Primus wrote:
There is a lot of variability in how close the animals come to you. I also feel that the frame-filling images sometimes leave one feeling there is something missing. A bit of the environment I think adds to the story. Also, at times there is not enough room around the subject as it is.
During my recent trip, rarely did I feel I needed more reach, having too much lens can be a handicap sometimes. Here are a few random images from my trip, did not have time to select much, took too many as it is...
The Serval is at 200mm, I did some adjustments mainly exposure and slight vignetting. I also shot it at 400 mm, but it came very close to our vehicle as you can see here.
The rest of the images are all at 400mm, f2.8, wide open. No adjustments done at all, no sharpening, no color balance, straight OOC. Note the African Pygmy Kingfisher is super sharp. I could not have taken the flight shot if it was much bigger in the frame, as it is it almost flew out of it. However, I did find some other birds did not let us get as close and I did wish I had more reach then, but overall was very satisfied with just 400mm
All of these are completely uncropped, at full 50 Mpx. Lots of room left for further repositioning and printing large if needed.
Okay, thanks for the feedback. I think you convinced me to bring the 400 2.8. Your cheetah shot is amazing and I hope to come home with something similar. Great work!
still contemplating trading in my 500 EF for a 400 RF . Also because it's a bit lighter and balances nicer. On the other hand, in the Mara the 500mm served me well too.
Next trip for me is in August; jaguars in the Pantanal. Then, in jan/feb next year I'm working on organizing a photographer trip hosted by me and a collegue in the Mara. We're going to do national reserve to keep the cost acceptable, but after that week I'll probably spend another week with my wife in Kenya. Possibly Lentorre for a few days and then contemplating the rest at Porini Lion Camp in the OMC.
I would seriously recommend going with the RF 400mm and bring both the 1.4x and 2.0x TC - especially if you’re shooting with the R5, or an R3/R6 for lowlight/high ISO situations.
I am currently in transit (waiting in AMS) back to LA after an 11 day safari in Tanzania. Unlike my TZ trip in July - during the dry season in the north near the Mara River, I could easily get away with 400-500mm or less whereas during the green season (where water is more abundant) I was shooting on avg at 700-800mm out.
evertdoorn wrote:
still contemplating trading in my 500 EF for a 400 RF . Also because it's a bit lighter and balances nicer. On the other hand, in the Mara the 500mm served me well too.
Next trip for me is in August; jaguars in the Pantanal. Then, in jan/feb next year I'm working on organizing a photographer trip hosted by me and a collegue in the Mara. We're going to do national reserve to keep the cost acceptable, but after that week I'll probably spend another week with my wife in Kenya. Possibly Lentorre for a few days and then contemplating the rest at Porini Lion Camp in the OMC. ...Show more →
robert_in_ca wrote:
I would seriously recommend going with the RF 400mm and bring both the 1.4x and 2.0x TC - especially if you’re shooting with the R5, or an R3/R6 for lowlight/high ISO situations.
I am currently in transit (waiting in AMS) back to LA after an 11 day safari in Tanzania. Unlike my TZ trip in July - during the dry season in the north near the Mara River, I could easily get away with 400-500mm or less whereas during the green season (where water is more abundant) I was shooting on avg at 700-800mm out.
I think it is a good idea to bring the TCs with a 400 lens, you never know. In places like the Crater there is no way to get closer to the animal without a long lens and sometimes the rhinos are just too far away. Elsewhere when off-roading is permitted you may not need great reach.
I had taken my 600 f4 last time we were in Kenya and found I was not using it much because a lot of the time the reach was too much. I had to fall back on the 200-600 but in low light that lens is not useful. So upon my return I traded the 600 for the 400. If you have a high resolution sensor you can of course also just use the APS-C function and still have 20MPx of data. That is not a bad idea either.
artsupreme wrote:
Okay, thanks for the feedback. I think you convinced me to bring the 400 2.8. Your cheetah shot is amazing and I hope to come home with something similar. Great work!
Thanks Brett. I took a ton of pictures of this pair. I think the critical factor is whether you can go off road or not. We had permits to do this in the Mara reserve and of course in the conservancies you are allowed to any way.
As I said before, I am going in June to Botswana and Madikwe in SA. Definitely taking the RF100-500 with 1.4ex, RF70-200, and RF24-70. On the fence about the RF15-35. Thoughts?
Alan Kefauver wrote:
As I said before, I am going in June to Botswana and Madikwe in SA. Definitely taking the RF100-500 with 1.4ex, RF70-200, and RF24-70. On the fence about the RF15-35. Thoughts?
I'd think that depends on your bag. If you don't have it, you'll want it on the trip for one or two occasions then not be able to, but you have the 24-70, so....that seems like it would do for close shots and the ranges that lens allows.
Realistically, you have all the ranges covered within reason.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
As I said before, I am going in June to Botswana and Madikwe in SA. Definitely taking the RF100-500 with 1.4ex, RF70-200, and RF24-70. On the fence about the RF15-35. Thoughts?
I never thought I would do this, but on this trip I actually took a lot of shots and videos with my iPhone 12. It serves as a great ultra-wide camera and it is readily available, no need to change lenses. I always wear a photo vest in the field and it is always sitting in the top pocket. The resolution is truly remarkable. The videos are pretty darned good and I never felt the need to use my regular camera for video work.
I am gradually coming to believe that we tend to take way too much gear on these trips. Yes, one does need backup so an extra body (or two) is a must, but one does not need to cover every mm of lens from 12-600. Gaps are OK, that is what cropping and other modes are for. I think for my next trip I will be even more frugal.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
As I said before, I am going in June to Botswana and Madikwe in SA. Definitely taking the RF100-500 with 1.4ex, RF70-200, and RF24-70. On the fence about the RF15-35. Thoughts?
You'll be down here in the heart of Milky Way season, and the night skies in Botswana are amazing! So if you're into Astro/Milky Way landscape photography then you'll definitely want that RF15-35 with you. If not then the RF24-70 should be adequate to cover the wider angles.
Thanks Brett. I took a ton of pictures of this pair. I think the critical factor is whether you can go off road or not. We had permits to do this in the Mara reserve and of course in the conservancies you are allowed to any way.
Did you pay $300 a week for this permit? Some years you can get it and others for some reason you can't. This year for my trip to the Mara I will be trying to get it. A lot of the times I have never seem to need it. Nice thing with my guide he is very well connected haha. Helps when you have 40 siblings.
well, officially there is no off-roading at all in the Mara reserve I believe.
So what happens is, most of the times guides try it anyway if there's no rangers around. If they are, all the cars flock back to the road. Although just a slight sign of a rough path can also be a road. If there is any payment I believe it's off the books, directly into the pocket of some dude.
The whole place needs a long term plan and much stricter management for sure. Still love the place but I am worried about the future there. Too many camps, too much pressure on wildlife at times (in particular during high season)
evertdoorn wrote:
well, officially there is no off-roading at all in the Mara reserve I believe.
So what happens is, most of the times guides try it anyway if there's no rangers around. If they are, all the cars flock back to the road. Although just a slight sign of a rough path can also be a road. If there is any payment I believe it's off the books, directly into the pocket of some dude.
The whole place needs a long term plan and much stricter management for sure. Still love the place but I am worried about the future there. Too many camps, too much pressure on wildlife at times (in particular during high season)...Show more →
Wrong. You can buy a pass for off-roading. It is $300 a week. It will say DO NOT FOLLOW FILM CREW. When you say the place needs much stricter management, have you been to the Triangle? There is a different person that manages the Mara Triangle from the National Park. In the Triangle, they are very strict. You cannot go off roading at all.
I have personally seen where the rangers have fined people. The times I have been off-roading there either there was no rangers around or my guide knows the rangers. My guide is very well connected in the Masai community. There used to be the Cheetah Project. The guide I use his brother was one of the top dogs in it and another guide at our camp one of his sisters was married to someone in the Project.
When it comes to payment there are two ways of doing it. The normal fine is about 10,000KS. What you do is tell them you need a receipt. They will then say only the supervisor has the receipt book and will then lower it down to 5000KS. Then it is off the books per say and is Tusker money for them.
On nearly all of my thirty-ish wildlife trips to Africa I've taken something like a 24-70mm, a 70-200mm, and a 200-400mm (or something similar...now a 200-600mm Sony). I'd estimate that 70% of my shots have been with the 200-400mm reach, 25% with the 70-200mm, and only 5% with the short stuff.
I think that it's possible that if I were a better photographer I'd shoot wider, but for me the best magic is when an animal and you share the same moment in time, and close-ups, particularly with eye contact, do that for me.
I only shot a handful of images with my 24-70mm in Kenya this past October, and some of them were special cases like this aerial of eland crossing the Sand River at the edge of the Mara. But I'd be frustrated beyond belief if I didn't have the reach to get shots like the others here.
If it were me, I would skip the 70-200mm. Too much overlap with 24-70 and 100-500. If you will always have the 1.4x on the 100-500mm then it might make sense. Less weight and less fiddling with lenses in the field with risk of dust, missed shots, etc.
Hathaway wrote:
If it were me, I would skip the 70-200mm. Too much overlap with 24-70 and 100-500. If you will always have the 1.4x on the 100-500mm then it might make sense. Less weight and less fiddling with lenses in the field with risk of dust, missed shots, etc.
Bob
I don't disagree with Bob. The 70-200mm focal length tends to be a bit short for subject-intensive shooting, and the lens certainly takes up valuable space.
The 70-200mm is a bit of an "emergency" lens for me in Africa. The key is that I have the f/2.8, while the 200-600mm is f/5.6-6.3. Safaris offer an incredible amount of crepuscular opportunity, and having the 70-200's speed combined with a higher ISO has allowed me to get shots that I would have not bothered with if I only had a slower lens.
I use my 70-200 quite a bit in Kenya. I would say I use it about the same as i do my long lens. I have had a lot of close up encounters especially with Marsh Pride lions. Tuskers are perfect to take with the 70-200. Again I am in the Marsh area quite a bit as the camp I use is in the Marsh area.
evertdoorn wrote:
Governors? Have to say I used the 70-200 more than I expected. Nice thing about the RF version is the small size when stored and light weight
I stay at Sentinel Mara. They are around from what is called Sentinel Corner. It is a tented camp along the Mara River.
I've been on 5 safaris so far (Tanzania, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana twice), and I've been to luxury lodges and mobile camping including Wilderness, &Beyond... All are great, but I think my preference goes for mobile camp, with a great guide, cook and camp attendant and my own tent. This is essentially basic plus from a lodging standpoint, but this allows me to go more often (and keep the wife happy !). I'm going back to Botswana in April with the same guide I went with last time and can't recommend more:
This time, I am going to the Kalahari and Okavango for 11 days.
2. Two body FF camera setup: Nikon Z9, Z7II, along with 70-200 S w/ 1.4TC, and 500/5.6 PF. I am also bring along my 24-120/4 S (98% of shots will be done with the telephotos)
3. Not sure, but these make alot of noise and probably a no for wildlife
4. 1 extra for Z9 and 2 extra for Z7 II
5. just bring a few pairs of shorts, 2 pants, a bunch of shirts for day (can wear twice), underwear and socks, and something warm, along with something to cover neck / dust, plus a hat. Good walking shoes. Sunglasses, binoculars. Headlamp, some good books (or Kindle)
6. Inoculations: DT Polio, Yellow fever, Malaria if wet season
7. Tony above
8. My 11trip with Tony is less than $4000, excluding intl trip, drinks beyond water and tips ($10/day)
If interested in going with Tony, happy to discuss offline.
. Also because it's a bit lighter and balances nicer. On the other hand, in the Mara the 500mm served me well too. 
