Safari - 100-400mm II + TC or 150-600mm Sigma/Tammy (1 Viewer)

Tim Taylor

work in progress

• Jan 25, 2017

• #1

Hi all. Going on a potentially dusty safari in October. I have the 100-400mm mkII and mkII converters. I'm wondering whether to get a 150-600mm to take instead for ease of use and fewer lens changes.

All thoughts most welcome!

Thanks. :t:

 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator

Opus Editor

Supporter

• Jan 25, 2017

• #2

I was in South Africa with a m4/3 setup with the 100-300 lens (ff equivalent of 200-600). I had one time where an elephant was a bit too close (I could get the front half) but the rest of the time it was fine. You could get something like a https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx10-lx15 for landscape - person - and really close animals if that is what is worrying you, and keep the max reach on your SLR (100-400 w converter). That way you should not have to change lenses at all.

Niels

 

Tim Taylor

work in progress

• Jan 25, 2017

• #3

Thanks Niels. That looks a good little camera. I'll probably have 2 SLR bodies with me so I guess I could have the 100-400 + 1.4x on one and 24-105 or 70-200 on the other.

 

cgilbert

Well-known member

• Jan 25, 2017

• #4

Hi,

When i went to Namibia a while ago i had the Tamron 150-600 and found it was okay out of vehicles, but inside it was a struggle to get it round the others (people that is, all taking photos), its a big lump of lens, whereas a 100-400 might have been easier. For animals the reach difference shouldn't be an issue, and being shorter better for when close, as they are quite often.

Given the amount of dust, theres lots, you really dont want to be changing lenses.

Regards, Cliff

 

Tim Taylor

work in progress

• Jan 26, 2017

• #5

Thanks Cliff. I guess if I don't go on a specialist photographic tour, the vehicles could be cramped and a long lens a problem as you say.

 

P

pe'rigin

Well-known member

• Jan 26, 2017

• #6

As Cliff said, lots of very fine dust.

Zooms tend to suck the stuff in unless sealed.

As you have the converter, perhaps a straight 300mm might be the answer?

Those large zoom lenses just seem to be a hindrance, especially in a crowded bus, full of people moving about. You get knocked, your kit gets knocked, it's a real pain.

The Mk II may have been improved over Mk I in terms of non-dust collecting, If so I would keep with that set-up and have no converter attached.

 

edenwatcher

Well-known member

• Jan 26, 2017

• #7

Used the MkII in Kenya 18 months ago (no TC) and found it ideal.

Rob

 

colincurry

Well-known member

• Jan 26, 2017

• #8

Likewise

Colin

 

Tim Taylor

work in progress

• Jan 26, 2017

• #9

Excellent news re the MkII, thanks very much. I'll probably have it on a FF body so will have the 1.4x for a bit more reach.

 

D

Dave Williams

Well-known member

• Jan 27, 2017

• #10

From my extremely limited experience of 3 days in Kenya's Tsavo East and West I found that even my 300mm was too much on a crop body for most mammals I saw. 70-200 was better. Birds are a different matter however and I was using a 500mm with a 1.4TC most of the time, you need the extra reach for small subjects that are close not large ones that are distant because the atmospheric heat haze will ruin anything over a certain distance anyway. I'm toying with the same dilemma of what to take on my up coming trip to Namibia where I am in a confined space for much of the time in my self drive vehicle. Certainly if you are sharing space, mobility is an issue. I always maintained after my Kenya trip it's worth paying the extra not to have to share.