Cduff406 wrote:
Thoughts on the new RF100-300 for a safari lens, matched with a wider angle on a second body? 100-300 seems short, but with the 1.4x teleconverter you've got 140-420/F4, which seems pretty adaptable.
Ideally I'd like the rumored 200-500F4, especially if they also release a switchable teleconverter. But who knows when/if that will come out. Reviews on the 100-300 seem favorable, especially with the 1.4x or even 2.0x.
And thoughts from those with safari experience?
Are you going to National Parks or Conservancies? In the conservancies I didn't need more than 400mm very often so I didn't use my 200-400 very much other maybe an eagle in a tree or similar. I had an RF 1.4x and 2x with me but rarely used them. I preferred the RF 400 without extenders 90% of the time. The RF 100-300 would be great considering its light weight, flexibility, and razor sharpness with both extenders. That and an RF 70-200 f/2.8 on a second body. The 200-500 f/4 would be great as well but I doubt we'll see it for awhile.
My ideal setup would be an RF 70-200 f/2.8 on one body and an RF 400 with a flickable or zooming TC on second body. I'm really jealous of those Nikon 400/600 flickable TC primes.
vbnut wrote:
As someone who has yet to do a safari and has been monitoring this thread closely, Cduff406's question was particularly relevant as I also have the 100-500 and am hoping for the 200-500 (or some other faster but hopefully relatively light super-tele). I was also wondering, whether, even though I'm primarily a wildlife photographer, I'm likely to wish I had something wider than 70mm. If so, would the 24-105 be a better combination with the 100-500 even though its only f/4, or would we be better off with the 28-70 f/2 or the the 24-70 f/2.8 along with the 70-200 f/2.8? The latter seems like it would also work well with the 200-500. The downside, of course, is that its 3 lenses instead of 2, resulting in more weight and probably the need to change lenses in the field. ...Show more →
Nearly a decade ago I took the 200-400/4 TC a few times, but the last two trips to East Africa I used the 100-500 and 500/4 with 1.4X III on R5s. I took the TC off the 500/4 IS II only twice in very low light conditions in 2022. A 500/4 is my favorite Africa lens; I've used some type of 500/4 the last dozen or so trips. If the RF 200-500/4 has a TC that will be a do-it-all lens. If not, then I'm not so sure. I'd probably use it with a TC affixed much of the time and still use the 100-500, but switch sooner. It's great to have overlap to reduce missed opportunities.
Years ago f/2.8 lenses were so important, but high ISO makes f/4 the new f/2.8, and even the 100-500 is rarely too slow, though sometimes doesn't isolate ideally. The 70-200/4 RF is ideal for a some giraffes and ellies that are a intermediate to a 24-100/4 and 100-500, if you can handle extra lenses. I typically bring four bodies, including three R5 and an R7. Most recently I used the R5s about 90% of the time and the R7 on 500/4 II and 1.4x III for extra reach on small birds or others. In the smaller, more brushy parks you won't necessarily need a big tele prime with a TC, and a zoom 100-500 or 100-400 will suffice. I go on photo trips where they plan for extra gear on the small planes.
Thanka, good input here. I'll be mostly in conservancies on my trip. I hear a lot of good feedback on the 400 for safari, so I thought the 100-300 with the 1.4x might be a good option. But I'm not sure how much I'd use it after.
If you’re taking your RF 100-500 then I would take your 28-70mm and for anything wide just use your iPhone. When I travel to Eastern or South Africa I’ll bring only 2 bodies and two lenses.
My current setup is my Z9 + Z 400mm 2.8 with the built in TC and my Z8 with my 70-200mm 2.8. I took this set up (with the Z7ii at the time) for a 5 week trip to SA this last Nov/Dev, and to the Pantanal (with the Z8) few weeks ago and I’ll be taking this exact same setup when I head back to SA for 12 weeks on Sunday.
vbnut wrote:
As someone who has yet to do a safari and has been monitoring this thread closely, Cduff406's question was particularly relevant as I also have the 100-500 and am hoping for the 200-500 (or some other faster but hopefully relatively light super-tele). I was also wondering, whether, even though I'm primarily a wildlife photographer, I'm likely to wish I had something wider than 70mm. If so, would the 24-105 be a better combination with the 100-500 even though its only f/4, or would we be better off with the 28-70 f/2 or the the 24-70 f/2.8 along with the 70-200 f/2.8? The latter seems like it would also work well with the 200-500. The downside, of course, is that its 3 lenses instead of 2, resulting in more weight and probably the need to change lenses in the field....Show more →
Cduff406 wrote:
Thanka, good input here. I'll be mostly in conservancies on my trip. I hear a lot of good feedback on the 400 for safari, so I thought the 100-300 with the 1.4x might be a good option. But I'm not sure how much I'd use it after.
I have been in multiple safaris over the years with EF 500 f4, EF 200-400 F4, EF/RF 70-200 2.8, RF 400 2.8, RF 100-500 7.1, I now have a RF 100-300 2.8.
First it really depends on if you are going in a private game reserve where you can do offroad and even drive at night or in national parks where no offroad and no night driving.
National Parks you generally need >=500 so 400+1.4, 500 f4, 600 F4 would be my recommendation, in future probably 200-500.
The one lens does it all is the 100-500, with one lens you can cover basically almost anything. As EBH is saying the major limitation of this lens is the separation, especially on bushy environment pictures do not pop. Also if you can stay out and drive back at night it becomes too slow.
For private game reserves where you do a lot off roads then the 100-300 becomes a much better option as with one lens you cover 100 to 600 and low light. I wish it had 1.4x switchable converter to make it even more flexible. As with 100 to 420 2.8-4 you can probably cover 95% of the cases.
If I would go now to Phinda or Madikwe I would take 2 bodies 100-500 7.1, 100-300 2.8, 1.4x, 2x, 24-xxx and maybe RF 16 2.8. If limited in weight then 24-xxx, 100-300 and the two converters.
Beautiful pictures! It's going to be a long wait for my trip, but I'm trying to learn and prepare as much as I can. I will wait and see what Canon comes out with between now and then, but the 100-300/2.8 with the 1.4x and 2.x might be a good setup. I need to get a second body and I'm really hoping for the new R5 update to come out in time for my trip.
Just want to thank everyone who's participated in this thread, what a wealth of information and knowledge!
action99 wrote:
I have been in multiple safaris over the years with EF 500 f4, EF 200-400 F4, EF/RF 70-200 2.8, RF 400 2.8, RF 100-500 7.1, I now have a RF 100-300 2.8.
First it really depends on if you are going in a private game reserve where you can do offroad and even drive at night or in national parks where no offroad and no night driving.
National Parks you generally need >=500 so 400+1.4, 500 f4, 600 F4 would be my recommendation, in future probably 200-500.
The one lens does it all is the 100-500, with one lens you can cover basically almost anything. As EBH is saying the major limitation of this lens is the separation, especially on bushy environment pictures do not pop. Also if you can stay out and drive back at night it becomes too slow.
For private game reserves where you do a lot off roads then the 100-300 becomes a much better option as with one lens you cover 100 to 600 and low light. I wish it had 1.4x switchable converter to make it even more flexible. As with 100 to 420 2.8-4 you can probably cover 95% of the cases.
If I would go now to Phinda or Madikwe I would take 2 bodies 100-500 7.1, 100-300 2.8, 1.4x, 2x, 24-xxx and maybe RF 16 2.8. If limited in weight then 24-xxx, 100-300 and the two converters.
LuckyStrike88 wrote:
Have you seen the Canon Rumours chat about them making a 0, 1.4 + 2X all in one TC ??
Wouldn't that be an incredible tool for the lens kit!!!
I hope its going to happen!
That rumored zooming TC would definitely be a game changer. IMO Nikon has the best lens lineup currently with the 400/600 TC's and now the very affordable 180-600mm on the way. If Canon releases the rumored 0-1.4x-2.0xTC that would put them back on the top.
And yes if the now famous magic 1-1.4-2 TC will materialize would be amazing especially if compatible with all the big withes... then it will finally make sense why Canon decided not to include a switchable 1.4x tc to the 100-.300, 400, 600.....
EB-1 wrote:
The 200-500/4 will be a great lens for Africa if it exists in time. It would be just perfect with an internal TC.
EBH
LuckyStrike88 wrote:
Have you seen the Canon Rumours chat about them making a 0, 1.4 + 2X all in one TC ??
Wouldn't that be an incredible tool for the lens kit!!!
I hope its going to happen!
I'm not convinced that any external TC will be ideal, but I would probbaly have a1.4x on it most of the time. The 0x is a fool's number as it would have to be 1x, 1.4x and 2x and is basically adding a zoom TC to a zoom lens. There is also a different patent for a retractable element TC that would imply two magnifications, such as a 1.4x and 2x or less likely a 1x and 1.4x.
Canon is heavily driven by the younger generation of "wimpy photogs" and also the 200-500 is still a pro events lens, so I have little hope it will have a dedicated internal 1.4x as it should for best IQ.
EB-1 wrote:
..... I typically bring four bodies, including three R5 and an R7. Most recently I used the R5s about 90% of the time and the R7 on 500/4 II and 1.4x III for extra reach on small birds or others....
Interesting to read that you also used the R7. I've been struggling with the decision to add that camera to the gear list for my upcoming second trip to Tanzania, too. On my first safari to TZ last October, I had used the EF 200-400mm + 1,4Ext on the R5 and the EF 600mm II (+1,4Ext) mounted on the R3. BTW, in contrary to most recommendations in this thread, I was glad that I had chosen the 600mm instead of the 400mm for TZ because the additional reach often was very welcomed in the Serengeti and inside the Ngorongoro Crater - especially on the 24MP R3 with its limited room for cropping. As known, the 600mm vII still is considerably heavier than the 600mm vIII (or its Rf sibling) and thus even less flexible, - at least once a quick reaction is required for shooting small birds/ BIF etc. from the vehicle. That said, I also got the RF 100-500mm now which I've been considering mounting on the R7 for a lighter and flexible combo and the additional benefit of the high-MP crop sensor for extra reach on birds, portraits etc as you mentioned. The R5 in 1.6crop mode gives you around 15MP which is ok but still a lot less than 33MP the R7 brings to the table, of course. Beyond that, switching the 200-400mm+1,4Ext on the R5 for the 100-500mm whenever the situation requires is not a good idea in the dusty enviroment during the game drives - and there's no time either once a sudden action takes place. Of course, it's advisable and far better to have all the options available on different cameras without the need to change lenses.
However, the R7 got pretty mixed reports from respected reviewers ( i.e. by Duade, Ian Wegener and others) due to an evidentally inconsistent AF for tracking, shutter shock in MS, severe rolling shutter in ES and small buffer size - requiring cRaws and reduction of the frame rate to 15f/s, at least. Even then it's obviously pretty restricted for shooting bursts and tracking. Those aspects have been discussed in another thread, too - but primarily not in consideration of using this camera for a safari in Africa. In fact, I have not seen the R7 mentioned in the gear lists for Africa in this thread before.. Given it's price point, the R7 certainly is a good camera. However, since the problems and limitations above had been stated by some users, too, I have doubts to get the R7 for my 100-500 and think of going back to my 7d2 with the 100-400mm II for the safari instead - in addition to the heavier combos I brought on the last trip.
So I would be very grateful, if you kindly could report your experiences of using the R7 on your trips, especially with regard to the potential problems or limitations mentioned. Of course I'd also appreciate all comments of other photogs and users of that camera
So I over-zealously purchased a Sigma 500mm f/4 Sport (canon mount). I think the reach might be way too much given the safari I booked is in the Olare conservancy. The camp told me the jeeps usually drive right up to the animals due to it being on private land, so I might be SOL if any action takes place closer than I'd like.
If anyone is interested in the lens, let me know. It's like new. I'll send photos and/or we can facetime so you can see it and we'll go from there.
eke2k6 wrote:
So I over-zealously purchased a Sigma 500mm f/4 Sport (canon mount). I think the reach might be way too much given the safari I booked is in the Olare conservancy. The camp told me the jeeps usually drive right up to the animals due to it being on private land, so I might be SOL if any action takes place closer than I'd like.
If anyone is interested in the lens, let me know. It's like new. I'll send photos and/or we can facetime so you can see it and we'll go from there.
You should be fine. There's action at all focal lengths and you should get plenty of use out of your 500 when the temps are down. Just make sure to have a 70-200 or 100-400/100-500 on another body when things get closer.
I went to Botswana in May for work and took 5 days of vacation to do a quick "self drive" safari in the Okavango Delta, It was absolutely incredible. It was the "off season", but it was still an incredible experience to head out in a fully provisioned Toyota Land Cruiser all by myself. though it was a spur of the moment deal and I am not much of a wildlife shooter (yet), I say everything i was hoping to see except lions due to the season and the limited time.
I will definitely be going back for a 10 to 14 day self drive.
I took the following;
Canon R6
Canon R6
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 IS II
Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8
Canon RF-24-70 f/2.8
Canon EF 1.4X III teleconverter
eke2k6 wrote:
So I over-zealously purchased a Sigma 500mm f/4 Sport (canon mount). I think the reach might be way too much given the safari I booked is in the Olare conservancy. The camp told me the jeeps usually drive right up to the animals due to it being on private land, so I might be SOL if any action takes place closer than I'd like.
If anyone is interested in the lens, let me know. It's like new. I'll send photos and/or we can facetime so you can see it and we'll go from there.
I was in the same conservancy last year and as long as you have a shorter zoom to supplement the 500mm you'll be fine. You'll use the 500mm plenty. I took the 200-400 with the built in 1.4 teleconverter and I still cropped often.
PLGrant1 wrote:
I went to Botswana in May for work and took 5 days of vacation to do a quick "self drive" safari in the Okavango Delta, It was absolutely incredible. It was the "off season", but it was still an incredible experience to head out in a fully provisioned Toyota Land Cruiser all by myself. though it was a spur of the moment deal and I am not much of a wildlife shooter (yet), I say everything i was hoping to see except lions due to the season and the limited time.
I will definitely be going back for a 10 to 14 day self drive.
I took the following;
Canon R6
Canon R6
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8 IS II
Canon RF 70-200 f/2.8
Canon RF-24-70 f/2.8
Canon EF 1.4X III teleconverter
That must be a fun experience to be able to explore on your own, and then position, continually re-position your vehicle to be able to get the angles/shots from your driver's seat.
OK, heading out on another Africa Trip in early September.
Masai Mara, Kenya (Migration), Tanda Tula, SA (Leopards), and Madikwe, SA (Rhinos)
17 days total.
Little different kit this time.
OM Systems OM-1 with the M. Zuiko 150-400 f/4.5 w built in 1.25TC. (300-1000mm FF equiv)
Canon R5 with the RF 70-200 f/2.8, the RF 24-70 f/2.8, and the 16mm STM.
Lots of cards and batteries.
All in a Thinktank Airport Advantage Roller.
I'm nervous about leaving the RF 100-500 behind and the fact that I will have two bodies, but two different systems. I could go all Oly and leave the Canon stuff at home but I would need a second OM-1 as I always want two bodies. The Canon has lower noise and is better in low light and I'm addicted to 45mps for cropping. But this 150-400 Oly lens is incredible and i can fill the frame better than with the RF100-500.and taking the RF 100-500 is just an overlap of sorts.
So, I am covered from 16mm to 1000mm, with the only hole being between 200-300mm
Total weight for this trip all in (cameras, clothes, computers, etc.) is 24Kg (52 lbs)
