British Wildlife Centre + 50-200mm 2.8-4

Just to add I used Photo in Colour's nature presets and Lightroom 6.

The last two...

What a great place--such variety!

Fox images are particularly fun, it's almost as though the little guy was posing for you.

Cheers,

Rick

Skeeterbytes wrote:

What a great place--such variety!

Fox images are particularly fun, it's almost as though the little guy was posing for you.

Cheers,

Rick

It can be very challenging because the animals often get fed in front of you and often they don't stay still. So I found it to be spray and pray, hence why I ended up with 5,000 images at the end of the day. I took less than that during my four days stay in Sabi Sand.

The main reason why I went back there because when I first went the my camera aka the GH4 didn't have the auto focus joystick and the 35-100mm 2.8 didn't have enough reach. With the GH5's joystick and the 50-200, I found it a lot easier to get the shot.

pdk42 wrote:

Some lovely shots there. Looks like a good place to visit.

Happy to promote places, but it also can be challenging.

paul cool wrote:

Nice set good natural colours the pl 50-200 is plenty good enough that's for sure reminds me I have not visited for a while and the squirrels are out cages

When I went there the squirrels were still in their cages which was coming up to the end of March.

Lichtspiel wrote:

Nice, except for that hedgehog... rabies??

The hedgehog was getting high or something after sniffing or licking a wooden post.

Skeeterbytes wrote:

What a great place--such variety!

Fox images are particularly fun, it's almost as though the little guy was posing for you.

Cheers,

Rick

It's probably trained to pose.

great selection and great IQ.

I recently saw a show (Netflix?) on the ' Scottish Wildcat'. Seems the experts are saying there is no saving them now.

boxerman wrote:

As far as I noted, only one of your shots was with the 100-400. Of the 50-200 shots, only one was < 100 mm, hence NEEDED the 50-200.

So, what do you say about the convenience/usability/quality comparing the 50-200 with 100-400?

Obviously, the 50-200 has a bigger aperture, but is that a deal--the deal--here, for you?

I try to answer your questions and why I ended up getting the 50-200.

I originally bought both the 35-100mm 2.8 and the 100-400 for safari. So for camera A I have the 100-400 mounted onto it and camera B is 35-100. While both the 100-400 and the 35-100 can be used for other applications other than safari. I'd found there were times when the 35-100 didn't have enough reach and the 100-400 wasn't wide enough. So in the end I had to take both lenses with me when really I need one zoom lens that could sit in the middle of their zoom range. By taking both it meant carrying more weight, less room for other lenses, either both zoom lenses needed to be mounted onto their own camera body or I try to avoid lens swapping.

So I mostly bought the 50-200 for convenience, it has weather sealing and having the extra half of stop of light compared to the 100-400 was the icing on the cake. So by having the 50-200, there are times when I only need to bring one telephoto zoom instead of two and this made me more flexible.

For IQ, since I don't know anything about lens construction I can't give you a specific answer. However, I noticed when it comes to image quality both the 100-300 and the 100-400 are very similar in style. The 100-400 is better for it added contrast, slightly sharper and the bokeh is smoother. However the differences between the IQ of the 100-300 and the 100-400 isn't huge but it's better.

The lens construction of the 50-200 appears to differ from the 100-300 and the 100-400. For one the lens is sharper and pick out detail better than the 100-400. The other noticeable difference is the lens has a 3d pop but the 100-400 images appear to be flat. So both lenses gives a different look. Both photos of the zebras which are below, they were taken roughly in the same week, one in Kruger and the other in Sabi Sand. I personally prefer the look of the 50-200.

50-200

100-400

Paul Auclair wrote:

great selection and great IQ.

I recently saw a show (Netflix?) on the ' Scottish Wildcat'. Seems the experts are saying there is no saving them now.

There are more Wildcats in captive then there are in the wild. I don't know if this is a result of habit lost or cross breeding with domestic cats.

boxerman wrote:

One camera flexibility is also, sometimes, a concern. I rented the 12-100 for gorilla trekking on our last trip, and it worked marvelously in the jungles (except the darn stabilization switch accidentally turned it off). Lens-changing on the go in the tough mountainous jungles is just not feasible.

Same thing happens with the 300. In busy environments, tape it over.

Two-camera setup is my go-to kit for sports (when in a venue that allows it). I'd do same with a safari so long as there aren't restrictions on total gear weight and size. With time switching cameras as conditions change becomes seamless (generally the 40-150 and 300 Pros).

Cheers,

Rick

^ Perhaps the most interesting thing about the review is that the Lumix 1.4x & 2x TCs will apparently work with at least three of their lenses, versus only two for Olympus; that could be really useful.