My safari to South Africa was a disaster...

chipal wrote:

C Sean,

Sounds like you were caught in the perfect storm. I'm sorry that your experience and your results weren't what you had hoped.

I lead several photo safaris each year to the Sabi Sands Private Game Reserve. I've yet to be on safari where we haven't experienced the big five, and at times, the magnificent seven.

We always recommend the generic malarone over any other malaria prophylactic. It is by far easier on the majority of peoples digestive system with the primary side-affect being vivid dreams.

I started with a Canon 7D then moved to the Lumix G7 with a 14-42, 45-175 and 100-300 mk 1. Early last year I upgraded to the G9. Micro Four Thirds is a fantastic system for me due to the smaller lenses and lighter lens weight. My next investment will be the Pany Leica 100-400.

With our guided safaris you typically have 6-8 people per vehicle and the rangers and trackers are cognizant of how to position the vehicles so that everyone can get a good shot. We do get some birders, however, the Sabi Sands is known for the big five so that tends to be the focus. That's not to say that you won't get some incredible bird shots during a day of quiet activity.

If you, or anyone else, is interested in learning more about the lodges we visit, please message me. I'd be more than happy to share details.

Chip

First I want to thank you for your time and effort.

Sadly, this thread was posted about a year ago and someone decided to resurrect it a year later. I was going to let this thread die without saying anything but people still giving me advice so I need to come out and say something.

I did return to South Africa six months later using the same travel company and safari company. This Kruger Park trip also include four nights in Sabi Sand and a short stay in Blyde River Canyon. Overall, I had an excellent time and the only thing let the trip down was getting hit by two cold fronts.

Since you gave me some advice, here's mine. I used the 100-400 in Kruger Park and overall it an excellent option for anyone wanting to take photos of birds and general wildlife in Kruger. I also brought with me the brand new 50-200mm which is on another level when compared to the 100-400 and I used that lens a lot in Sabi Sand.

50-200 (ribcage belongs to a giraffe)

100-400

Overall, the 100-400 is a very good lens for safari but for Sabi Sand the 50-200 is better due to the improved image pop, sharpness and for the night drives (spot metering + dual stabilisation + high iso). I would recommend getting the 50-200 instead unless you also have an equal passion for birds and spend a lot of time in Kruger or similar parks as well.

C Sean wrote:

Overall, the 100-400 is a very good lens for safari but for Sabi Sand the 50-200 is better due to the improved image pop, sharpness and for the night drives (spot metering + dual stabilisation + high iso). I would recommend getting the 50-200 instead unless you also have an equal passion for birds and spend a lot of time in Kruger or similar parks as well.

I have been on 2 safaris, but way back in 1991 and 1993. I am not all that much into wildlife or bird photography, but, of course, since I was sometimes in game parks I did it too. I was using 35mm SLRs and my longest focal length was 300mm. Most of the time that was plenty and, in fact, I was often using shorter focal lengths. I think for most wildlife photography there that your recommended 50-200mm (100-400mm-efl) is plenty and a more useful zoom range than 100-400mm (200-800mm-efl).