Reading mode: Light Dark

Which long lens for Safari/Hiking?

Go to last post
P

PatBoston

New member
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Location
Boston, US
I am going to Africa for a couple weeks. I will spend 2 weeks hiking and a couple days on safari.

I have a D80 with a 18-200VR so far. I am thinking that for the wildlife I might want to have some more reach.
The 3 options I came up with are:
70-300G which is light and cheap

80-200/F2.8+TC2.0 heavy, and somewhat expensive but then I have a fast lens for another day. I have seen the D version for ~$600 on craigslist.
80-400VR seems nice, but heavy and expensive.

Help!

Thanks Pat
 
80-400VR isn't that heavy, especially given the range that you get.

The other option is the Sigma 50-500mm.
 
A TC will not work with the 18-200 because the TC front lens element will touch the back 18-200 lens element (read: damage). It will also be a slow combination - f/8 at the long end with a 1.4, which will probably make autofocus next to unuseable. I've tried a TC with my 18-200 just for kicks, being careful to keep the lens extended, and the image quality isn't great anyway.

You'll have the same kind of speed problem with the 70-300, with a minimum of f/5.6 at 70mm with the TC on, although I think it will fit.

TC's are made for telephoto primes, and are useable on fast high-quality zooms.

--
-----
JurassicPizza

 
Forget about the G lens, it's soft above 200mm say all reports. I did have it and can say it is, specialy in low light ( f5.6).

I have the 80-200 2.8 ED D version with a 2X converter, that still gives you 'only' 400mm (600 in 35mm) which isn't a lot in shooting wildlife. The deer I shoot and are at my flickr page are rather tame and can be shot from fairly close up. Still can't get them filling up the frame. This combo needs good light to be sharp since you want to shoot with it at around f8.

Do a search with google for the 'Bigma', the Sigma 50-500, most reach for the money and rather sharp from what I've seen. Even paired with a 1.4 sigma teleconverter.

Pity the search here dosn't work, loads of far better advice then mine has been giving in the past.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/70641975@N00/ random pics
http://kwiebusch.blogspot.com Underworld fan blog (the band, not the movie...)
 
The AFS 300mm f/4 is a highly regarded wildlife lens... and it pairs well with teleconverters. I've seen spectacular 510mm shots taken with the 300mm f/4 plus the TC-17e II 1.7x teleconverter.

That setup will run you $1500, but you can also find earlier non-AFS versions of the 300mm f/4 used for around $500-$600 on eBay. The AFS version costs $1,000 US new, and often gets over $800 on the used market (yes, I've been shopping for one).

The non-AFS version will be slower to autofocus, but it will get you 300mm of reach at f/4 for a very reasonable price... and 420mm with a

Also consider the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 HSM lens. It's a constant f/4 with HSM (fast autofocus). It works well with the 1.4x and 2x Sigma teleconverters.

Sean
 
AM looking for such a lens as well. My choice is the newer 70-300 VR lens. I do have the 80-200/F2.8 D lens, but as you already know, it is very heavy, and wears you down when hauling it for longer distances.
PatBoston said:
I am going to Africa for a couple weeks. I will spend 2 weeks
hiking and a couple days on safari.
I have a D80 with a 18-200VR so far. I am thinking that for the
wildlife I might want to have some more reach.
The 3 options I came up with are:
70-300G which is light and cheap
80-200/F2.8+TC2.0 heavy, and somewhat expensive but then I have a
fast lens for another day. I have seen the D version for ~$600 on
craigslist.
80-400VR seems nice, but heavy and expensive.

Help!

Thanks Pat
Click to expand...
--
soulsurfer
http://www.pbase.com/soulsurfer/galleries
http://photos.yahoo.com/whispersfromspirit
 
sean000 said:
That setup will run you $1500, but you can also find earlier
non-AFS versions of the 300mm f/4 used for around $500-$600 on
eBay.
Click to expand...
This feels like an high price for the non AFS version. I bought mine from FredMiranda, in excelent condition (9+ in my subjective judgement) for $420 shipped, with all the goodies - sock, hard case, box, manual, gel filter holders, internal filter. This lens is offered at around this price at the various For Sale forums with some regularity. Or the OP can just post a WTB ad and state his her price range. However, as peple have noted, this lens is heavy and slow focusing, lugging it around all day long will take stamina. I use mine only when I can drop it on the back seat of the car, and drive to within a mile or two of my destination. Call me lazy, but there is only so much suffering I will do in the name of photography :-)

I agree with the other posters that > =300+TC is probably what one needs for comfortable wildlife shooting. Many people have posted beautiful results with the 70-200 + 1.7 TC, however they are usually highly cropped. Nothing wrong with that, just gotta be aware of it upfront.
 
this looks a bit heavy!

I will be hiking for 2 weeks with a backpack.....

I think 2-3lbs is the max I want to add to my pack.
 
PatBoston said:
this looks a bit heavy!

I will be hiking for 2 weeks with a backpack.....

I think 2-3lbs is the max I want to add to my pack.
Click to expand...
You don't want the 258lbs of the 1700 f4?

Anyway you also want a moderate wide angle, some of the scenery is spectacular. The 18-200 can cover that, you will find 200mm a good length for wildlife there. A 300 f4 would ad just that much more. Several years ago when I was working for an NGO I did East Africa with a 50 and 135 lens on an old Nikkormat, and I got some very good images. Yes I wanted more reach but I did well with what I had. Another teacher at the school where I was working had a 400mm and some how it seemed too long, again an equipment and user thing.

Tom
 
How does the sharpness of the 80-400 compare to the 80-200/2.8 AF-D or AF-S combined with a 2xTC?
The price of the 2 would be similar.

The latter combination would leave me some flexibility for low light situations, I could just take the TC off.
 
When I did it, I used a 70-300 on my 35mm Nikon and it was very adequate.

Using a same or similar lens on a D80 should be more than enough on the telephoto end. You may have some shake problems if a vibration reduction lens is not used at the far end of the telephoto range.
 
Olivia T. BvG said:
AM looking for such a lens as well. My choice is the newer 70-300
VR lens. I do have the 80-200/F2.8 D lens, but as you already know,
it is very heavy, and wears you down when hauling it for longer
distances.
Click to expand...
The new AFS 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR should be a great lightweight hiking lens. I doubt it will have the image quality of the 80-200, 300mm f/4, or even the 80-400mm VR; but I bet it will be very good...especially for the price, size, and weight. On sunny days it should be able to get reasonably good shutter speeds, and the VR will help.

Personally I don't mind hiking with the 80-200mm f/2.8. I often hike with it and a 1.4x Kenko teleconverter and my tripod or monopod... also the Tokina 12-24. I'm talking day hikes though. I might want something lighter the next time I go overnight backpacking.

I've also been hiking with the 18-200mm VR. It's sure easy to carry compared to the 80-200 and tripod, but I always take a few photos that I know would have been better with the 80-200. I'm perfectly happy with most of the shots though. It just doesn't have quite the reach for most wildlife and birds.

For the hiking I do I'm not sure I'd want anything heavier than my 80-200, but I do want more reach. The 300mm f/4 + 1.7x TC will give me much more reach for about the same size and weight. The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 is also in the same size/weight class... as is the 80-400mm VR. I think any of these are worth hauling if you don't mind the weight. It's all relative though. You don't want to carry anything that will make you miserable by the end of the day. As tempted as I am by the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, it might just be too much for me on a long hike.

Sean
 
c
PatBoston said:
How does the sharpness of the 80-400 compare to the 80-200/2.8 AF-D
or AF-S combined with a 2xTC?
The price of the 2 would be similar.
The latter combination would leave me some flexibility for low
light situations, I could just take the TC off.
Click to expand...
I've read threads that indicate the 80-400mm VR has better image quality than the 70-200mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8 with the 1.7x or 2x teleconverters. I've also seen plenty of fantastic 80-400 shots to back this up. I've also seen excellent photos taken with the 70-200+1.7x TC, but I think the 2x TC would be pushing it.

I have the 80-200mm f/2.8D AF and Kenko 1.4x TC. The 1.4x TC barely impacts IQ, but it only gives me 280mm. From what I've seen and read the 2x noticeably affects image quality. You can't use Nikon's 1.7x TC with the AF-D version of this lens... the TC-17e II only works with AFS lenses. If you have an AFS lens, the 1.7x TC probably delivers most extra reach for the least amount of image degradation.

Another combo in this price range would be the AFS 300mm f/4 with the TC-17eII. That would give you 510mm of reach with autofocus and excellent image quality. I've seen photos taken with this combo that were stunningly sharp. Not as flexible as the zoom though.

Sean
 
It really does depend on what you are willing to carry.

I find the 80-400 in a bag over my shoulder is no big issue, and I often walk with it in my hand for hours. There are times when I wonder about the 70-300 as its physical size would make it far less obvious when walking around cities? The 400 especially with the hood is very very obvious!! I was stopped from taking pictures at a sports event last year as I was "using a professional camera", others around me were using compact 300mm lenses and were left alone :-(

when I brought the 80-400 a year ago i found a friendly camera shop that let me put the two Nikon VRs on my D70 and the Sigma and tamron lenses. i shot off some test shots through an open door (not especially scientific, but the independant lenses were not quite as sharp, and did not feel as well made. Loved the 200 VR, but too expensive and not long enough (for me) so I went with the Nikkor 80-400.

Since then I have moved to the D200, which has improved the focussing speed on the 400 significantly, but it is a heavy combo if you are concerned about travelling light.



--
Kevin England
http://www.pbase.com/england
http://www.photoboxgallery.com/england
Dee Seventy User
 
Hi... I agree with you Kevin..Some people have suggested the "bigma", I'm not knocking the lens I've seen some very good results from it, but with no VR it's better to use it with a tripod or monpod. If weight is a concern would people want to carry extra's....?

Pic bellow was taken with 80-400vr after walking about 3.5miles with backpack and 5 yr old daughter on my shoulders.. Dont think I would of got this pic without the vr



--
If it ai'nt broke don't fix it..!
 
I'm off to Uganda coming january and I' taking 2 bodies (D200 and D70) and 3 lenses (Nikon 80-400VR, Sigma 18-50/2.8 and 150/2.8 macro). I've been hiking full day trips with the D200, 80-400VR and 150 macro and weight was not a problem. I used the Lowepro Rover AW-II backpack.

The 70-300VR might be an alternative but it not yet available. Also, the reach you need depends on how close you will get to the animals. I've had problems with a Sigma 135-400 because the elephant was just too close.

In all, the best suggestions (in my opinion) are:
  • Nikon/Sigma 80-400
  • Nikon/Sigma 70-200+TC
  • Sigma 100-300 + TC
  • Nikon 300/4 + TC
It just depends on the amount of money you want to spend.

--
Kees

For a collection of photos see http://www.kdbruin.net/photos/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top