never used the 100-400, so I really can't judge. However, the 100-400 is a zoom, which is more flexible and allows me to respond faster to what we are seeing. To take both the 300 and 100-400, in addition to the wide angle and other equipment puts my camera bag well over 25#, so I need to make some tough decisions that could affect my ability to "capture the moment". So, if you have been there with various lenses etc. and could advise me as to what lenses you used most, I would greatly appreciate it!!

FWIW re weight. My carry-on camera bag, actually a typical regular type wheeled carry on, weighs in at 34lbs. And I've never had it weighed or questioned by airlines. Just don't handle it like it is heavy .

As for lenses, I only know Nikons . But you have two bodies, nice, what lens on each body? Nice not to have to swap lenses a lot.

regards - tom

Karn-

I have owned about every Canon lens offered, and started out with a 300mm f/4 when I got my first 'big lens'. After shooting with the 300mm f/4 and 100-400mm, I have to say that the flexibility of a zoom lens is more important than the edge in sharpness that the 300mm offers.

My vote is to go with the 100-400mm, but don't forget to bring lenses that are wider, as you will find plenty of situations, typically lifestyle kinds of shots, where you will want it. Imagine wide angle zoom shots of people in the vehicle, camp interiors, etc etc. I remember taking a 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 100-400mm on many of my safaris about 6 years ago. Worked like a charm!

At the end of the day, what matters most is how you approach your photography, not what equipment you have. None of us will ever be able to notice which lens you used, but we will notice the gesture of the photograph, how we feel about it, the subject placement, the light and overall mood.

I agree with Andy. The flexibility of the zoom is more important for this application than the sharpness edge of the 300/4. I frequently find myself taking my 100-400 out instead of my 300/2.8, even though the 300/2.8 is much sharper and focuses much faster, because of the flexibility of the zoom. If you asked me which one I would take on a safari, I would definitely take the 100-400 (if I could only take one). I would put a wider-angle lens on your other camera, like a 24-105 or something similar to that.

Here are a few samples taken with my 40D and 100-400 (not Africa, but it will give you an idea of the image quality):
http://www.pbase.com/cwillis/image/95701368/original
http://www.pbase.com/cwillis/image/95878572/original
http://www.pbase.com/cwillis/image/95878575/original

Chris

V nice birdie photos Chris. I'd be happy with that lens. That's all one needs to take bird photos like that, right, a Canon with a good lens?

regards - tom

Karn,

To purchase the 100 - 400 just for a one off trip seems a waste of money to me. Rent one if you can.

FWIW My last trip (Sept '08) I used a 40D with 300 f/2.8 + 2.0 TC as my main equipment and a 10D with 100 - 400 zoom as my backup camera.

Although I've had the 100 - 400 for many years I find the push pull zoom will suck in a lot of dust.

Another option is to get a 1.4 TC for the 300 f/4.0 and taking a shorter length zoom for your 2nd camera.

Geoff.

Karn,
I pretty much agree with everything that has been said here. the ability to frame your image is much greater with a zoom lens. I use the Canon 100-400 a lot on safari but I have found that in Botswana, unlike East Africa (Tanzania) that the guides place the vehicles so much closer I am better off with my 70-200/2.8 lens. The extra speed of the faster lens really comes in handy and for the long end I have found the 300/2.8, sometimes with a teleconverter to be more than enough. Once again, Botswana is entirely different than East Africa where I still prefer to take my 100-400 as my on camera zoom. With a two camera setup, it's nice to have one body set up with a fast (f2.8) lens for that once in a morning or evening shot. As Andy said, none of us will ever know what lens you used for a particular image and with your two camera set up you will have the flexibility to concentrate on composition and lighting. Another factor favoring a fast lens is the ability to isolate your subject by using a wide aperature and thus bluring the background. I note that Geoff has mentioned the same as his last listed option.

Where in Botswana are you going and what camps are you staying at? I do hope it's not your "one and only safari to Botswana". If you are bit by the safari bug you will need all of the lenses discussed here....sigh.

Cheers-Chuck

For me, the flexibility of a zoom outweighs the minute extra sharpness delivered by a good prime.

For my recent trip I was able to pick up a refurbished second-hand 70-200 f2.8 L plus a 2x convertor and found the combination extremely useful. That said, I also took my older consumer 100-300 as I do find the 70-200 unweildy in some situations and simply can't manage it when walking. I used the larger lens with and without convertor mostly when we had a vehicle to ourselves and more space to spread out and fixed a monopod and decent ball head to it to steady myself.

My husband is the opposite. He had realised on previous safaris, using that same consumer 100-300, that he found himself mostly shooting at with the zoom fully extended. So he opted for the 400mm prime and is loving it.

We also took a variety of other lenses including a 10-22, a 50 and my walkabout 18-125.

I don't have anything to add, it's al been said before;

- go with the 100-400
- don't forget the wide angle lens for landscapes. Since you don't have a body with full frame sensor, I'd go for an EF-S 10-22mm, and NOT an EF 17-40 or an EF 16-35.

An extra tip perhaps; for small birds, you could take a 2x teleconvertor and shoot manually. If you intend to do that, 1) practice a bit at home, 2) only take out the TC when it's really worth it because too many lens switches will guarantee a dusty sensor, and 3) take a beanbag or monopod.

Ciao,

J.

We just returned from Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe yesterday and would go with the longest zoom that you can, but the biggest question is the type of safari that you are taking. If you are flying on small planes, as we were, you will be restricted in total weight of luggage. We were restricted to 26 pounds total per person, with no hard sided or rolling bags.

Hey Tom -- thanks for the comment. The answer to your question is "no," it takes more than just the camera and lens -- it takes birds that are inclined to cooperate! For some reason most birds don't seem to enjoy my company, so I am usually using something longer than 400mm, but those shots were taken in a location where the birds are very habituated to people and fly very close.

Chris

Chris,
Recently spent a couple of days with Selwin in Capetown. He asked to send his regards to both of you. He is a great guy and we really enjoyed having him as our guide to Cape Town. I understand you are returning?
Chuck

Chuck, that is great and I am glad you got to spend some time with Selwyn. Yes, we are going back to Cape Town at the end of next June -- primarily to observe great white sharks off Seal Island -- but we will also hook up with Selwyn while we are there. He is really a lot of fun to be around.

The real challenge on that trip will be to get pictures of the sharks breaching on the seal decoy that the boat tows around the island. That, to me, seems like a really tough challenge.

Thanks again for passing along the greeting from Selwyn!

Chris

Chris, Great plan-I envy you. We are planning a return but not certain if we can fit Cape Town in together with Botswana next May. I have tried to shot breaching whales from out boat off the New England coast and never had much luck. The new high rate digital cameras, some even with video, make it all more possible to get some fantastic stuff. We are thinking about Rwanda and the gorillas now and if I recall, you thought the 70-200/2.8 was the perfect lens for that?

Chuck

Chuck, I definitely believe that the 70-200/2.8 is the best overall choice for gorillas in Rwanda and Uganda. The reason is that you will frequently encounter low light conditions, so a fast aperture is needed for that, plus the gorillas can be at varying distances, so a zoom is helpful. But you also need something relatively small and light, so a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 is too big because you will be on uneven, steep and heavily overgrown terrain.

However, I would suggest also taking a 100-400, put them both in your bag at the beginning of the morning, and then choose one or the other depending on the light conditions. I say this because we had a number of situations where the gorillas were far enough away to make a longer focal length desirable and the light was sufficient to allow decent shots with the 100-400. Since you will be hiring someone to carry your bag anyway, and both lenses are small, I think that is the way to go.

I do know someone who took some fantastic pictures in Rwanda with a 400/4DO. Gorilla trekking is obviously an application that favors the light weight of that lens, but I still think the flexibility of the zoom is a more important consideration, given that sometimes the gorillas are VERY close.

I also believe that it would be very difficult for a single photographer to handle two bodies on a gorilla trek, so using a combination of fast primes is not really a good option in my opinion. Finally, I further believe that using a monopod or tripod is highly unworkable in the shooting conditions we experienced, both because of the difficult terrain and the movement of the subjects.

Let me know if you want to discuss this further via e-mail -- mine is chrisgts(at)gmail(dot)com. I'd be happy to give you any information that would help in planning a trip to Rwanda.

Chris

Remember you can crop in post processing. One of the many great things about digital. Note that at least two of the three of Chris's example images have been cropped.

Also, it can be to your DISadvantage to frame the shot too tightly. You may wish later that you could move the subject a bit within the frame. With a sharp image you can do this and also make it to look like it was taken with a lens twice as long. Here's an example of a full body shot of a lion that was already cropped some- http://tinyurl.com/52jl6w The next image is that shot cropped into a head shot - http://tinyurl.com/3gn86t

Also for many images I prefer a 4x3 format over the original 35mm 3x2 format.

regards - tom

Agree with Tom that cropping is an absolutely essential tool in digital processing, and it is extremely rare that I take a shot and don't crop it. A lot of times with wildlife you don't get much time to consider the framing or composition of a shot, you have to take the picture instantly or it's gone, so cropping allows you to compose the image afterward.

The more marginal the shot it, the less you will be able to crop it, though. You could have slight camera-shake blur that becomes more noticeable when cropping, or if you have a really noisy high-ISO shot, cropping will enhance the appearance of the noise. So cropping has its limitations, but definitely is something that should be considered for every picture we take, because nearly 100% of them can be improved by cropping.

Chris

Yup, I agree with both of you. One of the things I am wondering right now is whether or not to switch over to full frame. The new Canon 5D Mark II and the 1Ds Mark III are both full frame and have 21 Megapixels. That would allow enough cropping and better high ISO performance (perhaps). While the Series I body would be a handful on a gorilla trek, it would be fine otherwise on safari. Qestion is-would you take two bodies with different lenses mounted on a gorilla trek or just one body? I am thinking two bodies because I would hate to have a problem and no backup. My understand in that you hire a porter to carry your gear until you are nearly at the gorilla's location? Also, are you saying to not take the 300/2.8, it is my favorite lens. Even my desk looks good when taken with that lens. Tom, those maile lions are awesome. I'll forward some of my last stuff as soon as I have a few more processed. I shot nearly 100GB in raw and can't seem to sit still long enough to process them. Now that the weather is turning, I will have more time.

Regards-Chuck

Chuck, here is my reaction to the questions you raised:

(1) I really think a 1D Mark III is a better choice for wildlife photography than a 1DsIII or a 5D2. The reason is that the Mark III has a faster frame rate than either of them and a better and faster AF system than the 5D. And the high-ISO performance is wonderful. I got a Mark III in June of this year and I absolutely love it. I think the 1Ds and 5D are better suited for studio, portrait, landscape, or architecture, but for wildlife you need fast AF and a fast continuous shooting speed.

(2) I would not try to handle two bodies on a gorilla trek. The terrain is steep, uneven and overgrown with vegetation and you have to use your hands to hold on and climb on occasion. Dealing with one camera was a struggle, and I think two would be very difficult. Plus, remember you only have one hour with the gorillas, and the chance of a failure in that one-hour window is small.

(3) Generally you hire a porter to carry your bag, and he will do so until you are within a couple of hundred feed of the gorillas. Then you meet up afterward and he carries the bag back down for you.

(4) A 300/2.8 is too big and heavy for gorilla pictures, in addition to lacking the flexibility to deal with varying subject distances. I have one too and I adore it, and I use mine all the time, but I just don't think it is the right choice for gorillas. Imagine yourself having to crawl up the side of a steep slope on hands and knees, grabbing on to vines and plants to pull yourself up, then try to imagine doing that with a 300/2.8 in one hand. It just doesn't work. So, although I love my 300/2.8 and I shoot with it all the time, frequently handheld, there is no way I would take it on a gorilla trek.

Chris

safarichuck, what software are you using? I downloaded a trial copy of Lightroom and I really like it. It is so fast and easy. I processed my images from Mashatu, MalaMala and the spirit bears in Canada in record time. Now I am actually processing images from my trip to Botswana in 2007 that I just let sit there because PSCS takes me so long. I do have a set of video tutorials for PSCS that I just haven't made time to watch/learn so it is my fault, but ... in the meantime, it's LR for me.