Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi Guys, done a quick search but can't find any specifics. I'm a beginner and am shortly going on a trip to Tanzania, on a trip to the grassland parts.
I'm hoping to see lots of animals which are obviously going to be quite far away and need some advice on a decent lens. I don't want to break the bank but also don't want to buy too cheaply.
I have a 400d, I already havea 75-300mm lens but on trips in this country I don't seem to get the close up effect I'm really looking for, and the lens won't allow high shutter speeds even in good light.
Any advice would be welcomed.
If i was spending money on such a trip, i'd also look at a sigma 150-500 (or cheaper older 170-500).
the longest lens i have on my eos400d is a Cheap 70-300mm Sigma f4-5.6 and its soft from about 260mm so not the best.
I've got a Kenko 2* convertor from ebay, just because i wanted to try it. In manual focus it does work and does bring me much closer.
As far as i know All lenses focus at maximum apeture, then stop down for the shot. If you already only have an f4 lens then lose 2 more stops of light with the *2 convertor then there is not enough light to focus with so the lens continually hunts. (on really bright contrasty shots this may be possible?)
When i can i'm looking at either the canon 100 to 400 or sigma 150-500mmm. Must have IS/OS on the lens.
Also take a "beanbag" to rest the lens on the car door.
I've also seen spotting scopes in bird magazines but have no idea if these are really usable.
Bit of a contradiction here:
Quote: i'd also look at a sigma 150-500 (or cheaper older 170-500)
Quote: Must have IS/OS on the lens.
In view of the latter, and in view of the OP's frustration
Quote: the lens won't allow high shutter speeds even in good light
I would at least forget about the 170-500. It's not fast in any respect, only gives decent sharpness around f8 - it's not the kind of lens I would take with me for a trip like this.
Thanks guys, I'm looking at spending £500-£800, I really don't want to be going for high ISO if I can help it, bear in mind I've just come from a bridge camera, should I just use the green square generally and have a play otherwise? I'd hate to lose a moment, maybe I should just take my bridge.
I'm asking too much but if I'm after a shot of an animal doing batshit speeds I need a high shutter speed, I don't want a converter because as far as I believe I lose the mighty power of auto focus.
I agree with Conrad, I 'think' I need a fast lens, I'm woried I'll spend so much money and not get what I want.
Thnaks for the comments
Quote: Thanks guys, I'm looking at spending £500-£800, I really don't want to be going for high ISO if I can help it, bear in mind I've just come from a bridge camera, should I just use the green square generally and have a play otherwise? I'd hate to lose a moment, maybe I should just take my bridge.
First off High ISO performance on on your 400D is going to be light years ahead of that bridge camera, so don't be afraid to notch it up when you need higher speeds. Just go take a few at 800 and see for yourself.
Forget the green square, and get to grips with Av and Tv modes before you go. For you budget you might find a nice second hand Canon 400mm f5.6 L. A monopod would be a pretty good investment as well.
Unfortunately lenses are expensive at the moment - upto 30% more than before christmas last year. Even then, £800 didn't get you that much in the way of long lenses.
Your current gear will be fine in Africa where the light is a lot bette than back here in Blighty.
I would have thought that a 2nd hand Canon 100-400 would be better or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4
Quote: I would have thought that a 2nd hand Canon 100-400 would be better or maybe the Sigma 100-300 f/4
Bearing in mind that the thing will be used almost exclusively at 400, the prime is lighter, sharper and cheaper, but having said that it would still be a good choice.
If you're going on a safari you need (1) something in the 100-200 range for a lot of shots (elephants, hippos and rhinos are big) and (2) something in the 300-400 range for a smaller percentage of shots, mainly small animals and things at longer range (3) something with image stabislisation (forget the tripod, a lot of what you'll be doing is from the window/roof of a 4X4 so you really need a beanbag) With this in mind, unless you're going to spend very serious money to get the ideal set up with big white primes, I reckon a second hand 100-400 is your best bet for this trip. A single prime without back-up lenses is a bad idea, just not versatile enough and you'll miss things as a result.
I took a Sigma 50-500 to Kenya with me and had no problems taking photos during the day, although I did struggle at dawn & dusk due to the lens being 'slow' ie the max aperture size was a limiting factor.
If you can muster up the cash for a longer/ faster/ sharper lens which costs more than you really want to spend, go for it and sell it when you get back. That's what I did, and lost about £140 on my Bigma but then again, I couldn't even have hired one for the 3 months I had it, for that amount.
[quote]Bit of a contradiction here:
Fair point, and thanks for the reminder ![]()
I survived fine with a Tamron 70-300 on safari in South Africa a couple of times. The light is a lot stronger over there, even in 'mid winter' when I was there, so you can happily snap at ISO 100 during the day and get the fast shutter speeds. Example here (although not of stunning photography, lol, just an example of what can be done) it was at the 300mm end, ISO 100 and a shutter speed of 1/640 at f8
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
















