PacoAhedo

Very nice pictures,Drano. The martial eagle is fantastic and many more like the elephant crossing with that nice sky,the vulture in flight,the cheetah with cub backlight,the running wildebeest panning........and so on.
Thanks for sharing and congratulations for the fantastic trip.

jjude

What beautiful photos..it must all seem like a dream now.

steeliejim

Another option to consider for 70-200mm is the new f/4.0L IS from Canon. MUCH lighter and compact, and it's getting rave reviews, and on a couple of the photo forums (fora? forae?), owners of the 2.8 are now buying the 4.0 It has four (4) stops of IS. Wow! I was going to get the 2.8 but will now switch to the 4.0.

Jim

Chris_GA_Atl

The thing that keeps me from considering the 70-200/4 more seriously is that IS, no matter how good it is, won't freeze subject motion, and if you are shooting wildlife, the animal is frequently in motion. Only a faster aperture can help in that kind of situation. The 70-200/4 is smaller, lighter, less expensive, and supposedly very sharp, but I don't see it as an alternative to the 70-200/2.8 for the specific application of low-light wildlife photography.
Chris

steeliejim

True re. IS not stopping subject motion, but I found that, except for flying birds which are tough to stay on in any event(dang those beeeaters sure zig and zag), I had no trouble shooting moving animals with my 300mm f/4.0L IS with 1.4 telex.

I'd guess that 75% of shots I took were of animals still or moving slowly and had no trouble at all to stay on with that combo. In fact, all you have to do is check any of the fine pictures posted on these forums and you will see that very few are of quickly moving animals in low light. And panning on a larger, moving animals was no problem with the tele.

In fact, a 70-200 mm is a compromise in any event as a tele lens for photographing wildlife. I carried two bodies at all times, on walks, on drives and in canoes, one with my 24-105, and the other with the 300mm w/ 1.4 (which is about the same dimensions and weight as the 70-200 2.8.

In retrospect, I would not have chosen the 70-200mm as my default tele nor would I recommend it as my primary lens for wildlife. And yes, in my older SLR systems, I have, and have used extensively, lenses from 20 mm to the 500mm f/4.5 L, including a 70-210.

But, of course, different strokes for different folks.

Jim

Chris_GA_Atl

Jim, I would definitely agree that a 70-200 is not the best all-around wildlife lens -- you really need more focal length than that, I think. I use the 100-400L and find it to be excellent for most wildlife applications that I use (which isn't that many). But on our recent gorilla trekking trip, we had one day when the gorillas were really close and in very poor light, and that would have been the perfect time for a 70-200/2.8, if I had one. So I was thinking of the 70-200 as my lens to use in certain specific low-light situations rather than as a primary lens to leave on the camera a lot of the time. For now, the latter role is filled by the 100-400, because it has such a flexible zoom range and the image quality is very good on our version of it.
Chris

steeliejim

Gorillas. Yes, perfect application for as much light gathering capability as possible. Tough photo subject. Don't forget to, stop down a bit, or bracket, because the camera will try to over expose. I read a good article many years ago in NG which focused (ahem) on the difficulties of getting good gorilla photos (dark lighting and fur, which if not totally black, still much darker than the 18% gray card on which meters are calibrated). He described taking hundreds of shots to get a few that were publishable.

Digital has made getting decent pix so much easier.

Chris_GA_Atl

When I processed our gorilla pictures, the main exposure problem I had was underexposure of shadow areas, probably due to the fact that we had good ambient light most of the time. I really had to work with the curves to get detail out of those shadow areas. Our camera does not have spot metering, so it had less of a tendency to overexpose the whole picture and instead we usually got a little of the scenery in the partial metering area, so I found myself having to brighten some or all areas of many of our pictures.

We got really lucky with lighting, and there was only one occasion where I felt we really needed a faster lens. The rest of the time the light was sufficient for the 100-400.

Chris

steeliejim

Yes, spot metering. I wouldn't have a slr without it. My Canon's allow averaging several readings. I find it faster for me, depending on what I'm trying to achieve, to take a few shots averaging spot readings across the scene, than using compensation or bracketing. Esp. good for strong backlighting or high contrast scenes such as sunsets, sun/shadows.

drano

We're back from Thailand and as promised to Chris I thought I'd give an assessment on the 24-105 lens I had bought for that trip. It was a sharp and versatile lens for walking around. The IS is less of a factor at these shorter focal lengths and I found myslef using the wider EF-S 10-22mm a lot for architectural and scenic shots. Also a great "walkaround" choice for cropped sensor cameras giving you an effective 16-35mm range.

I noticed a bit of a debate here on the 70-200mm while I was away. I have to side with Chris on this one. Speed (and the abiltiy to seperate a subject from it's background) give the 2.8 the edge. It's not a primary wildlife lens, but it has so many other uses such as indoor sports, weddings/events, portrait, etc..

Also, paired with a longer lens like a 300mm or 400mm on a second body it was a great performer on safari; giving me the abiltity to switch quickly from a tight crop to a moving subject or landscape. My shots like the birds in flight and running wildebeest were taken with this lens. I would have missed or blurred them with a slower lens.

A good safari guide will get you close enough to use it consistantly... and you should see years of use out of it for a variety of applications. The weight is not that bad at all. I highly recommend it over any f/4 if you really enjoy taking pictures. I think IS is great but it's also becoming a bit of a "crutch" for some people.

simbakubwa

Drano,

If you had to choose between Amboseli and Samburu... which one would you choose?

And where did you stay in Amboseli? Did you like it?

drano

Samburu would be my chioce hands down. It was a beautiful park with a landscape and animals not found in the southern areas. However, time of year plays a big role in what you may see and it seems we saw a good deal in Samburu compared to some others on this forum. Your experience might differ of course.
We stayed in Serena properties evrywhere but Tarangire. The Amboseli Serena was by far our least favorite. The rooms seemed a bit "shabby" and old.

Amboseli's great draw is Kilimanjaro, which you may or may not be able to see depending on the constant cloudcover. The swamps are also beautiful and give you great chance to see wading elephants and many birds (if that's your thing). I'm sure there are better accomodation options like Ol Tukai for example.

I cannot complain either way, both parks were good experiences for us, but Kilimanjaro was simply a stopping point on the way to Tanzania, while we went out of our way to visit Samburu. I recommend flying there as the drive would have eaten up a lot of days and passed through parks that we were not terribly interested in.

I hope this helps.

simbakubwa

Drano,

I didn't quite understand your last sentence.

Are you saying the drive to Samburu or Amboseli is worse?

And which parks were you referring to that you weren't interested in?

I'm just curious how the drive to Samburu is?

Thanks for the clarification.

drano

Sorry, I meant to say that, if you decided to go to Samburu it may be worthwile to fly because the drive can be long. Most itineraries we looked at passed through Nakuru, Mt. Kenya and the Aberdares. We were not terribly interested in these parks and there would have been little time to see the other areas we were interested in.
I guess you could drive direct to Samburu in a day, but it's a long way. That's why most operators break it up with several stops over a few days.

I suggest flying Nairobi-Samburu-Nairobi and then take a driving safari afterwards. This way you could visit both parks and maybe even Masai Mara or even continue on to Tanzania (depending on how much time you have). The drive to Amboseli from Nairobi can be done in a few hours and is not terribly bad (until the last few kilometeres anyway).

I hope that makes more sense

cat_lover

We're plannig a trip in December/Jan in Tanz with Good Earth. Any suggestions about what guide we should request? We're most interested in mammals/big cats.
Thanks, your photos are BEAUTIFUL!

drano

Thanks cat_lover,
As I mentioned, we had a bit of a communication issue with our guide... and he did seem a bit "new". As he was the only guide that Good Earth provided I don't have a large frame of reference. I will say however that he tried his hardest to make sure we had a great time... and succeeded. If you were also to use Good Earth for a Kenyan safari they would most likely contract that portion out to SafariLine. We had the fortune to use three of their guides. I would in that case whoelheartedly recommend Matthew. He was the kindest, most experienced and simply best guide we have ever had... anywhere!!!
When I did my research there was one name that people kept mentioning as a great Good Earth guide, but I cannot recall it. We did not get him in any case. Do a search through some of the older posts... even 2005/6 if you can go that far back. I hope that helps.