SANParks.org Forums

Ah ha DuQues

I should have thought of that!

I removed the filter from my 100-400 three or so years ago on a recommendation from this forum.
The improvement was startling in both sharpness, contrast and especially with the control of flare.

Except for polarisers and in exceptionally bad conditions, e.g. on the beach in a storm, filters on Digy SLRs are pretty much bad news.

So there's a bit of money saved.

UKB

http://www.cameraquip.co.za/joomla/

check out this site, I bought a 150-500mm here for R8100, awesome, and I love it

ps: so I must remove my filter you say

I have read the forum here,

some say teh 100-400mm is a no go, well if you a pro and do it for a living yesbut some do it as a hobby and dont have R70 000, I shoot with the 500mm f5.6 and love it, and it is very sharp, the only difference I found is the f2.1 can shoot when it is darker and still get good shots, for the price I would recommend f5.6

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiaan_steynberg/

Camerquip is so cheap you dont have to import, and they give a 3 year warranty.

Well it is just me, and at the end it come to one owns choice, and I would prefer a prime lense also, but like I say, with sharpness and money wise the F5.6 is not bad

Hi, Personally I would go for the longest lens I could afford.
Prime vs Zoom doesn't bother me as I generally wish my lenses were longer.

Prime lenses give you one less thing to think about when shooting in a hurry (eg. Birds in flight).

I currently use a Tamron 300mm f2,8 with matched 1.4x converter. ( Approx 25 years old so: no stabilizer , MANUAL focus.) In Preference to a (new)Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 (Autofocus and stabilizer) with 2.0x or 1.7x converter
"Good technique" is more important than stabilizers, autofocus.

Feet were invented before zoom lenses - you can always try move closer or nearer to your subject or wait for the subject to move!

That said If I were a Canon user I would probably go for the 100-400mm.
Whatever you choose nothing beats practice to get good shots!
hope this helps
Kevin

some good advice given above

I have shot with the 100-400 for a few years now as my main "wildlife" lens and I love the versatility. It's quite sharp although not as sharp as a prime.

I recently "upgraded" to a 300mm f2.8 prime with converters, but I doubt the 100-400 will leave my bag and will probably be on my 2nd camera next to me for when I need the flexibility.

I've heard good things about the new 70-300mm L though...yet I found in most SANParks locations you will feel you need a bit more reach than 300mm, even on a crop body.

Same here... And I'm not even talking about birding.
On my EOS 3 (film, so full-size) and 100-400 combo I had the 1.4 TC on at least 50% of the shots.
I was very happy I had bought the TC.

But the versatility (and price) of the lens will make sure I will not put it aside quickly in favour of a fixed focus lens. I am very tempted by the 200-400 though....

300mm f4 IS L with 1.4x , or 400 f5.6 L, or 100-400 IS L, 70-200 f2.8 L with 1.4 (very versatile) but you will prob be wanting more reach constantly. the best choice in my point of view= 300 F4 IS L with 1.4x because, you will have the 300 f4 with IS, you will have a workable 420mm f5.6 with IS and if you done have full frame camera - yuo will also have a crop factor of 1.6 to play with. so you will have a 670mm f5.6 IS lens.

400mm f5.6 will not work with 1.4x TC (unless you are fine shooting only manuel focus).

70-200 f2.8 with 1.4 very versatile (image quality will not be as good as prime).

Might I add that during my short foray with the 300mm f2.8 L IS USM, I realised why people punt prime telephotos over zooms, even good ones like the 100-400mm
The IQ was a huge leap forward, focusing much faster...

The Nikon 200-400 is almost as sharp as a prime though...guess the Canon would be too.

And I heard from a VERY reliable source that the new 200-400mm with TC built-in from Canon will price at about R120,000 which equates to EUR12,000

Yes, I have heard the same price range mentioned.

Which would put it at well above the price for the Canon EF 500mm F/4.0 L USM IS II (9000 euro). In fact I could buy the Canon EF 600mm f/4.0 L IS USM II for less (€ 11.500,00)
That last one weighs less than 4 kilos now, so would certainly be a lens I would consider, even with my traveling and birding near home.

But you do miss the versatility of the zoom.

Oh well, a thing to ponder when my wallet has a bit of wriggling room. Which it will not in the near future, so I can still sleep happily.

look at the canon 400 f5.6 and the 70-300 (non L) if you have the money. you lokking somewhere close to 20k for the both of them. 400 is very very sharp, you will fine yourself going to 400 when you in kruger all the time. and the 70-300 IS 4.5-5.6 is a good lens (not as good as the L ofcourse) but you got to start somewhere). I have only fixed focal lenses (100 f2.8 , 200 f2.8 MK1 , 300 F4) and I do just fine with the 300 in kruger. well I have to be as my girlfriend uses my 200. and the 100 is rather short.....the one amazing thing about fixed focal it the image quality, it will always always always be better than zoomz, as there is les glass moving. and the fun factor of trying to get the best shot by possitioning the subject in frame, father than zooming in, clicking and being happy with the picture. (my 2c)

These lens options confuse me so much!! I wish I was more decisive!!!
I hear everything you all say about the fixes focal lenses being the best and I would LOVE one.
However, I can't make a decision( and the worst is I am not buying one now, just planning, wishing and dreaming and trying to save!)
Canon 300 F4 L IS or Canon 400 F5.6 ??
I want to use it in game parks so to go for the 400 makes more sense for the extra lenght. However, the 300 has a closer focusing length (1.5m) against the 400 (3.5m) and the way I think, that would make it more versatile. then again I know the 300 is 'short' Am I making sense here?
I know I may get suggestions of a 100 -400 but I am not convinced that would make me happier than the fixed 300 or 400!
I think this is where a good salesman would convince me...

Dreamer, I would go for a 100 - 400 mm any time. It would give you a good focal range, that you wouldn't have with a fixed lens.
I have an 80-400 and fixed 300 mm and I mainly use the zoom one as I find it a lot more versatile, which is really what you'll be looking for in the bush.

Dreamer. Let me add to your confusion. We have both the 100-400mm and the 400 f 5.6. My son uses both these lenses on a 50D. We visited the Kruger last July and within the first afternoon he only used the fixed 400mm. The quality of the images is visibly better, the lens is lighter and focus faster. Even now in December in Kgalagadi the 100-400mm stayed in the camera bag. (soon to be sold) The 400mm f/5.6 is a great, light and sharp lens.

we've really confused him now!!!!!

Dreamer
Why not hire each of the lenses for a day.
Take a series of photographs with each using as many of both the cameras and lenses facilities and then compare them against each other.
Once you have decided which is the better lens for your needs.
The next consideration is finance or lack of it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards
JDW