In the NCAA, excluding the crater floor, off road driving is allowed.
action99 wrote:
I have been in multiple safaris in Tanzania, Kenia and South Africa. I have used 70-200 2.8, 500 F4, 100-500, 400 2.8, 200-400 F4. I now own almost since day one the 100-300, I have used it quite a few times with the 2x but not yet on a safari.
Are you able to do off road or not? This makes the biggest difference imo.
If yes, then 100-300 + 1.4x is a very solid choice and take the 2x for occasional situations. If you plan to use the 2x all the time I'm not so sure.
I see little value to take both 70-200 and 100-300. I would take 100-300, 1.4x, 2x and 100-500 as a reserve. Leaving the 1.4x at home is a mistake imo. I would take extension tubes rather than a 35 macro if you want to do some macro.
The image quality of the 100-300 + 2x is similar to the 100-500 at 500... maybe the 100-500 on the R5 is a tad sharper but on the R3 you may not see any difference, rendering maybe a bit better with the 100-300 2x than 100-500. Imo the 500 F4 +1.4 is sharper. From 100 to 420 quality is prime like so nothing to worry about.
Are you one of these obsessed people on not changing lenses during a safari day, or are you like me that just don't care and change them as much as I need?...Show more →
Thx action99 for sharing your photos/valued insights here and on the 100-300/300 threads as well. Much appreciated :-)
action99 wrote:
I have been in multiple safaris in Tanzania, Kenia and South Africa. I have used 70-200 2.8, 500 F4, 100-500, 400 2.8, 200-400 F4. I now own almost since day one the 100-300, I have used it quite a few times with the 2x but not yet on a safari.
Are you able to do off road or not? This makes the biggest difference imo.
If yes, then 100-300 + 1.4x is a very solid choice and take the 2x for occasional situations. If you plan to use the 2x all the time I'm not so sure.
I see little value to take both 70-200 and 100-300. I would take 100-300, 1.4x, 2x and 100-500 as a reserve. Leaving the 1.4x at home is a mistake imo. I would take extension tubes rather than a 35 macro if you want to do some macro.
The image quality of the 100-300 + 2x is similar to the 100-500 at 500... maybe the 100-500 on the R5 is a tad sharper but on the R3 you may not see any difference, rendering maybe a bit better with the 100-300 2x than 100-500. Imo the 500 F4 +1.4 is sharper. From 100 to 420 quality is prime like so nothing to worry about.
Are you one of these obsessed people on not changing lenses during a safari day, or are you like me that just don't care and change them as much as I need?...Show more →
action99 wrote:
I see little value to take both 70-200 and 100-300.
For me I like having the 70-200 for those gymnastic shots when hanging out of the vehicle or when having to hold the camera out with straight arms to get certain angles. It's also a nice compact lens to have outside the vehicle for walks or shooting stuff around camp. And if Chris is going to use the 1.4x or 2x on the 100-300 then it would be good to have the f/2.8 on the 70-200 for dusk and dawn.
artsupreme wrote:
For me I like having the 70-200 for those gymnastic shots when hanging out of the vehicle or when having to hold the camera out with straight arms to get certain angles. It's also a nice compact lens to have outside the vehicle for walks or shooting stuff around camp. And if Chris is going to use the 1.4x or 2x on the 100-300 then it would be good to have the f/2.8 on the 70-200 for dusk and dawn.
ArtSupreme - totally agree. Some of my fav shots were hanging/bending like a pretzel while shooting through foliage or around vehicles. And the 70/2.8 make me more comfy leaving a wide behind.
And action99 - I'm hearing what you're saying re: using the 2x as the exception, not the rule. And, I totally agree re: redundancy.
I wish I could bring my trusty 500mm as well. But, I remember my grief whenever I brought the 500/300/70-200 (stuff gets knocked around more on drives) and that was before having to pack RF adapters and 2 types of extenders and 2 battery types, etc.).
Also in the last 2 years, yoyo drivers with iPhone guests have been more abusive in cutting in front of vehicles :-( That's why, I'm attempting to go shorter this year in addition to my goal of streamlining/saving weight. Net:net: 70-420 and 420-600 when needed with the added ability to fine-tune/zoom. I won't nail everything but hopefully, I'll get the ones that I really want.
Honestly Chris, having shot in and around Ndutu as much as you have only need the 2 lenses and the TCs. Keeping it simple works.
ChrisHA wrote:
ArtSupreme - totally agree. Some of my fav shots were hanging/bending like a pretzel while shooting through foliage or around vehicles. And the 70/2.8 make me more comfy leaving a wide behind.
And action99 - I'm hearing what you're saying re: using the 2x as the exception, not the rule. And, I totally agree re: redundancy.
I wish I could bring my trusty 500mm as well. But, I remember my grief whenever I brought the 500/300/70-200 (stuff gets knocked around more on drives) and that was before having to pack RF adapters and 2 types of extenders and 2 battery types, etc.).
Also in the last 2 years, yoyo drivers with iPhone guests have been more abusive in cutting in front of vehicles :-( That's why, I'm attempting to go shorter this year in addition to my goal of streamlining/saving weight. Net:net: 70-420 and 420-600 when needed with the added ability to fine-tune/zoom. I won't nail everything but hopefully, I'll get the ones that I really want.
artsupreme wrote:
For me I like having the 70-200 for those gymnastic shots when hanging out of the vehicle or when having to hold the camera out with straight arms to get certain angles. It's also a nice compact lens to have outside the vehicle for walks or shooting stuff around camp. And if Chris is going to use the 1.4x or 2x on the 100-300 then it would be good to have the f/2.8 on the 70-200 for dusk and dawn.
I see you point and is a fair one.
I tend to handhold all my lenses so moving from 1Dx III + 200-400 to a non-gripped R5 + 100-300 I find it so light weight and easy to handle that I see no need of a 70-200 2.8. For dusk and dawn, I would simply remove the TC.
Ideally if you can shoot quite a bit at 300 2.8 it would create more wow pictures but yet keep quite a bit of environment on it, I found that the 400 2.8 is almost too tight and it blurs almost too much but is a more personal choice.
Btw I have no problem handholding heavy rigs even while the jeep is moving is strange positions, but I guess is not for everybody.
RichP42 wrote:
Has anyone tried the Tamron 35-150mm f/2 - 2.8 instead of a 70-200 in Africa?
I'm hoping to go to Botswana in April 2025 and am considering the Tamron, in addition to either my 100-400 or 200-600 (Sony).
I appreciate all the advice people have shared in this forum.
Thanks
Richard
Richard, I would say this comes down to personal preference as to what focal lengths you like to shoot at. For me, I would put a 70-200 2.8 on one body and your 200-600 on the other body. Also, bring a compact ultra wide for an occasional landscape shot. I would say you'll normally be shooting at the long end of the shorter lens so I would rather have 200mm for the long end instead of 150mm. I know a lot of people who've brought 24-105's on Safari and don't end up using them because you are close to shooting down on the animals at this focal length and it's not often the ideal angle.
I thought about renting the 35-150 when I went. I thought it would be the perfect second lens on safari. Looking back, I think I would have used the 35-70mm range for maybe 1-2 shots. Its also a reasonably heavy lens.
I'm still trying to decide if I will go back this year. Im considering late October or early November. If I end up going, I expect to take:
600GM (or rent a 400GM)
70-200GMii (seems to take both TCs very well)
28-75 (small enough to toss in my bag without worry)
Maybe 100-400GM (rented).
RichP42 wrote:
Has anyone tried the Tamron 35-150mm f/2 - 2.8 instead of a 70-200 in Africa?
I'm hoping to go to Botswana in April 2025 and am considering the Tamron, in addition to either my 100-400 or 200-600 (Sony).
I appreciate all the advice people have shared in this forum.
Thanks
Richard
Richard - I don't have any experience with a safari-only trip, but I did go to Namibia to photograph landscapes and wildlife. I found the 35-150mm to be very useful in that case and also had my 200-600mm with me. For animals, I only used the 35-150mm three times, but it was terrific in those instances when the short end of my 200-600mm was too long. The combination of the two covered a huge range of focal lengths. That lens has terrific IQ and it is fast. I think that the only thing that you would be sacrificing with that lens is the ability to shoot at the fastest frame rate that your Sony camera body allows.
Having said that, I will be heading back to Africa for safari this summer. There will be a few opportunities for landscapes as well as people, but the primary focus will be wildlife. If I can manage it, I plan to take both my 35-150 and the 70-200 in addition to longer telephoto lenses.
I've got my first coming up in June and I'm REALLY starting to get excited! Going through gear, getting things I need, looking at photo inspiration, planning what I want to do, pestering the travel agent... It's going to be here befor eI know it, but at the same time it's not getting here fast enough!
Are there specific recommendations for size or shape of bean bags for safari? I will be taking the Sony 200-600 as well as the new 300 assuming it gets here in time.
I was looking at the Kenesis Safarisack in both 4.2 and 7.3 liter but am not sure which would be the best choice. Any thoughts/advice?
I assume that getting filler in Kenya is no problem (?). Hoping that I can find some at the lodge to buy.
Abuttolph wrote:
Are there specific recommendations for size or shape of bean bags for safari? I will be taking the Sony 200-600 as well as the new 300 assuming it gets here in time.
I was looking at the Kenesis Safarisack in both 4.2 and 7.3 liter but am not sure which would be the best choice. Any thoughts/advice?
I assume that getting filler in Kenya is no problem (?). Hoping that I can find some at the lodge to buy.
Filler may be an issue. You should ask the lodges you're staying at before going. If you will be in a photography-adjusted vehicle, it may have built in bean bags to use. I filled a bag up and took it with me. Filled with buckwheat hulls. I used the Lenscoat something pro. It was fine. I still use it in place of buying a ground pod.
My primary beanbag is the Skimmersack II molar bag for shooting out of windows (95% of the time ‘cause it’s lower to ground/more comfy on shoulders, etc.). The larger Kinesis is used to wedge into the railings. I also use a Skimmer/RRS monohead on top of the skimmersack for smoother panning, speed/stability and a place to wrap a remote cable when used for reduced vibration.
I also bring a smaller molar for the other side the vehicle for speed (old GuraGear/WildlifeImages) as well as several SafariSacks - large and small - for protecting rigs from banging into each other/doors and as spares when they got lost on bumpy drives. In TZ, I buy beans/fill bags in Karatu. Sorry, I don’t know the situation in Kenya.
In roll bar type vehicles, I lean a monopod/monohead against the skimmersack draped over the bar. This is more stable and allows me to shoot 90 degrees left/right when needed.
Prior to TZ, I requested seed/rice WAY in advance of my visit albeit they were the pricier camps that I don’t do anymore (cost/don’t like moving camp:camp). When using puddle jumpers, I packed flax/buckwheat but it took precious packing space.
Seed/rice work best IMHO. Beans are heavier and can stress fabric seams. I only had one SkimmerSack II rip in all of these years which is why I always have duct/Tenacious tape with me.
Always return this precious commodity back to the camp or give to your driver.
Lastly, if you leave Kinesis bags up on the rail, bring shoestrings/cord to tie them down.
Abuttolph wrote:
Are there specific recommendations for size or shape of bean bags for safari? I will be taking the Sony 200-600 as well as the new 300 assuming it gets here in time.
I was looking at the Kenesis Safarisack in both 4.2 and 7.3 liter but am not sure which would be the best choice. Any thoughts/advice?
I assume that getting filler in Kenya is no problem (?). Hoping that I can find some at the lodge to buy.
I would hope your camp has beanbags as I've never been to a camp who doesn't have them. If for some reason one of your camps doesn't have them, there are plenty of blankets, cushions, personal clothing, etc that work just fine to sit your lens on the side rail. You might not be using beanbags much if you are one who's always trying to get as low as possible.
I would check with your camp before bringing a beanbag over there.
I didn't use the bean bag very often for stills. Mostly for video. For stills, I hung myself over the side of the vehicle so that I could get a lower perspective.
Abuttolph wrote:
Are there specific recommendations for size or shape of bean bags for safari? I will be taking the Sony 200-600 as well as the new 300 assuming it gets here in time.
I was looking at the Kenesis Safarisack in both 4.2 and 7.3 liter but am not sure which would be the best choice. Any thoughts/advice?
I assume that getting filler in Kenya is no problem (?). Hoping that I can find some at the lodge to buy.
I've not taken a bean bag to Kenya in many years. Most camps and tour operators will provide the molar type bags in every vehicle, 2 per row so you have one for each side. The vehicles with roll bars are usually padded enough for one to rest a lens on.
For the 200-600 I've never needed a bean bag, and I am a small guy. I try to lean out and lower my hands to get a lower perspective - or shoot out the open side door if I am in the front row and the others do not object. For the new 300 you may need one, I don't have any experience.
One other problem with having your own bean bag is that once it is filled it becomes very heavy unless you use buckwheat which you cannot get in Kenya. Carrying two heavy molar bags between camps is a big pain.
The only other time I found the bags useful is if you are standing up and shooting out of the top at a distant subject or a leopard/bird in a tree above you and you need to be absolutely still for a long time. The top bars are not padded and the bag makes it much easier.
One issue that often comes up with resting a camera/lens combo on a bean bag over a window sill/bar is that panning is difficult as the lens foot does not move so well. Option here as has been suggested is a monopod head or another is two Wimberley M-1 quick release arms (from the flash assembly system) that clamp on either side of the lens foot. A bit pricey but lightweight and actually works very well. I've used this for many years with bigger lenses that I have trouble handholding for long.
BTW, I just heard from my tour operator who is arranging a trip for me in Jan 2025 that Narok County has increased the park fees for Masai Mara from Jan of this year to $100 per person per day (used to be $80 before) and from June of 2024, it will be jacked up to $200 per day. She says people are still OK with booking at such rates. This is absolutely crazy. I knew Tanzania had high park fees for the Serengeti, but this is ridiculous.
You may want to check in on what type of vehicle that you may be using. The ones that are open sided don't always have a place for a beanbag. My last trip I did everything handheld or with a monopod.
