# Safari 300 2.8 Mkii or 200-400 1.4x



## FEBS (Jul 17, 2014)

This year in October, I will visit the first time South-Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and the Victoria Falls. We will do several safari trips during that period. I did already read a lot of gear to use for capturing wildlife. However I stay with the problem of the big white lens I want to take with me on the 1Dx. The 70-200 2.8 mkii will be placed on my 5Diii. Also the 17-40 and probably the 24 1.4ii will go along. 

I own a 300 2.8 Mkii, however I see that the 200-400 1.4 is a very versatile lens. Point is of cause the 4.0 max. aperture of the 200-400 against the 2.8 of the 300. On 400mm and 600mm reach they perform almost the same (400/4.0 or 420/4.0 and 560 5.6 or 600 5.6). The extra reach for the 300mm asks for using a 1.4 or 2.0 extender, but changing that is not that quick and I don't like to change a lot because of the dust. For that reason I think about buying/renting the 200-400 1.4 for that trip. Do I need the 2.8 for capturing early or late pictures together with the 1Dx? Or would you use the 200-400 1.4 on the 1Dx for the versatility of this zoom-lens.

What would you do 300 or 200-400 1.4 ? I can't take both because of the weight limit on the airplane. 

Any other thoughts or remarks for the gear for this trip are also welcome.


----------



## geonix (Jul 17, 2014)

Hello

I have visited Southern Africa a few times now and would take the 200-400 over the 300mm prime. Depending on what your focus is of course but when you like to take pictures not only of the big animals but also birds the 200-400 with its integrated 1.4 extender would give you a lot more opportunities. I was in Namibia with a 300mm and it was way too short at a few occasions. 
With a ff body I also don't see the need for very fast aparature lenses, even for early morning shots an f4 lens on a ff body should be good.


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 17, 2014)

I've done quite a lot of travel in my life - from Australia (where I was born) to Europe (where I lived for about 11 years) to Asia (visited a number of times). So while I haven't been to Africa (or your particular safari) I have used various camera / lens configurations during my overseas trips / holidays.

My advice would be to go with the zoom. Much more flexible for composing shots of various animals (small to large size, near or far). And generally in Africa, for a 'safari setting' f/4 to f/5.6 works fine.

So for such a holiday I'd go for the 200-400mm 1.4x f/4 L zoom over the 300mm f/2.8 L prime any day. And as you said, you don't want to be changing separate 1.4x and/or 2x TCs all the time.

Be careful with your gear (Any photographic gear will potentially attract attention - including possibly from some people who might think to 'relieve you of it'. So... will it be insured? Will you be with someone else? What are you plans for storage? etc) I generally find having 1 body and a flexible (eg zoom, and IS) lens is better than 2 bodies on 'holiday' situations. Especially when you have a big lens... just don't weigh yourself down too much.

Hope you enjoy yourself. Best wishes. And I look forward to see some photos of your safari after you've returned!

Paul


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2014)

If I had the 300 2.8 IS II and a 1.4XIII I would put the 1.4 permanently for the safari. It would be an excellent 420 4L IS. This and the 70-200 would be enough. Plus the 300 2.8 + 1.4 combination would be lighter than the 200-400. Just my opinion. However, keep in mind that I did not and I will not have experience with a safari so take all this with a grain of salt.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 17, 2014)

I know we need our cameras asap... So we wouldn't want to unlock it each time we turn it on like a phone... but what about daily locks? In the morning we have to enter a code to unlock the camera functions.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 17, 2014)

FEBS said:


> This year in October, I will visit the first time South-Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and the Victoria Falls. We will do several safari trips during that period. I did already read a lot of gear to use for capturing wildlife. However I stay with the problem of the big white lens I want to take with me on the 1Dx. The 70-200 2.8 mkii will be placed on my 5Diii. Also the 17-40 and probably the 24 1.4ii will go along.
> 
> I own a 300 2.8 Mkii, however I see that the 200-400 1.4 is a very versatile lens. Point is of cause the 4.0 max. aperture of the 200-400 against the 2.8 of the 300. On 400mm and 600mm reach they perform almost the same (400/4.0 or 420/4.0 and 560 5.6 or 600 5.6). The extra reach for the 300mm asks for using a 1.4 or 2.0 extender, but changing that is not that quick and I don't like to change a lot because of the dust. For that reason I think about buying/renting the 200-400 1.4 for that trip. Do I need the 2.8 for capturing early or late pictures together with the 1Dx? Or would you use the 200-400 1.4 on the 1Dx for the versatility of this zoom-lens.
> 
> ...




You have ruled out the 400/4 DO IS. Just wondering why - given the low weight advantage of this little prime.


----------



## Kerry B (Jul 17, 2014)

Whilst not South Africa I did go on a specialist photographers safari to the Masai Mara last September and going again this September. I had the same dilemma as you, in the end went with the 300f2.8mk11 on the 5dmk111. What a combination for early morning shots and late evenings f2.8 was the norm. Got some stunning Leopard/Cheetah shots at ISO 5000 with shutter speeds below 1/20 second. Those photographers who had the 200-400 and 500f4 were not able to get the shots required.

Of course these big lenses came into their own when photographing in better light. When this happened I added either the 1.4 or 2x extenders, both mk111 and they were just brilliant.

For me the 300f2.8 is the most versatile lens around. Do you really need to spend £10k for a lens that you have principally got covered. The other factor is weight the 200-400 is a hefty beast and takes some handholding whereas the 300f2.8mk11 is comparatively light. 

I did take two bodies with me namely the 7d which was only used very occasionally. I also took a 70-200f2.8mk11 lens which was used for closer subjects. I had no problem with dust and was able to change lenses without any issues.

Hope this helps and have a great time.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 17, 2014)

Weight would be a concern, 300mm MKII 2350g vs 200-400mm 3620g

Add the 860g 5DMKIII and the 1530g 1DX... then the rest of your lenses... 

70-200mm 1490g etc etc

Have you thought how you will carry all the gear/mount it on safari?

I would be taking a 300 F4 or 400 5.6 or the 70-300mm or 100-400mm for good balance between IQ and weight.

But its a hard choice between the 300mm and the 200-400mm. If it were me and I could take all the weight I would take the 200-400mm but 5000g in one camera combo is going to be hard work to transport. But the 300 with tele converts is a good combo.

400 DO removes itself because its IQ is no better than a 100-400mm and is £3000 more.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 17, 2014)

I'm my mind's eye I am envisioning a Jurassic park style vehicle, but without a roof. A monopod and then getting off the vehicle only ever so often. It's there going to be much walking out hiking on the safari. 



tomscott said:


> Weight would be a concern, 300mm MKII 2350g vs 200-400mm 3620g
> 
> Add the 860g 5DMKIII and the 1530g 1DX... then the rest of your lenses...
> 
> ...


----------



## Vossie (Jul 17, 2014)

400mm on full frame is a generally bit short for safari, so I would recommend the 200-400 1.4x over the 300 + 1.4x combo. 

A cheaper alternative to buying the 200-400 would be to use the 300 + 2x on 1 body and the 70-200 (with 1.4) on your 2nd body. With the 2 2.8 lenses and both extenders you have
- 70-200 2.8 / 98-280 4.0 / 140-400 5.6
- 300 2.8 / 420 4.0 / 600 5.6

Overall reach is the same.

I would not say this is more or less flexibility, but it certainly is different flexibility over the 200-400.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 17, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm my mind's eye I am envisioning a Jurassic park style vehicle, but without a roof. A monopod and then getting off the vehicle only ever so often. It's there going to be much walking out hiking on the safari.



You still have to get it to the safari too… flights etc a lot of weight to carry then luggage on top.

Depends where you are in terms of reach if you are in north Africa 400mm may not be enough but in southern Africa it will be spot on.

The 300mm is the sweet spot for size and weight in the big white category and performs very well is the 1.4 and 2x TC. The 500mm is the safari favourite, the 200-400mm would be the best of both worlds, but like I said carrying and transporting it will be a pain and may make you miss some shots too...


----------



## FEBS (Jul 17, 2014)

Plainsman said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > This year in October, I will visit the first time South-Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and the Victoria Falls. We will do several safari trips during that period. I did already read a lot of gear to use for capturing wildlife. However I stay with the problem of the big white lens I want to take with me on the 1Dx. The 70-200 2.8 mkii will be placed on my 5Diii. Also the 17-40 and probably the 24 1.4ii will go along.
> ...



Because I have the 300 2.8 ii and the 1.4 extender will give me 420 4.0. I don't have the 400 DO, which I would need to rent in that case. So this is no choice for me.

The weight is not my biggest concern, only the total weight for handlugage in the airplane (12kg) as we will be driving around with vehicles without top roof during safari.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 17, 2014)

I think the 200-400 1.4x is a no brainer given the dust and the fact that you'll be in a vehicle without full control of the distance, but I'd take the 300 & TCs as a back up and for low light and closer work where you want shallower DOF.


----------



## ditty (Jul 17, 2014)

I have done a very similar safari - South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Victoria Falls. Without knowing the specifics of your itinerary, a lot of Kruger is boutique safari where the vehicle will get up very close to the animals and you won't need more than 300mm to get great shots and in a lot of instances you'll be grabbing for your 70-200 as the range can be inside of 10ft and having a zoom is almost a necessity. Birding is a different story. There are many fantastic birds throughout all of those locations and the more reach the better. For Chobe and Botswana, its wide open and you need quite a bit of reach. You'll want an extender on your 300mm pretty much all of the time if that is your longest lens. I don't recommend swapping lenses or extenders in the jeeps, it can get pretty dusty. I really think you will be more than happy with the 70-200 and probably a 1.4 on your 300. The 200-400 1.4 certainly gives you a lot more flexibility, but it is an added expense. If money is no object or you were starting from scratch, I'd say the 70-200 and 200-400 1.4x is a perfect combo. I really wouldn't worry about 2.8 on your long lens - by the time you're positioned on wildlife in the morning there will be plenty of light. You'll probably do 1 maybe 2 dusk safaris in Kruger where you'll want 2.8, but you'll have your 70-200. The flexibility of reach having the 200-400 1.4x far outweighs it being 4.0 if you decide to go in that direction. Weight of gear isn't an issue. You might do 1 or 2 walking safaris, but the animals freak out at human footsteps and get very skittish (whereas they aren't bothered by motor vehicles) it will likely be more of a vegetation nature walk. The rest of the time you'll be in the jeep and can have one camera in hand and one resting beside you. You might want a stabilization sack or a monopod for your white lens. 

Bugspray, full brim hat, sunglasses, lightweight neutral colored clothes, hiking shoes.

You'll be happy to have the 24mm for sunrise/sunset/stars. 17-40 will be good for around camp and at the falls

Sounds like a trip of a lifetime. have a great time, and you'll be happy and have plenty of photographic opportunity no matter what decision you make on gear.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jul 17, 2014)

We were in SA on safari, together with my wife. we had a 300f2.8ISi and 70-200f4IS and a 2xiii Extender on 5dii and 50d

in "good light mode" we had the 300mm on the 50d normally with extender, in the evening, we removed first the extender, next changed the 300mm on the 5dii and maybe the 50d to a fast 50mm.

this, because:

- a crop camera is the better extender than a real extender
- the big whites are so bitingly sharp, that their resolution is enough for the spaller pixels on the crop sensor
- with 2 cams one gets different perspectives at the same time.

For the (in my opinion) way overpriced 200-400 you can probably take a 2nd person on the trip, who does the 2nd perspective (and helps to carry all the stuff). 

If money doesnt matter, and if y can carry the weight of the 200-400, i would take a 400f2.8 instead, with the same strategy, and would use a 1 crop and one FF camera instead of 2FF


----------



## Lnguyen1203 (Jul 17, 2014)

I have done 2 safaris, first time in Tanzania and Keynia, second time Botswana. I had the 500f4 II on my 1DX and the 70-200f2.8 II on my 5D3. I find that the1.4x works well with both combo, but for fast actions at close range, taking off the 1.4x improves focusing a lot. I found myself constantly taking the 1.4X on and off one camera after another. I didn't take any shots at f2.8.

So to name the long story short, I think there is way too much overlap between the 70-200 and the 300. If you can afford it, the 200-400 is the way to go for mammals. If you are interested in birds, perhaps the 500f4 or 600f4 would be a better choice. Most of the time you will be on a safari vehicle, so a good beanbag will save you. Weight is only an issue to get there and in transit. Usually there is weight restrictions, but unless you abuse the rules, you should have no problems with say 10 lbs over.

Good luck.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 17, 2014)

hendrik-sg said:


> We were in SA on safari, together with my wife. we had a 300f2.8ISi and 70-200f4IS and a 2xiii Extender on 5dii and 50d
> 
> in "good light mode" we had the 300mm on the 50d normally with extender, in the evening, we removed first the extender, next changed the 300mm on the 5dii and maybe the 50d to a fast 50mm.
> 
> ...



+1 for much of this. For animals, I found the 7D with 70-200 more than adequate, but too short for birds. What I would do next time is take the 70D with the 300 f/2.8II + extenders and, in my case, the Tamron 150-600 on the 5DIII (or 1DX if I had one) to be ready for all events. You really do need a zoom. The Tamron is more than adequate for animals during the day time. At dawn and dusk I would put the 300mm on the 5DIII.


----------



## DED (Jul 17, 2014)

I did a Kenya-Tanzania safari last year and experienced the same dilemma. For the trip I settled on a rented 200-400 and my 70-200 an a 24-105 and two 5D3's. With the dusty conditions in a safari vehicle I found the 200-400 the most valuable tool in the box. With weight on the aircraft being a issue I carried my lens in a backpack and the bodies and other equipment in a photo vest I wore. It worked for me and I would carry the same kit again.


----------



## dolina (Jul 17, 2014)

The most popular lens that is $3000 or more is the 300. Followed by the 200-400.

During the World Cup it appears that half of the lenses brought by canon as loaners was the 200-400.


----------



## ykn123 (Jul 17, 2014)

Well i think you are well equipped in terms of DSLR plus the 300 2.8II. 

For maximum reach have you ever thought to bring a sx50 or then sx60 just as a second / third camera ? 
It is leightweighted and handy. You get a 2000mm lens plus image stabilization for very very little money. I just recently had a friend who was completely satisfied with the images he made with the SX50 in Africa compared to another friend with a Nikon and a 300 f2.8. He got tacksharp images and had them (the big fives) much more filling the frame than our Nikon friend.

Don't get me wrong - not talking about an SX50 or 60 could/should replace the other combo - but it will give you far more reach than any of the other options you described.


----------



## chrishpetersen (Jul 17, 2014)

I've been on 7 African safaris and the #1 challenge is DUST! Dust is everywhere and very fine. Anytime you open your camera, it finds it's way to your sensors.

Unless you specifically book a "walking safari", you will be riding in open air "bokkies" (jeeps or SUVs) most of the time. Since they don't have a roof so you can shoot photos from the vehicle, dust is everywhere including inside the vehicle. The last thing you want to do is be changing lenses or converters in order to get the right lens combo. In Africa on game drives in vehicles, ZOOMS are your best friend and will give you your best photos.

Great idea to have two camera bodies. And the 70-200 is the perfect zoom for big stuff like giraffes, elephants, etc. 70-200 also gives you the low light capabilities in early morning and evening.

African animals range in size from a house cat (or smaller) to giraffes over 18 feet tall. The challenge with game drives from vehicles is that you can't "zoom with your feet". You need flexibility on focal ranges. Even with herds of elephants you often can't get that close to them at water holes. I have shot many elephants using 400mm and that wasn't long enough.

My long lens is the Canon 500mm f4. F4 is sufficient with most like if you have the 5D III or a 1D, and provides great bokeh. The challenge is that the 500mm is often too long for animals that are close or when taking shots of animals in herds. The 200-400 would be the perfect lens if money is not an obstacle.

If money were no object, the perfect Safari lens setup would be 24-70, 70-200, 200-400.


----------



## applecider (Jul 17, 2014)

The 28-300L never gets any love in these situations. Should it? If not why not. Seems like it would at least cover all the bases except beyond 300.


----------



## LOLID (Jul 17, 2014)

I went to Kruger Dec. 2012. I did not have (still don't) the money to get a 300 2.8 or 200-400. So lucky you on this.
I took the 70-300 L and put it on my 5D3.

My experience:
- 50% of shots @ 70-200 mm
- 30% of shots @ 200-300 mm
- 20% of missed shots + 300mm (I would guess 10% 300 - 500 mm ; 10% +500mm)

This is just my own experience based on my personal way to take photos (don't care much about birds for example).
Anyway you are facing a dilemma that a lot of us would like to confront: 2 combos on 2 bodies and I would stress that you cannot go wrong either way:
- 70-300 L + 300 2.8 with x1.4 and x2 (changing lenses - or in this case the extenders - is not such a huge deal, just have someone helping you and go fast! Plus I bet you will want to put the x2 only if very few situation - 10% or less)
- 70-200 2.8 + 200-400

From what I read the 300 2.8 offers the best image quality over the canon glass range even with the x1.4 (I might be wrong though), so my preference would be the first combo.

Hope this helps a bit.
O.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 17, 2014)

Just go to a zoo. ;-)


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I think the 200-400 1.4x is a no brainer given the dust and the fact that you'll be in a vehicle without full control of the distance, but I'd take the 300 & TCs as a back up and for low light and closer work where you want shallower DOF.



Hi Ian,

When i didn't need An airplane for the trip, I would also take both. However, because of the weight limitations, I have to make choices, and as I also need Other Lenses like 70-200, 17-40,.. I can take only one big white unfortunaly.

francois


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

ditty said:


> I have done a very similar safari - South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Victoria Falls. Without knowing the specifics of your itinerary, a lot of Kruger is boutique safari where the vehicle will get up very close to the animals and you won't need more than 300mm to get great shots and in a lot of instances you'll be grabbing for your 70-200 as the range can be inside of 10ft and having a zoom is almost a necessity. Birding is a different story. There are many fantastic birds throughout all of those locations and the more reach the better. For Chobe and Botswana, its wide open and you need quite a bit of reach. You'll want an extender on your 300mm pretty much all of the time if that is your longest lens. I don't recommend swapping lenses or extenders in the jeeps, it can get pretty dusty. I really think you will be more than happy with the 70-200 and probably a 1.4 on your 300. The 200-400 1.4 certainly gives you a lot more flexibility, but it is an added expense. If money is no object or you were starting from scratch, I'd say the 70-200 and 200-400 1.4x is a perfect combo. I really wouldn't worry about 2.8 on your long lens - by the time you're positioned on wildlife in the morning there will be plenty of light. You'll probably do 1 maybe 2 dusk safaris in Kruger where you'll want 2.8, but you'll have your 70-200. The flexibility of reach having the 200-400 1.4x far outweighs it being 4.0 if you decide to go in that direction. Weight of gear isn't an issue. You might do 1 or 2 walking safaris, but the animals freak out at human footsteps and get very skittish (whereas they aren't bothered by motor vehicles) it will likely be more of a vegetation nature walk. The rest of the time you'll be in the jeep and can have one camera in hand and one resting beside you. You might want a stabilization sack or a monopod for your white lens.
> 
> Bugspray, full brim hat, sunglasses, lightweight neutral colored clothes, hiking shoes.
> 
> ...



Hi,
Thank you for This detailed answer concerning gear but also the other points you mentioned. 

Welcome on CR

Francois


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

tomscott said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'm my mind's eye I am envisioning a Jurassic park style vehicle, but without a roof. A monopod and then getting off the vehicle only ever so often. It's there going to be much walking out hiking on the safari.
> ...



Hi tom,
I know that a lot of people do use a 500mm on safari. But the weight difference between the 500 and the 200-400 is not that big anymore (420g). I see more use in a 200-400 afterwards then in a 500, that's what driving me to the 200-400. Also the spread of the weight of the zoom is very good, as weight is in the front element but also in the zoom element at the other side. Several big whites are front heavy and that requires more arm power.
Carrying weight is no problem for me, I'm used to carry 15kg in a backpack and that together with 2 bodies on a harness. Only real limitation there is max limit of airplane.

Francois


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 18, 2014)

Never been to a safari (yet, I hope I still have time  ), but it seems if you absolutely need to spend on something, you might better spend it on a second Pro body.
I love my 5DIII, but I would not want to take it into super dusty areas nor would I rely completely on it for wildlife and quick shooting.


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

AlanF said:


> hendrik-sg said:
> 
> 
> > We were in SA on safari, together with my wife. we had a 300f2.8ISi and 70-200f4IS and a 2xiii Extender on 5dii and 50d
> ...



Hi Alan,
I have seen many posts of you concerning the tamron 150-600. I really do believe that this lens is really great, for sure compared to its price. I won't get 10 times better photos with the 200-400 compared to the tamron, however the price difference is that big. On the other side, I see my lenses as an investment. A 200-400, will give me the same value as today within 5 years. The only thing I lose is the interest, but as you know, that's very marginal nowadays.
I will not take my 7d with me on the trip. As you know, the AF of the 7d is good, but is overruled a lot by the 5diii or the 1dx. I know the 70d seems to be a bit better on that, but I like to have a heavier body as I find that easier to keep the combo steady.

Francois


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

dolina said:


> The most popular lens that is $3000 or more is the 300. Followed by the 200-400.
> 
> During the World Cup it appears that half of the lenses brought by canon as loaners was the 200-400.



Hi dolina,

That's great info. So there is a real game changing going on. Football was mostly the 400 2.8 in the past combined with a shorter lens like 70-200. Don't want to say that you wouldn't need that 70-200 anymore, but the fixed 400 is now changed into a flexible zoom. I'm aware that during the World Cup, the lighting was very well compared to smaller events, but anyhow the 200-400 seems to win a big piece of the cake of the big whites.

Francois


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Just go to a zoo. ;-)



I know and I will within a few days. But you do know also that the photos will be total different


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Never been to a safari (yet, I hope I still have time  ), but it seems if you absolutely need to spend on something, you might better spend it on a second Pro body.
> I love my 5DIII, but I would not want to take it into super dusty areas nor would I rely completely on it for wildlife and quick shooting.



Hello,

I think you did forget some info from the start of this post. I have several bodies (see signature below) and I will take the 5diii and the 1dx with me on this trip


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

Hello,

Thank you all for your responses and for sure for the people that did visit Africa already.

I think I will look around for a 200-400 1.4 here in Belgium. I have already seen prices below the 10400€ and that's at least 1000€ less then a few weeks ago. I don't know if the new 100-400 (for which I am sure it is coming, so heard from a local dealer) will influence the price of the 200-400. So I will wait till the beginning of September to see if photokina has some price influence. Then I will pull the trigger and I still have 2 weeks to practice before flying off.

Once again, thank you all

Francois


----------



## aardvark (Jul 18, 2014)

I see you are planning South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Part of the decision depends where you are going in those countries, however.

Zimbabwe, if you are going to somewhere like Hwange then you'll be seeing huge herds of Ele's (at some water holes 200+). You will want a range of lenses for this (wide shots and close shots). Also birds of course and with a bit of luck Lions etc.

Botswana again - if your going to Chobe you'll have river front areas with Ele's drinking and other animals but also a variety of birds etc.

Vic Falls - more about the wide angle shots mainly.

The bottom line is there isn't any really correct lens! If you have two bodies with one in the range 50 to 200 ish and another 400 or 500 then that's a good start. A lot of the more "special" animals tend to be fleeting shots and either early morning or latish afternoon meaning fast lens and/or high ISO

We typically run with a Sony with 50 to 250 mm lens (historical reasons and better at video than canon in my view) and two Canon's (70 to 200 and 400).

My main concern about some of the real big lenses (such as the 200 - 400) is more about getting the fleeting shots. Probably less of an issue if you know there are just a few in your truck/jeep. But if they are packing them out with 3 across then you are going to have issues.

Not sure if you know what vehicles your having, but if they are open and have accessible bars. always worth taking a Manfrotto superclamp with your favourite head on it for those long shots (oh and make sure they turn the engine off!)


----------



## dslrdummy (Jul 18, 2014)

I did a safari to Botswana and Zambia last year and it is an unforgettable experience. I had two bodies and a 70-200ii and 400 f/5.6. I have since bought the 300 f/2.8ii and think it is an amazing lense. I would personally think the 70-200 and 300 + 1.4/2.0 ext combo would work fine but if you have the money to get the 200-400 then go for it. Contrary to what some have said, I found f/2.8 sometimes was the difference between getting the shot and not, particularly where leopard sightings were concerned as it was invariably low light. Even though 300 is short it is such a sharp lense that cropping on either of your bodies won't be a problem.
Enjoy Francois.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 18, 2014)

FEBS said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Never been to a safari (yet, I hope I still have time  ), but it seems if you absolutely need to spend on something, you might better spend it on a second Pro body.
> ...



I didn't forget, I'm afraid you misunderstood what I meant.
I recommended getting a second fully weather sealed pro body with quicker (not necessarily better) AF drive instead of your 5DIII (or 7D).
Those were my 2 cents.


----------



## sanj (Jul 18, 2014)

Is the 200-400 not an obvious choice? I do not understand the question.


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Faster AF then 5diii, so that's for canon only the 7D or the 1Dx. What would you advice me then to take along?


----------



## Niranjan B Venkatesh (Jul 18, 2014)

Living in Botswana, let put across my experience. I used to use the 300 F2.8mk1 with a1.4X TC permanently fitted on my 7D. I was quite happy with the combo and as I was still learning to use my gear I did miss a few shots here and there. Last year during some major upgrades, I sold off the 300Mk1 and replaced it with the 200-400mm . My reasons
1) Versatility of the zoom for composition cannot be beaten !!!
2) I dont have to worry about weights and losing luggage enroute to places. I usually book a private safari and pay through my nose for having certain privileges such as being the only person with the guide on the "Bakkie"/ Open Safari vehicle. 
3) The higher F stop is not too much of a problem for me. 
4) Dust is a B***H, it gets in everywhere. 
5) I usually holiday in private concession which means that we can go off road , where as in the parks you are restricted to the roads and will need a longer lens. 
6) After two holidays with the 200-400, I am very happy and impressed with having it on a 1Dx !

PS: I am thinking of adding a 600mm with a crop body( 7D2?) and 1.4X TC for Birding !


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

sanj said:


> Is the 200-400 not an obvious choice? I do not understand the question.



The 200-400 is indeed obvious for a safari, however this is a 4.0 lens. The 300 is a 2.8 lens. A lot of writers (books but also in this post) tell that you sometimes need the 2.8 instead of a 4.0. That's the reason why, as animals are mostly active during beginning and end of the day, but not that much during the day. That the 200-400 will be a super lens during the day is clear to me, that might be something else during dusk and dawn. But it seems now to me that a 4.0 lens is usable during that period as I do have a 1dx and that body can take at least 1-stop iso extra compared to the 5diii

francois


----------



## FEBS (Jul 18, 2014)

Niranjan B Venkatesh said:


> Living in Botswana, let put across my experience. I used to use the 300 F2.8mk1 with a1.4X TC permanently fitted on my 7D. I was quite happy with the combo and as I was still learning to use my gear I did miss a few shots here and there. Last year during some major upgrades, I sold off the 300Mk1 and replaced it with the 200-400mm . My reasons
> 1) Versatility of the zoom for composition cannot be beaten !!!
> 2) I dont have to worry about weights and losing luggage enroute to places. I usually book a private safari and pay through my nose for having certain privileges such as being the only person with the guide on the "Bakkie"/ Open Safari vehicle.
> 3) The higher F stop is not too much of a problem for me.
> ...



Hi Niranjan,

Nice to hear that you are very satisfied with your 1Dx with 200-400 on top of it. Did you also use a 70-200 for shorter reach?

I'm also waiting for the 7D2. A 7D2 with a AF comparable to 5diii or 1dx and a 300 2.8 on top looks a marvelous combo to me. As I am not that much interested in birding, I don't see my self investing in a 500 or 600 f4.0. Never the less, I can see the need for the birders for the 7D2. So I hope for all of us to see a new 7D2 proposed to the market within a few weeks.

Francois


----------



## Niranjan B Venkatesh (Jul 18, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Hi Niranjan,
> 
> Nice to hear that you are very satisfied with your 1Dx with 200-400 on top of it. Did you also use a 70-200 for shorter reach?
> 
> ...



I do have more bodies with the following lenses, 70-200F2.8II, 24-70F2.8II and either 16-35F2.8ii or the Sigma 180mm Macro 3.5 ( got it brand new for a real cheap price USD 1100) or the 24-105F4.0 or 40mm F2.8 or I borrow my Dad's lenses! For all day carry around I use a Sx50Hs. But like I said I am on a private safari and hence can afford to take the full kit !


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 18, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Faster AF then 5diii, so that's for canon only the 7D or the 1Dx. What would you advice me then to take along?



Having owned both, I don't think 7D's AF is faster than 5DIII's.
I'd suggest renting/buying the 1D IV- it will give you an option of the 1.3x crop when you need it, pro weather sealing, faster AF drive, more shots without switching battery, 10 fps, and probably a bunch of 1D features that we with small hands don't even know about...


----------



## Niranjan B Venkatesh (Jul 19, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> probably a bunch of 1D features that we with small hands don't even know about...



Guaranteed !!!! I always have trouble when trying to set up the 5D2 / 5D3 against the 1Dx, whole different continent in terms of menu ans settings !


----------



## AlanF (Jul 19, 2014)

Niranjan B Venkatesh said:


> Living in Botswana, let put across my experience. I used to use the 300 F2.8mk1 with a1.4X TC permanently fitted on my 7D. I was quite happy with the combo and as I was still learning to use my gear I did miss a few shots here and there. Last year during some major upgrades, I sold off the 300Mk1 and replaced it with the 200-400mm . My reasons
> 1) Versatility of the zoom for composition cannot be beaten !!!
> 2) I dont have to worry about weights and losing luggage enroute to places. I usually book a private safari and pay through my nose for having certain privileges such as being the only person with the guide on the "Bakkie"/ Open Safari vehicle.
> 3) The higher F stop is not too much of a problem for me.
> ...



Does your manservant carry your gear for you?


----------



## kyle86 (Jul 19, 2014)

Im doing the same in January and I will rent the 200-400 in SA  Way cheaper there than overseas and it is way more versatile than the 300. Have fun!!


----------



## FEBS (Jul 19, 2014)

Hi Kyle,

Enjoy your trip next year !!


----------



## King Eyre (Jul 19, 2014)

Kyle, take the 200-400, with the proviso that the new 100-400 won't be available by then.......I travel a lot and if you are vehicle based it's great, my kit for vehicle base travel is the 200-400 on a 1 Dx, and the 70-200 mk2 2.8 on another 1 Dx...I'm fortunate to be able to borrow the 2-400, so don't have the outlay to bother about!!
If I look at the shots I took, the great majority were with the 2-400, and quite a lot had the 1.4 in as well, and I also added an extra 1.4 on occasions when I needed really long reach...in the Serengeti for instance you have to stick to the roads so you may be shooting from a greater distance.

I'm off to Brazil, the Pantanal, in a couple of months and there I'll be taking a 300 2.8 mk2 with 1.4 and 2x mk 3 extenders, probably have it mounted with the 1.4 as standard, as for an old codger like me the weight of the 2-400 for general use is just prohibitive.

The low light capabilities of the 1 Dx are so good that I wouldn't bother about f4, I use manual set up and auto iso and check histogram frequently as I often use exposure compensation...as much as +1.6 stops on occasion.
I suspect when the new 100-400 comes out, sales of the 2-400 will drop, I know Nikon user pals of mine have virtually stopped using their 2-400 f4 lenses in favour of the new 80-400 lens they have, which is getting a formidable reputation, and it's light as well.

Just remember, a lot of people make (in my opinion) a basic mistake by shooting out of the top of vehicles, I much prefer shooting as low as possible as I think it gives a more dramatic perspective.

Lastly, enjoy the wildlife, don't spend the whole time looking at it through a viewfinder!!

George.


----------



## canon1dxman (Jul 19, 2014)

kyle86 said:


> Im doing the same in January and I will rent the 200-400 in SA  Way cheaper there than overseas and it is way more versatile than the 300. Have fun!!



Where are you renting from in SA? Are they looking for 100% deposit?


----------



## Niranjan B Venkatesh (Jul 21, 2014)

AlanF said:


> Does your manservant carry your gear for you?



Nope, I carry all the stuff my self and the guides are quite happy to help as well, and I usually request aroom close to where the SUV can come park by!


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

My 200-400 1.4x is on the way. I will get it Thursday.


----------



## King Eyre (Aug 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> My 200-400 1.4x is on the way. I will get it Thursday.



Well, you'll love it, but hope you have good muscles!!

George.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> My 200-400 1.4x is on the way. I will get it Thursday.



Congrats


----------



## Niranjan B Venkatesh (Aug 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> My 200-400 1.4x is on the way. I will get it Thursday.


Congrats, but get going to the gym !
I am currently in Etosha National Park and I am lugging the 200-400 on my 1Dx and its not easy to carry ! 
Oh and get the Canon 52mm Drop in CPL for it, works like a charm !


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 12, 2014)

Niranjan B Venkatesh said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > My 200-400 1.4x is on the way. I will get it Thursday.
> ...



Would love to see some photos

JPEG will be just fine ;D


----------



## FEBS (Aug 12, 2014)

Thanks,

So, I know what to do then . going to the gym and practicing with this new baby (shouldn't I call It like this for its weight). In September a have a big aviation show on a military airfield here in Belgium at only 6 km from home. First half of October I have my safari trip to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Victoria Falls.

After that I will show you if my mussels were strong enough.


----------



## King Eyre (Aug 12, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Thanks,
> 
> So, I know what to do then . going to the gym and practicing with this new baby (shouldn't I call It like this for its weight). In September a have a big aviation show on a military airfield here in Belgium at only 6 km from home. First half of October I have my safari trip to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Victoria Falls.
> 
> After that I will show you if my mussels were strong enough.



For the aviation show, take a good tripod and gimbal, you'll need it (unless of course the gym work really pays off...!!!) and in S Africa and Zimb you'll be in a vehicle and for that the 2-400 is just unsurpassable, don't think you'll use it at the falls IMHO, I personally can't wait for an upgraded 100-400!!

George.


----------



## gwflauto (Aug 27, 2014)

FEBS said:


> Thanks,
> 
> So, I know what to do then . going to the gym and practicing with this new baby (shouldn't I call It like this for its weight). In September a have a big aviation show on a military airfield here in Belgium at only 6 km from home. First half of October I have my safari trip to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Victoria Falls.
> 
> After that I will show you if my mussels were strong enough.



I wish you a safe trip with fantastic photos. May I ask you a question. Are you going to take a tripod on your trip? I am going at the end of September also on a tour through southern Africa. We will start in Swaziland, go to Kruger NP, Botswana, Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe, Namibia with all the exciting natural wonders to end the trip after seven weeks in Capetown. 
I read, that in several of these parks you must not leave the car. So the tripod may be no good in those places. Do you normally have enough time to set up the tripod before the birds and lions are gone? Sitting at night and watching these waterholes may be a different story. I am wondering if I should carry the tripod which means almost 6 pounds of weight or rather take another lens with a very good image stabilizer.


----------



## FEBS (Aug 27, 2014)

gwflauto said:


> FEBS said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks,
> ...



Monopod or tripod is still an open question for me. I bought in mean time the 200-400 1.4x. I have a few weekends planned in which I can use that lens extensively to find out before I go to Botswana, Zimbabwe if I need the monopod, tripod or just shooting out of hands. I will take a bean bag with me that's for sure. I also think to take a gorilla pod to take evening, night shots. For being quick it seems to me that I might need at least a monopod, but that I need to find out in the coming weeks. 
It will be my first safari, so I can't answer you if you will have time enough.


----------

