I have looked at that site, thanks. I have extensively tested ours and it seems to be very sharp even wide open at 400mm. All of our shots so far have been handlheld, and the IS comes to our rescue with slow shutter speeds some, but not all, of the time. We are going to do some more practice with it this weekend, but overall we think it is a really great lens. It's also a great lens for getting yourself noticed by other people, whether that's good or bad ... but I have noticed that when we are at the zoo, that lens will really "part the crowd" when my wife is trying to take a picture!
Chris

Chris, If I recall correctly you are doing a gorilla treck. I have read that for a gorilla treck, people prefer shorter lighter lenses. They feel that the vegitation is so dense that they have to get or can get closer and the big zooms are a bit much. Canon has just released a new F4, 70-200mm LIS lens that really musch lighter than the 100-400. It might be ideal for a gorilla treck if you have any lose change around. Have a good one..
Chuck

Chuck, you're right, we are doing gorilla treks primarily on this trip. From looking at pictures taken by other people in Rwanda, I had figured that the best lens would actually be the 70-200/2.8L, since it is faster and you sometimes end up in low light conditions with gorillas. But from looking at people's EXIF data, it looked like they were shooting mostly at the long end of the 70-200's range. Given that we really only had it in the budget to get one telephoto, our thinking was that the 100-400 was more versatile, so we got that one as a compromise.
That discussion, of course, leaves size and weight aside, and my understanding is that the 70-200/2.8 is just as big and heavy as the 100-400. The 100-400 gets a little tiring after a while, but we have done several all-day outings with it and have found it tolerable. If the gorillas get too close for the wide end of the 100-400's range, we will have a P&S camera with us, or we can try to do a quick change to our 17-85 lens.
Anyway, all lenses are a compromise, and since we were going to travel with only two, we thought the 100-400's greater zoom range would make it a better choice. When we get back I'll let everyone know if our choice worked or not.
Chris

From my experience photographing the gorillas, I'd recommend keeping the longer lens on the camera.

I have always used my Nikkor 80-400 lens on gorilla treks and haven't had any problems with the gorillas being too close.

In fact, some of my best shots are with the lens being between the 300-400mm range.

You are at a minimum of 7 meters away or almost 23 feet.

With the gorillas, you have to make sure you can get their eyes unless you are focusing on a group shot.

And you won't always be too close unless they come right up to you and if they try that, the guides most always intervene.

It can be tricky though, depending on what part of the forest they're in. If in the bamboo, it's almost always dark. If up in the greener vegetation, you have the chance of mist rolling in.

If lady luck's on your side, you'll get to shoot them in an open space against a green, lush backdrop which contrasts nicely against their black hair. But of course, that's the perfect setting everyone hopes for.

If there are two of you on the trek, and/or you have two camera bodies, then you always have the different lens choice available.

Thanks for the insigts Divewap. Do you carry your own photo gear or use the porters? In what countries have you done the trek and/or which is your favorite? I'm trying to get info for a future trek.

Safarichuck-
I've trekked in both Rwanda and Uganda.
Can't really say if I prefer one over the other although I trek more often in Rwanda so I'm a little more familiar with that area.

I almost always use a porter to help carry my gear because:
A)it gets really heavy after awhile trekking uphill
B)it helps to support the locals and the economy

When you get to where the gorillas are, the porters stay behind so be prepared to strap on your camera(s)and it's also a good idea to have a jacket or vest with pockets to carry an extra lens or two and memory cards/film, etc.
The porters will meet up with you after the hour's visit is over and carry your gear back down for you.

Hope this helps. :-)

Sandy

Author: afrigalah
Date: 11/20/2006, 10:22 pm

Marc,

Congratulations on the Nikkor 300/2.8 VR. Know of it by reputation only, but as the equivalent of my Canon 300/2.8 IS, my main safari lens, I don't think you can go wrong with it. Yes, a tad weighty, but I walk with mine complete with TC, flash unit and bracket, and monopod...and I'm well into my 60s. In a safari vehicle, it's a breeze. But why are you having to wait so long for it? I would die of frustration.

John


Hi John

Just thought I'd let you know that I have finally got my hands on this 300 VR beast! Talk about sharp images ;-)
Did you say just a tad weighty ?? =-O
I have 9 months to practice good long lens technique!

Cheers
Marc

afrigala-John, I am currently trying to decide between the Canon 300 2.8 and the Canon 400 mm DO lens. Since you have experience with the 300mm 2.8 plus a 1.4X teleconverter, do you think the reach will be adequate? Do you ever use a 2X teleconverter? I would keep another body with a 100-400 ready, just in case. I'll be shooting from open vehicles this time (Botswana) and want to avoid anything as big as a 500mm lens. I have read mixed reviews about the DO (Difraction Optics) lenses and my thought was that if they were as good as Canon would have you believe, they would have made a lot more of them by now. What are your thoughts?

Chuck

Chuck, I use the 300 2.8 with the 1.4x and the 2x. I use them both a lot but I don't have the exif data on many of the pbase pictures. Here are a couple with the 2x.
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/51501579
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/51512938
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/63995990
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/64104237
Here is one with the 1.4x http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/51299758
This one was taken with the 300 2.8 plus the 1.4x plus the 2x (stacked converters) not using a tripod but braced on the back of a plastic lawn chair.
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/53684217

((#))Cindy

I know you aren't considering the 500 but this was taken with the 500 f4 and the 2x TC.
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/64236661

Here is another with the 300 + 2x TC
http://www.pbase.com/image/42471562

Cindy,
Very nice photos, and so are many of the others from your botswana_africa_2005. Do you use a tripod, monopod, sandbag, plastic lawn chair, or what most of the time?
regards - tom

Hi Tom - No monopods, no tripods, no sandbags. At first, most shots were hand held or braced against a pole or the top of the seat-back of the seat in front of me. Just whatever I could find. About halfway thru the trip the safari company did come out to where we were and installed some 1x4 boards or "shelves" for us to brace the camera on. That made it a lot easier.

"Did you say just a tad weighty ??"

Just a tad...but nothing that I can't carry around on a monopod for a couple of hours :) It's a breeze compared with the couple of times I tried walking with my old 400/2.8 (7 kg)! I gave up that idea pretty fast.

John

"Since you have experience with the 300mm 2.8 plus a 1.4X teleconverter, do you think the reach will be adequate? Do you ever use a 2X teleconverter?"

Chuck,

I use a 2x teleconverter most of the time, and the 1.4x only occasionally. With my film cameras, reach with the latter is not always adequate for smaller critters. Sometimes, it's not enough not with the 2x either (especially birds), but not frequently enough to worry me. I once took my old, very heavy 400/2.8 on safari and used it constantly with the 2x. Sometimes, the 800mm wasn't enough reach, either!

I've just bought a 2x for my wife for Christmas so we don't have to share, as she's starting to use her 70-200 non-IS with 2x for wildlife. It's an excellent lens...as a basketball photographer, she gets better results with it than her colleagues who use the IS model. She prefers it to my 100-400 IS. As she shoots digital (1D Mark II), reach with the 2x is usually fine.

I notice a reference to using stacked converters. I know quite a few photographers do that, and quite happily, but I find it affects image quality too much (so do stacked filters). Some peope even turn their nose up at using just one TC.

John

Sundowner: Cindy, thank you so much for posting some of your wonderful images so that I could see for myself what sort of quality I might get from the 300mm + 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. You have set the bar to a very high standard indeed. the L Breasted Roller is just fantastic. I enjoyed all of your posts and learned just what I needed regrading this combination. I was curious about some of your leopard images (mala mala, I beleive), what combo did you use? I note that you you a variety of bodies. Did you find the focus lost anything with you 20D + teleconverters and did you have more focus success using the combo on a 1 Series body?

afrigala-John, I certainly appreciate your thoughts on teleconverters. I agree with you so I'll probaly get both the 1.4X and 2X converters but use them individually. perhaps the 2X when I think I'll be after birds and the 1.4X the rest of the time. I'll be using a 1.25 crop digital (Canon series 1 MarkIIN) and keep the 100-400 on the 2.6 crop (Canon 20D). That combination will cover me from 160mm to 640mm with my best fixed prime at 525mm. I have reviewd my previous safari images and it seems that this is the range I liked best, even with th 100mm-400mm lens. If I find myself wanting more reach (most people do) I can go out to 750mm on the Canon Series 1 with a 2X teleconverter. From what I have seen of Cindy's images I will not be giving up much IQ.

Cindy, I have found several references to a rollbar mount for use in Botswana. It involves using a Manfrotto Quick action Clamp (BO635) and a Wimberley Sidekick on a Ball Head. Looks like a great setup, but a bit limiting for 360 degree mobility.
As far as the 500mm is concerned, I would love that lens but in light of its size, I'm afraid I'm not happy with the logistics of transporting it. Perhaps Canon will come out with a DO version of this lens and I'll have it in a minute.

Chris, you will love the 100-400mm lens, I only found its reduced apretures limiting in early morning and evening game drives. I found that increasing the iso was needed but the Canons are very clean at high iso so not really that limiting (up to 800 anyway).

africaddict-Marc, my apologies for using your post. I hope other have found it a useful as I have.
Cheers All, Chuck

Hi Chuck - I have only used a 10D and 20D so far so anything you've seen of mine was with one of those cameras. (I have just recently purchased the 1D Mark II N but haven't used it yet.)

I haven't had any problems with autofocus and TC's on my f/2.8 lenses. I think I had AF with the stacked converters also because the camera only recognizes the first TC. (I also think AF does NOT work with a TC at f/8.0 so if I put a 2x on an f/4.0 I have to manual focus.)

There is a post about the 300 2.8 and TC's at www.naturescapes.net. If you aren't a member there, you should go sign up and read the post. It doesn't cost anything to join but you do have to register. Here is a link to the post http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/v...us&start=0 There are 3 pages of this post so be sure to read all of them. Very interesting info. After you read that, check out their wildlife forum. Amazing stuff there.

Leopards at MalaMala. They are fantastic! And close!
Here are the specs on these pics.
70-200 at 70mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/65278975
70-200 at 140mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/64808235
This one had to be taken with the 10D because it tells you the subject distance - 10.2 meters. 70-200@140mm
http://www.pbase.com/image/64805540
This one was 70-200@70mm and you can see the steering wheel at the bottom of the picture. We were very close (too close for the 70-200)
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/image/69452992

Thanks, Chuck. We have shot about 2500 practice pictures with our XTi, almost all of which have been with the 100-400L. In good light it will take phenomenal pictures that are very sharp, even wide open, even at 100%. We find ourselves doing a lot of shooting at 800 and even 1600 ISO. At 1600, the XTi controls the noise enough to make the images usable, but you can't crop them down to 100%, or anything close to that, because then the chroma noise is very evident. I am planning to get DxO to do post-processing for the pictures from our upcoming trip, and that may help with the noise a bit, albeit at the expense of some detail.
Overall, though, we are just thrilled with the 100-400L.
The real test, though, begins in just a few days when we head off to Africa again!
Chris