# When I go on safari, what’s in my camera bag?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 8, 2018)

> This is a question that is asked constantly on forums around the web, what gear do I bring with me on an African safari?
> I’m heading back to Kenya tomorrow for the great migration across the Masai Mara, which is the type of safari most people seem to do their first time to Africa. Shooting conditions are very similar between Kenya, Tanzania, and Botswana.
> If you’re going to Rwanda or Uganda for gorillas and chimpanzees, you’ll definitely be taking different gear than you would be on the Serengeti.
> So what gear do I bring?
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Tom Raymond (Aug 8, 2018)

I have been on three safaris to Southern Africa, the last one private, and all with the same guide, who is phenomenal. I have had six of my images published by Nat Geo. My recommendation IS the 200-400 with built in 1.4X for ONE simple reason: DUST. Prior to leaving, I mount one lens on one body, and they are not taken apart until I return home. Our next trip will be in October of 2019, and I will repeat most of what I took in 2016. 
Canon 1Dx MK II with 200-400 mounted
Canon 1Dx with 70-200 2.8 mounted
Leica SL with 16-35 mounted
Gitzo Carbon monopod with Really Right Stuff head
Batteries, chargers, lens cleaning, table top tripod, yadda yadda: all fits into a Think Tank Airport 2 bag.
If you have not been, DUST is everywhere, worst above all in Namibia.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 8, 2018)

There's definitely a ton of dust, but you're usually in a dust cloud as vehicles are moving, which is not a good time to swap. If you have good technique when changing lenses, the dust has never really caused me any issues. YMMV


----------



## edoorn (Aug 8, 2018)

Cool! Can see why you like the 400.
I frequently visit the Mara and my bag is a TT Airport commuter and it has 2x 5D IV, one 100-400II, a 500mm II, 1.4 converter and one small wider angle lens.
Praying for the photo gods I can add a mirrorless ff from Canon sometime 
Have a wonderful trip; I'm up in November and again in February!


----------



## Joatamos (Aug 8, 2018)

Wife and I have done a number of safaris. Don't have the funds for the 400m f/2.8 L II sadly, but might rent one next time.
Our go-to kit (for 2 shooters):
5D4 - primary camera with 100-400 II L (wife likes the close-up work)
5D3 - primary camera 70-200 f/2.8 II L (mine for more animal-in-context)
77D - lightweight, strong IQ at low ISO, generally mounted with a 16-35mm f/2.8 L for landscapes. 

The body & lens combos let us cover most requirement, little-to-no on-road lens swapping. Add in some Lee grad filters, and the all important circular polariser and that's about it. 

Long-haul transport in a Peli1510 (with Trekpak inserts) and a large Lowepro messenger bag (which will hold the three bodies with mounted lens when in the jeep.

Best single recommendation I can give is - Zeiss lens-wipes. Easy to carry lots etc etc.


----------



## rikstir (Aug 8, 2018)

I just did a trip to Kruger and took two 5DMK4 bodies, 200-400, 70-200, 24-70 and a 16-35. I almost solely used the 200-400. For the most part it had enough reach, there were a few times I wish I had more lens. I’m not sure if I would rather have a longer lens or a 7DMK2 which would put you at 896mm. It was my first time using the 200-400 and I loved it. Having the versatility of a zoom definitely increased my hit rate. I think if I was shooting a prime TC combination I would have missed more shots. I don’t think there is a right or wrong combination and obviously the 400 2.8 is a great lens, it just is more time consuming to get to the right focal length.


----------



## arashm (Aug 8, 2018)

Tom Raymond said:


> I have been on three safaris to Southern Africa, the last one private, and all with the same guide, who is phenomenal. I have had six of my images published by Nat Geo. My recommendation IS the 200-400 with built in 1.4X for ONE simple reason: DUST. Prior to leaving, I mount one lens on one body, and they are not taken apart until I return home. Our next trip will be in October of 2019, and I will repeat most of what I took in 2016.
> Canon 1Dx MK II with 200-400 mounted
> Canon 1Dx with 70-200 2.8 mounted
> Leica SL with 16-35 mounted
> ...




Tom, 
Wondering, why add in a Leica SL and not have another Canon in the mix?
Thank you in advance


----------



## Tom Raymond (Aug 8, 2018)

As much as I am a Canon fan, I have 3 Leicas, as the quality of the glass is incredible. My SL 16-35 was the 1st one sold in the US, and I use it extensively for landscape work, hand held only. My HDR tripod mounted cameras are a 5D MKIV and the Canon 5Ds. Actually the SL has not been to Africa yet. Last trip took an M240 with 35mm 1.4 attached, and a M240 with a 12mm Voigtlander attached (which got used very little).

Further note: due to flying many small bush planes, our weight limit (all luggage, clothes, cameras, etc) was 44 lb per person. Since the loaded Think Tank weighed in at 39 lb, I paid for an extra seat on these planes for the gear.


----------



## AJ (Aug 8, 2018)

_ I usually bring an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS with me... Unfortunately, mine broke this week and I was unable to find a replacement in time._

What happened? How did it break?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

AJ said:


> _ I usually bring an EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS with me... Unfortunately, mine broke this week and I was unable to find a replacement in time._
> 
> What happened? How did it break?



The zoom barrel is jammed. To be fair, I have beaten the heck out of that lens and I bought it the week it was released.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 9, 2018)

Are your images (particularly safari stuff) viewable online anywhere canon rumors guy? You have some interesting lens choices but proof is in the pudding so to speak...


----------



## rikstir (Aug 9, 2018)

krisbell said:


> Are your images (particularly safari stuff) viewable online anywhere canon rumors guy? You have some interesting lens choices but proof is in the pudding so to speak...


Awesome work!


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 9, 2018)

My first trip to Africa, I took two bags (Gura Gear 32L & 26L ) full of equipment. I was on a photo tour and the organizer said to "bring it all" since we were staying in 3 camps in Botswana and using private charters with ample baggage allowance. Below is the bag I took on my 18 day 2017 trip to Botswana, Rwanda & Tanzania. 

Canon EOS 1dx II and 5dIV all this in a Gura Gear 32L
100-400 f4.5 -5.6 L IS II (for gorillas)
200-400 f4 L IS w/1.4x TC
24-70 f2.8 L II
1.4x & 2x TC III's
Swarovski 10x30 compact Binoculars
Batteries, chargers, etc
I am working on 2 more Africa trips and will probably swap the 100-400 II for a 70-200 f4 L IS II for future trips. I might also swap the 5d IV for a 7d III should such an animal be released before my next trip. The 200-400 stayed on the 1dx II (majority of shots) and the 100-400 was on the 5dIV. I was close enough to the gorillas with a 24-70 f2.8 L II (got a love shove from a female) but a 70-200 would have been preferred. Did;n't use the wide angle a lot, so lens changes were not an issue or I changed before we left camp. I absolutely understand about the IQ benefits of the 400 f2.8, but prefer the versatility of the 200-400 f4 L IS w/ TC. I had the original 600mm which was about the same weight as the 400 f2.8 II and was a beast when I was 17 years younger. I am contemplating a 400 DO II with TC for the lighter combination w/ 14.x & 2x TC III's, but will probably stick with the 200-400. The 200-400 can also be used with a 2x tC without the internal 1.4x engaged. Tradeoffs.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 9, 2018)

Meant to say the 600 “was a beast to handle even when I was 17 years younger.”


----------



## and_42m (Aug 9, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> The zoom barrel is jammed. To be fair, I have beaten the heck out of that lens and I bought it the week it was released.


Hi

I did 3 safaris and enjoyed your write up can i see your work please

appreciate your time

Kind regards Andre
From Malta
https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrefarrugia/


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 9, 2018)

Interesting and impressive selection of the gear, I only wonder why take 6DMkII instead if 5DMkIV while you have both. 5DMkIV is roughly the same size, weather-sealed, dual-card, better DR etc.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 9, 2018)

You had me until you said you weren't a fan of the 100-400! haha I would like to know your reason behind your not liking the lens. I have been nothing but satisfied and impressed with this lens - and that includes using a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8. Everyone has their personal needs and tastes, but I don't know why someone wouldn't be a fan of that lens after using it.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 9, 2018)

Tom, many thanks for the great tips! I am focused more on the North and birds (and hope for a trip to the Antarctic region during the next years). But whenever I'll go for the Big Ones to Africa I'll keep it in mind - friends have been recently in Kenia. 

I personally like your fast prime approach to photography much! Zooms make you lazy, primes force you to a much more creative framing. If you get too close for a total coverage, you make a portrait of an animal or even a detail of a portrait and you get a much more interesting image. Recently I made a trip with both a 500 mm prime and a 150-600 mm zoom, a Tamron G2. This lens is quite nice, but using it I realized that I started to tend to those boring "always complete animal" shots I thought I left behind me many years ago. So I fixed a focal length and worked with that to release more creativity.


----------



## GP.Masserano (Aug 9, 2018)

For birds, animals, macro and landscape...

CANON 7DMKII (with battery grip)
CANON 6D
CANON 24-70 F4 L IS (or 24-105 STM)
CANON 100-400 L IS MKII (or CANON 70-300 4-5.6 L IS)
CANON 500 F4 L IS
SAMYANG 14MM (or MEIKE 8mm fisheye)
SIGMA 8-16 (or CANON 100MACRO L IS)
1,4X III


----------



## GP.Masserano (Aug 9, 2018)

GP.Masserano said:


> For birds, animals, macro and landscape...
> 
> CANON 7DMKII (with battery grip)
> CANON 6D
> ...



Do you think it's ...heavy???


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> You had me until you said you weren't a fan of the 100-400! haha I would like to know your reason behind your not liking the lens. I have been nothing but satisfied and impressed with this lens - and that includes using a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8. Everyone has their personal needs and tastes, but I don't know why someone wouldn't be a fan of that lens after using it.



I dislike my inability in most safari situations to create isolation using it at 400mm. There's nothing wrong with the lens, it's just not for me.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Interesting and impressive selection of the gear, I only wonder why take 6DMkII instead if 5DMkIV while you have both. 5DMkIV is roughly the same size, weather-sealed, dual-card, better DR etc.



I currently don't own a 5D4, a part of me wishes I did.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> Tom, many thanks for the great tips! I am focused more on the North and birds (and hope for a trip to the Antarctic region during the next years). But whenever I'll go for the Big Ones to Africa I'll keep it in mind - friends have been recently in Kenia.
> 
> I personally like your fast prime approach to photography much! Zooms make you lazy, primes force you to a much more creative framing. If you get too close for a total coverage, you make a portrait of an animal or even a detail of a portrait and you get a much more interesting image. Recently I made a trip with both a 500 mm prime and a 150-600 mm zoom, a Tamron G2. This lens is quite nice, but using it I realized that I started to tend to those boring "always complete animal" shots I thought I left behind me many years ago. So I fixed a focal length and worked with that to release more creativity.



I'm with you, I shoot far better with a prime over a zoom.


----------



## mjshaw (Aug 9, 2018)

I always like to hear the 1,000,001 and beyond on this subject. 

I've been to Africa twice (S. Africa and Botswana). This past time (May 2018) I better had what I needed based on the first time back in 2010. And, man, has the IQ gotten better on newer generation cameras since then.

I tended to split duties with my wife with me on video (C200) and my wife taking more of the stills.

The stills were 7DMK2 with the 200-400mm pretty much exclusively. This gave great reach fully extended with the flexibility of a zoom.

The 2nd body was a 5DMK4 with what ended up being a surprising good fit even in the slightly dated 28-300mm L. There have been better made lenses since then (newer 70-200's and 100-400's) but for the range on a full frame camera, it was almost perfectly matched with a crop sensor using the 200-400mm. I would tell people that we had a range from 28mm to 896mm covered one way or another between two bodies. With that range, the only switch we'd ever make was for the 11-24mm on the 5D to get something really wide (typically a landscape, not wildlife) when we had stopped for a bit.

I'll echo the most reach you can get the better. The first time I had a 100-400mm on crop sensor and 70-200mm on full frame and was always putting the 1.4 or 2x extender on the old 5DMK2 most of the time. (It was in the Sabi Sands area which is more wide open). 

The other echo is to have two bodies. Typically most shots are long, but you'll get wildlife close to the vehicle fairly often and you don't want to be changing lenses then. If you don't own one, rent one (ditto for the lenses). 

Another tid bit that some may not like is using auto iso. Typically a Tv setting appropriate for the focal length will be a starting point and let the camera do the rest. Not always, of course, but many times you'll come upon scenes and that could be be the difference in getting the shot at all (and doing noise reduction later) or fiddling with settings because it's too dark or light from a prior iso setting and missing the chance all together. Most game viewing is around dusk and dawn when light is changing by the minute. I'm good, but not -that- good to keep up with it in settings on the fly, especially with a dose of adrenaline as you see _insert animal name here_ doing something amazing. There are some great bird viewing opportunities, too, that don't usually stay put for very long.

Ok, there's 1,000,010.


----------



## Ladislav (Aug 9, 2018)

When you go on safari to Africa, how do you plan that? Do you go with some provider or do you plan it yourselves? I've seen some interesting "packages" but they very pretty expensive. Considering that Africa is very poor region, I find it bit suspicious when someone asks around $10k for 2-3 weeks per person without flights and insurance.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

Ladislav said:


> When you go on safari to Africa, how do you plan that? Do you go with some provider or do you plan it yourselves? I've seen some interesting "packages" but they very pretty expensive. Considering that Africa is very poor region, I find it bit suspicious when someone asks around $10k for 2-3 weeks per person without flights and insurance.



I use my friend Andy Biggs to set trips up. He leads safaris as well as plans them for people.

The cost... $10K per person for 2-3 weeks is really good. There are different levels of cost depending on the country you're going to. Botswana is probably the most expensive, and most luxurious. Kenya is middle of the road and Tanzania the least expensive, based on my experiences. I have no price knowledge of South Africa or Zambia. Namibia is different and you do it overland, it was probably my least expensive trip to Africa.

Rwanda is probably the most expensive, but gorilla permits and accommodation around the park are very expensive. However, that money is really going to the conservation of the gorillas and to the people living near the park. Uganda for chimpanzees isn't bad.

Once you see the camps and how it all operates, you appreciate why the costs tend to be high. There's a lot of people, vehicles, park permits, food and logistics that have to be paid for. A lot of people would rather use small planes in Botswana, Kenya, and Tanzania than do it overland. Those planes are usually part of packages and raise the cost.

It also costs more if set up for photography, as there are fewer people in each vehicle, so more vehicles are needed. This depends on your size of group.

Reaching out to Andy above to help plan a trip is highly recommended, but you're not going to find much below $10K. I'm sure there are cheaper ways to do it, but it all depends on the experience you want.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 9, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I use my friend Andy Biggs to set trips up. He leads safaris as well as plans them for people.
> 
> The cost... $10K per person for 2-3 weeks is really good. There are different levels of cost depending on the country you're going to. Botswana is probably the most expensive, and most luxurious. Kenya is middle of the road and Tanzania the least expensive, based on my experiences. I have no price knowledge of South Africa or Zambia. Namibia is different and you do it overland, it was probably my least expensive trip to Africa.
> 
> ...



So 10K with airfare or without?
I was wondering if his base cost had up-charges that end up costing you.
So actually from the US it would end up costing 12 to 15.

I see he had one listed for $6999 that they are on now.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Aug 9, 2018)

First, protect whatever equipment you carry. The extremely fine powdery dust (think: baking flour) will get everywhere.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> So 10K with airfare or without?
> I was wondering if his base cost had up-charges that end up costing you.
> So actually from the US it would end up costing 12 to 15.
> 
> I see he had one listed for $6999 that they are on now.



Airfare to Africa is generally not included.

Additional costs are usually alcohol, tips and souvenirs. Stuff like hot air balloons (Mara or Serengeti) or helicopter rides (Namibia) can also be extra costs.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 9, 2018)

JumboShrimp said:


> First, protect whatever equipment you carry. The extremely fine powdery dust (think: baking flour) will get everywhere.



That's why it's best to bring sealed bodies like the 1D, 5D, 7D and not Rebels as well as sealed lenses. I don't even clean stuff anymore until I get home (outside of front elements).


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 9, 2018)

and_42m said:


> Hi
> 
> I did 3 safaris and enjoyed your write up can i see your work please
> 
> ...


Malta, I habe only uploaded a couple of Africa photos, but if go to Anglinphotos.com and use the Contact selection to send me an email address I will share a link to a presentation with a broad selection of photos from 2017. I do this for fun and not good about updating the site. There are photos from other trips using the same gear.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 9, 2018)

GP.Masserano said:


> Do you think it's ...heavy???



I guess it depends on the amount of Sherpas you can hire


----------



## RGF (Aug 10, 2018)

Good choices but I would opt for the 200-400 for flexibility. Possibly 7D II for additional reach and some sort of backup "long" lens in case the 400 or 200-400 dies.

Finishing the safari w/ only the 85 would be a downer


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 10, 2018)

RGF said:


> Good choices but I would opt for the 200-400 for flexibility. Possibly 7D II for additional reach and some sort of backup "long" lens in case the 400 or 200-400 dies.
> 
> Finishing the safari w/ only the 85 would be a downer



I've used a 200-400 on a previous safari, I didn't like it. Zooming is annoying on bean bags and the time I did use it, 94% of the images were at 400-560mm. No need for an APS-C camera when I have 800mm in the bag. The chance of a big white lens failing to the point of being unusable (it'll still work without AF or IS) is too remote to be worried about. That said, I would have brought a 70-300L had it not broken this week.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 10, 2018)

LSXPhotog said:


> You had me until you said you weren't a fan of the 100-400! haha I would like to know your reason behind your not liking the lens. I have been nothing but satisfied and impressed with this lens - and that includes using a 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8. Everyone has their personal needs and tastes, but I don't know why someone wouldn't be a fan of that lens after using it.



I'm not a fan of the lens either - I may have a bad copy but it is never consistent with focus, and woefully out when close focusing. No amount of AFMA'ing seems to help. It is a jack of all trades but as the saying goes, it does nothing well imho. I much prefer the 300mm 2.8 I had before I sold it to get the 100-400.


----------



## RGF (Aug 10, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I've used a 200-400 on a previous safari, I didn't like it. Zooming is annoying on bean bags and the time I did use it, 94% of the images were at 400-560mm. No need for an APS-C camera when I have 800mm in the bag. The chance of a big white lens failing to the point of being unusable (it'll still work without AF or IS) is too remote to be worried about. That said, I would have brought a 70-300L had it not broken this week.


i have seen people leave lenses on the top of a safari vehicle. Some survived the drop to the grounds, others did not. 70-300 is a nice choice relatively compact but good range.

As far as focal range in south africa I use the entire range of the 200-400/560. In eastern africa yes I tended to use the longer end ofI s the lens. Actually on my last trip I wish had brought my 600. The 200-400 on a 7D II was too short


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2018)

krisbell said:


> I'm not a fan of the lens either - I may have a bad copy but it is never consistent with focus, and woefully out when close focusing. No amount of AFMA'ing seems to help. It is a jack of all trades but as the saying goes, it does nothing well imho. I much prefer the 300mm 2.8 I had before I sold it to get the 100-400.


You must have had a bad copy. I have had 3 good copies. My latest has good enough AF to catch dragonflies in flight and tack sharp close ups in the last few days as well as all three for birds over the years. An amazing lens.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 10, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I currently don't own a 5D4, a part of me wishes I did.


You have the 1DXII for action and so IMHO the 5DSR is by far the best choice for a second body, and not the 6DII or even the 5DIV. It will give you 1.4x the resolution of the 6DII on the difference in pixel size plus another 10% or more because ot the AA-filter. I grab my 5DSR over my 5DIV on most occasions for nature photography as it is clearly better for resolving detail on distance birds and even excellent for BIF.

Regarding weight limits, the 400/2.8 (and/or 200-400mm) is fine for the international trips but it is too heavy for small planes on internal flights. If you have to use them, then the 400mm DO II (for 400-880mm) and the 100-400mm II are king and queen and not their fatter brother and sister.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 10, 2018)

AlanF said:


> You must have had a bad copy. I have had 3 good copies. My latest has good enough AF to catch dragonflies in flight and tack sharp close ups in the last few days as well as all three for birds over the years. An amazing lens.



Are you a CPS member and have you sent in your lens and body for evaluation? I know of enough stellar copies that I trust the lens. My copy has fast, accuate , AF with sharp images.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 10, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> That's why it's best to bring sealed bodies like the 1D, 5D, 7D and not Rebels as well as sealed lenses. I don't even clean stuff anymore until I get home (outside of front elements).


This applies to many rugged environments. If you go out into the wilderness, better use sealed gear. And consider carefully good places or a bag if you want to change a lens. Better have two cameras with different kind of lenses prepared, as others already said here.


----------



## edoorn (Aug 10, 2018)

I do notice the light in the Mara is slightly different than say Botswana. There, the air is usually very dry (in the dry season of course ) resulting in sometimes a bit more crisp and vibrant colors. Advantage of the Mara, where a lot of times in the year there is more humidity in the air, is the light is slightly diffused; even later in the morning you could get away with sunlight.

And yes, dust is is much more killing than rain I think. Dropped my 24-70 last year at a drink stop in Savuti; had to replace the AF motor


----------



## Daner (Aug 10, 2018)

Any advice for those of us who have neither the budget nor the luggage allocation to bring such a range of kit, but who are interested in getting decent images anyway? I've got a 7D MkII. If I could only bring 2 lenses they would probably be my EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and a 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II, with the Extender EF 1.4x III to provide a bit more range.

Of course, as I write this I immediately think that I'll need something faster as well. This shot at dusk required f/1.8 at 1/125 at ISO 640. She was only 3 meters away - too close and dark for a long, slow lens to do justice.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 10, 2018)

Daner said:


> Any advice for those of us who have neither the budget nor the luggage allocation to bring such a range of kit, but who are interested in getting decent images anyway? I've got a 7D MkII. If I could only bring 2 lenses they would probably be my EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and a 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II, with the Extender EF 1.4x III to provide a bit more range.
> 
> Of course, as I write this I immediately think that I'll need something faster as well. This shot at dusk required f/1.8 at 1/125 at ISO 640. She was only 3 meters away - too close and dark for a long, slow lens to do justice.



If you want something to work under those lighting conditions you will be looking at f2.8 at ISO 3000 (ish). The 7D2 should be usable provided you do not need to crop heavily or recover shadows too much - the only issue is the price of the lens so no, there is not much can be done! There is the 85mm f1.8 or the 200mm f2.8 at more affordable (I know, 'affordable' in these terms is relative!) end.


----------



## Tom Raymond (Aug 10, 2018)

We all marvel (and rightfully so) at the magnificent images of wildlife that have come from folks in the right place/at the right time/with the right equipment. For those of you that have not been to Southern Africa, please keep in mind that your subject matter has complete mobility and independence of direction, whereas you do not. Therefore today's telephoto zooms are of great benefit. Plus you can crop a 560mm image (shot with 200-400 zoom) 2.5X with little loss in resolution. I highly recommend skipping the supplied bean bags, and using a carbon monopod with long glass. I also heartedly endorse taking many, many Zeiss lens wipes ($5.00 / 100 at WalMart).

Above all, the most important thing you can take on a photo safari is patience. A good guide will reinforce that for you. In 2016, we returned to a particular pond for three straight evenings to try & capture a single male hippo (image attached).


----------



## NancyP (Aug 10, 2018)

Do people ever try to change lenses in the field? If not, it would seem more practical to make choices and take 2 (or 3) bodies depending on interests. I'd be inclined to take a 24 - 70 mm f/2.8 on full frame, and 100-400 bare (no TC) on crop. If one is not interested in wide landscapes, an option could be 70 - 200 f/2.8 FF and either 400 f/2.8 +/- 1.4 TC or 500 f/4 for crop. One could always throw in a cheap non-sealed SL2 and 24 mm pancake for context shots.
But how practical is it to drag along and deploy two or three cameras in a shared safari truck? Everyone else is carrying 2 cameras with big lenses and using monopods, etc. 

I am still seeing America first. Never been to Africa.


----------



## Tom Raymond (Aug 10, 2018)

Most group excursions will seat 5-7 people in a Rover, unless you go the expense of a private drive. The guide and driver, (plus tracker) will do the best they can to accommodate all, but not everyone will get the best angle. Also back of the Rover is often higher than the front, but the ride can be really harsh. 
Again I strongly recommend NOT changes lenses in the field. Concentrate on one body with long glass, plus something short & wide for landscapes.


----------



## Daner (Aug 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> If you want something to work under those lighting conditions you will be looking at f2.8 at ISO 3000 (ish). The 7D2 should be usable provided you do not need to crop heavily or recover shadows too much - the only issue is the price of the lens so no, there is not much can be done! There is the 85mm f1.8 or the 200mm f2.8 at more affordable (I know, 'affordable' in these terms is relative!) end.



The 85mm f1.8 is what I used for the shot above, and I added the 200mm f2.8 to my collection earlier this summer. Got them both used, so about half the price of new. I've also got the 17-55 f2.8, but it only gets brought to low-light occasions now that I have the 18-135.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 11, 2018)

Thanks for the article - it happens to be relevant to me and making choices of what to bring is not easy. Flight baggage restrictions is a limiting factor for most visitors.
I'll know more after my trip to Kenya. I was in Tanzania close to 20 years ago and animals were very close. It wouldn't have been conceivable to have had a big white then.


----------



## gsw1 (Aug 11, 2018)

Daner said:


> The 85mm f1.8 is what I used for the shot above, and I added the 200mm f2.8 to my collection earlier this summer. Got them both used, so about half the price of new. I've also got the 17-55 f2.8, but it only gets brought to low-light occasions now that I have the 18-135.


----------



## gsw1 (Aug 11, 2018)

I recently just came back from Botswana. I brought a 5D3 and a 1D2 as bodies. Three lens: 200-400, 100-400, and a wide angle 16-35. This combo worked great. This was my first trip to Botswana and this selection of lens/bodies worked out well. I use the 100-400 as a quick go to lens but the 200-400 was great. Usually had plenty of time to use the 200-400. Went with a company on a photography trip, more $$, but I had a seat all to myself with plenty of room for my stuff. This is what I would take again.


----------



## jhpeterson (Aug 11, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> . The chance of a big white lens failing to the point of being unusable (it'll still work without AF or IS) is too remote to be worried about.


There's much to be said for that. I used a non-IS 300/2.8 in all kinds of conditions until it finally wore out from old age.
The same is true for 1D-series bodies. For me, there's too much risk when traveling in settling for anything less.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 11, 2018)

Danglin52 said:


> Are you a CPS member and have you sent in your lens and body for evaluation? I know of enough stellar copies that I trust the lens. My copy has fast, accuate , AF with sharp images.


I'm not a CPS member, but I agree that sending my lens and body in would help the problem. I _can _achieve tack sharp photos with it at any distance except very close, and at mid-distances it is OK but the keeper and hit rate is considerably lower than with my old 300mm f2.8 II. I think Alan F must be right regarding the bad copy, which in itself is enough reason for me to doubt the 100-400 ii.


----------



## jalbfb (Aug 11, 2018)

Happy "hunting!"


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 11, 2018)

and_42m said:


> Hi
> 
> I did 3 safaris and enjoyed your write up can i see your work please
> 
> ...


Andrew, I uploaded some Africa photos to www.anglinphotos.com for you to see. Select Africa from the gallery list. I will be putting more up at the end of next week. I decided I have the site and might as well use it to share. These are from the 2017 trip. David


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 11, 2018)

krisbell said:


> I'm not a CPS member, but I agree that sending my lens and body in would help the problem. I _can _achieve tack sharp photos with it at any distance except very close, and at mid-distances it is OK but the keeper and hit rate is considerably lower than with my old 300mm f2.8 II. I think Alan F must be right regarding the bad copy, which in itself is enough reason for me to doubt the 100-400 ii.[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Have you checked the focus limiter switch on the lens? I normally set mine to focus on things that are a little farther out and occasionally forget to change the setting to allow focus on a close object.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 11, 2018)

haha I wish it was a simple fix like that and I have fallen victim to that on occasion (as well as leaving the lens cap on!) but nope, it focuses and takes a picture at close range but the focus is almost always a miss. Almost always missing behind despite full correction on the AFMA.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 12, 2018)

Worth a shot because I have done it myself. I wouldn’t give up on the lens until I had sent both body and lens in for evaluation. If you have enough gear for Gold CPS, you might find it cost effective to join for a year. A friend of mine was sending in his gear for a clean & check, it was cheaper to join CPS & get their free CMS checks under the program. This is assuming you are in the US. I find the 100- 400 II a very usable lens when I can’t go with one of the big white lenses. I have been tempted by the Tamron & Sigma mega zooms but hear too much I don’t like about the long end. I borrowed the 400 DO II for an air show and was surprised at the high quality images with a 1.4x TC III. I really like CRG’s 400 2.8 II approach if you don’t want to go zoom. I would probably go that route if not for the 8.5+lb - the reason for my interest in the DO. Only problem is f8 with an extender. The original 600mm was about the same weight as the 400 2.8 II and it was a handful to deal with for a full day of shooting when I was only 50. Too bad we can’t get all of this great glass in a package that weighs 3-4lbs!


----------



## canon1dxman (Aug 12, 2018)

Daner said:


> Any advice for those of us who have neither the budget nor the luggage allocation to bring such a range of kit, but who are interested in getting decent images anyway? I've got a 7D MkII. If I could only bring 2 lenses they would probably be my EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and a 100-400mm F4.5-5.6L IS II, with the Extender EF 1.4x III to provide a bit more range.
> 
> Of course, as I write this I immediately think that I'll need something faster as well. This shot at dusk required f/1.8 at 1/125 at ISO 640. She was only 3 meters away - too close and dark for a long, slow lens to do justice.
> View attachment 179619



I have been on many African safaris over the last 15 or so years. Took the 7D2 just after it came out and was really impressed but for low light, a full frame body comes into it's own. This was earlier this year in the Kruger. 32,000 ISO with a 5DIV and Tamron 150-600 G2


----------



## Daner (Aug 12, 2018)

canon1dxman said:


> I have been on many African safaris over the last 15 or so years. Took the 7D2 just after it came out and was really impressed but for low light, a full frame body comes into it's own. This was earlier this year in the Kruger. 32,000 ISO with a 5DIV and Tamron 150-600 G2



With more generous resources and luggage restrictions I would be happy to bring a couple of full frame bodies with an appropriate range of awesome glass. My current situation involves tetrising the best of my current equipment along with ALL of the rest of my luggage into a standard carry-on allowance for maximum mobility. My most recent mix includes the 200mm f2.8 L II, 17-55 f2.8, and 10-18 each in their own Think Tank lens pouch inside a 5.11 Tactical All Hazards Prime 29L backpack along with my MacBook Pro and all of the necessary cords and converters. My 7DMkII with the new EF-S 18-135mm are in separate LowePro toploader. The range of the 18-135 makes it easy to be ready for anything that might pop up during mid-day light, and the others go on as needed.

I don't like changing out lenses in the field, and I never do it while moving, but I've found that I can minimize dust trouble by threading my hands backwards through the sleeves of a rain jacket and zipping the body and both lenses inside the jacket to make the changes. (My idea to try this method was inspired by ancient memories of spooling and loading film into a 1938 Univex Mercury inside a darkbag.)

Of course, I've always got an iPhone at hand as well. Nothing like as good as a Leica Q as an extra camera, but it makes spontaneous panoramas fun and easy.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 12, 2018)

I was fortunate on both of my previous trips in not having a luggage restriction for the first trip(charter group) and bought an extra seat for a group of 4 on the second trip. I have the advantage my wife is not a photographer and will share her baggage allowance. Here is something I am toying with for future trips to reduce weight:

1dx II & M5 + EF adaptor (really want a 7d II upgrade)
400mm f4 DO IS II, 100-400 II, EF-M 18-150
1.4cxTC III & 2x TC III
Wireless WD passport SSD for backup and iPad Pro instead of a MacBook pro
10X30 compact binoculars 
Lightest bag that fits this gear 
I already own the M5 but would need to sell my 200-400/buy or rent the 400 DO. I could substitute 70-200 f4 II or 70-300 for the 100-400 II. There are always trade offs. The M5 would give me a lightweight EF compatible backup And wide angle solution. My focus is wildlife.


----------



## Tangent (Aug 12, 2018)

You mention the Leica Ultravid 8×42 binoculars -- Have you had a chance to try out the Canon 14x32's?


----------



## docsmith (Aug 12, 2018)

Danglin52 said:


> I was fortunate on both of my previous trips in not having a luggage restriction for the first trip(charter group) and bought an extra seat for a group of 4 on the second trip. I have the advantage my wife is not a photographer and will share her baggage allowance. Here is something I am toying with for future trips to reduce weight:
> 
> 1dx II & M5 + EF adaptor (really want a 7d II upgrade)
> 400mm f4 DO IS II, 100-400 II, EF-M 18-150
> ...



I know the 400 f/4 DO II is much revered. I have rented it and used it for ~1,000 shots. It is a great lens. But, as long as you have a body that can AF with f/8, such as your 1DX II, I would carefully compared the 100-400 II that you already own to the 400 DO II. In terms of aperture, it is 1 stop. However, if you believe DXO's measurement of T-Stop, the actual amount of light let in is different, 2/3 of a stop.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Comp...I-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1425_1009_1469_1009

DXO measured the t-stop of the 100-400 II to be T/6.3 @ 400 mm and a T/5 for the 400 DO II.

I own the 100-400 II and often shoot it with a 1.4xTC. The AF on my 5DIV is very great. 

I am not trying to disparage the 400 DO II, it is a great lens. But if I was pressed for size/weight, and if I were to factor in the cost, I would likely take the 100-400 II. The 400 DO II is giving you 1 stop better bokeh, but only 2/3 stop more light.


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 12, 2018)

Thanks for the comment, you bring up some good points. I borrowed the 400 DO II from CPS for an air show and felt the 400 DO II + 1.4x TC III produced sharper images than the 100-400 II bare. Both lenses were calibrated to my 1dx II with / without TC’s. I am going to go back through the air show photos and compare shutter speeds, aperture, etc to make sure settings are comparable since it was not a structured test.

I will definitely rent or borrow the lens again before I make any decisions. My preference is the flexibility of zooms if I can get the reach, weight and image quality I want.


----------



## and_42m (Aug 13, 2018)

Danglin52 said:


> Andrew, I uploaded some Africa photos to www.anglinphotos.com for you to see. Select Africa from the gallery list. I will be putting more up at the end of next week. I decided I have the site and might as well use it to share. These are from the 2017 trip. David


Thanks for the link beautiful work, well done


----------



## AlanF (Aug 13, 2018)

Danglin52 said:


> Thanks for the comment, you bring up some good points. I borrowed the 400 DO II from CPS for an air show and felt the 400 DO II + 1.4x TC III produced sharper images than the 100-400 II bare. Both lenses were calibrated to my 1dx II with / without TC’s. I am going to go back through the air show photos and compare shutter speeds, aperture, etc to make sure settings are comparable since it was not a structured test.
> 
> I will definitely rent or borrow the lens again before I make any decisions. My preference is the flexibility of zooms if I can get the reach, weight and image quality I want.



As regulars to the Bird Portraits and BIF threads know, I am very enthusiastic about both the 400mm DO II and 100-400mm II. Yesterday, I posted some sharp images from the 5DSR + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC in both threads. The 400mm DO II + 1.4xTCIII is even sharper, and is as sharp as the 100-400mm II at 400mm as found by my experience and the MTFs posted for both on Lenstip. The 400mm DO is tack sharp from edge to edge on FF. My latest copy of the 100-400mm II is very good as well, but an earlier copy was definitely softer. The 400mm DO II really comes into its own with a 2xTC when it is still very sharp at 800mm. If you are going up only to 560mm, then my preference is definitely for the 100-400mm II because the minor sacrifice in IQ is more than compensated for by its flexibility and light weight. But, if you need to squeeze out a useable image from very small birds at medium distances or larger ones far off, then the 400mm DO II + 2xTC is the choice.


----------



## canon1dxman (Aug 13, 2018)

Daner said:


> Of course, I've always got an iPhone at hand as well. Nothing like as good as a Leica Q as an extra camera, but it makes spontaneous panoramas fun and easy.
> 
> View attachment 179647



Yep, the new iPhone X proved useful. Only got it a few days before the trip but this was a panorama from high up viewpoint not far from Lower Sabie. Who viewed large, it gives an idea of the vastness of the Kruger.



 https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## Danglin52 (Aug 13, 2018)

AlanF said:


> As regulars to the Bird Portraits and BIF threads know, I am very enthusiastic about both the 400mm DO II and 100-400mm II. Yesterday, I posted some sharp images from the 5DSR + 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC in both threads. The 400mm DO II + 1.4xTCIII is even sharper, and is as sharp as the 100-400mm II at 400mm as found by my experience and the MTFs posted for both on Lenstip. The 400mm DO is tack sharp from edge to edge on FF. My latest copy of the 100-400mm II is very good as well, but an earlier copy was definitely softer. The 400mm DO II really comes into its own with a 2xTC when it is still very sharp at 800mm. If you are going up only to 560mm, then my preference is definitely for the 100-400mm II because the minor sacrifice in IQ is more than compensated for by its flexibility and light weight. But, if you need to squeeze out a useable image from very small birds at medium distances or larger ones far off, then the 400mm DO II + 2xTC is the choice.



Thanks for the comment, very helpful. I notice in your signature you have the Sigma 150-600. I was tempted by this lens (C version, lighter) but the reviews have always made me walk away. Since you have lenses I would consider alternatives, how do you feel about the 150-600?


----------



## AlanF (Aug 13, 2018)

Danglin52 said:


> Thanks for the comment, very helpful. I notice in your signature you have the Sigma 150-600. I was tempted by this lens (C version, lighter) but the reviews have always made me walk away. Since you have lenses I would consider alternatives, how do you feel about the 150-600?



My copy of the Sigma 150-600mm C is very good. In the centre at 400mm it is even better than my 100-400mm II's. At 600mm it is also good - much better than you see on review sites - very similar to the 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC. The AF and IS are not quite as good as the Canon. You must test a copy before buying because of copy variation. I like having 100mm at the wide end.


----------



## canonbeber (Aug 15, 2018)

After 2 years in Kenya, and some time spent on game drives, I can give you my feed back.
I was using 
2 camera bodies :1DX and 1DXII, 
1 big lens 500mm IS II replaced by a 200-400mm (*1.4), perfect for game drive to adapt the zoom
1 zoom 70-200mm 2.8 IS II

In the bag 
300mm 2.8 L IS
24mm 1.4

For some occasion (50 1.2, 85 1.2)


----------

