Advice on lens for a trip to Namibia

[Astacus]

Morning all,
I'm debating my trip to Namibia.
Not particularly restricted in terms of luggage, but there is a scenario when one lens needs to be checked

This is a trip that is focused primarily on birds & other wildlife, but which will also give me opportunities for some landscape night skies and scenery. The gear I'm def taking are

• A1
• A7S3 (mostly for video/low light)
• 16-35 f4 PZ
• 20 f1.8
• 70-200 f3.8 II
• 600 f4
• 1,4 TC
• 2.0 TC (though I use it rarely)

My debate comes down to whether I should also take the 200-400 f5.6-6.3. In the past, I have taken this lens and tbh, rarely used it (birding trips). But with big mammals at watering holes, maybe it would have more utility. Without this lens, and and assumign I can get away with the 2.0TC on the 70-200, I have two 'holes' in my focal range. One, round 50mm, I don't think is a big deal. The second is between 400mm and 600mm.

Here's the kicker - the 200-600 will have to go into my checked bag. (generally stuffed with socks inside the 600 carbon fibre hood, which also won't fit inside my carry on camera bag.

Needless to say, there is a shed load of ancillaries - ND, mic, batteries, charger etc. PLus the amazing iFootage Cobra 3 monopd (my trust Velbon monopod finally died on my last year after 20 years) and a Velbon tripod and Manfrotto head for video.

What would you recommend? Can I live with the 400-600 'hole' in range? Or, will I regret it?

Advice appreciated. I know I go on these trips 'heavy' but I do want to capture the whole experience/lodges and landscapes. The 200-600 might spend some time on the A7S3 for video.

Thanks in advance.

(p.s. I know this is a nice problem to have!)

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Not quite sure about taking a 600 prime and a 200-600, but if you are not travel weight restricted
then such a choice is more about personal preferences than practical/flexability compromise.

As a wildlife photographer with focus on birds I have a 400mm f2.8 which i have used very effectively
in the past on safari in conjunction with TC's and camera apsc functionality and have never really been
left wanting for additional range.

Unless you are going with specific subject targets in mind if it were me i would be taking my 400mm
or the 200-600 in your case with a TCx1.4 and in conjunction with implementing the apsc function on the A1 ,
as required, will cover all the potential long lengths through fromm 300-900mm and still maintain more than
ample image resolution.

My experience of safari is that 70-80 % of shots will be under 400mm and that is where i focus my glass,
primes above 400mm i have found have got limited value for my needs, yours may be different of course,
and particularily if travelling with weight/bag No limitations

As above i don't see the apsc function factored into your lens range analysis and with the high resolution
a1 still allows plenty of crop freedom.

Anyways a few thoughts to consider in your planning...hope they help.

 

[Astacus]

Ray - that is a really interesting perspective. Thank you for responding.

It would not occur to me to consider leaving the 600mm f4 home! Whenever we go on a bird-focused trip, I really work hard to fill the frame with the subject. But even if I fail, the 'croppability' of the A1 and 600f4 is remarkable. Look at these two of the tufted flycatcher (Costa Rica). I think cropping is really just the same as APSC mode, yes?

I just cannot see myself ever leaving it home - it would become a very expensive doorstop!

Interesting to read that most of your safari shots are 400mm or less! I did a metadata search on my LR catalogue, and virtually all of them are 600mm or 840mm! Birds eh?

I also want to minimise lens swaps, and I was thinking that my default daily setup might be A1/600 and A7S3/70-200 (+/- 1.4TC). The latter for stills+video.

I'm probably going to discard some undergarments and squeeze the 200-600 into my hold bag! I suspect if I omit it, I'll regret it.

Super pics in your gallery!

 

[Unframed Dave]

Let's get the elephant in another room straight away.

I seriously envy you having the 600 f4, but it wouldn't be my choice for a safari.

First up, light in Namibia won't be too much of an issue most of the time. Then, there will be times when you really do want the flexibility of a zoom. I have been photographing fairly distant animals, to turn round and find the vehicle dangerously surrounded by elephants on 3 sides. A 600 fixed would have been useless and yes I was carrying a second body, but time is money and underwear disposable in such a situation. Then of course, weight and pointability do come into play, regardless of what the airlines allow you. If you have a vehicle to yourself, you won't be limited, but if sharing with 6 or 7 others, you may be grateful for the relative compactness of the zoom, as may your companions.

I wouldn't bother with the 2X TC, the 1.4, maybe. With the a1, you have so much potential to crop, and the purpose of a good guide is to get you sensibly close. That said, neither take up much room.

My aim in these situations these days is to travel as lightly as possible and to maintain a high degree of versatility.

My list would include

A1
A7CR when it becomes available
200 - 600
70 - 200 f2.8 ii
24 - 70 f2.8

In all honesty, my landscape photography is weak, so I don't worry too much about going for less than 24. Whenever I've seen huge African vistas, they are so huge, 8mm doesn't make much difference anyway. You tend to end up with a lot of sky and a lot of dirt, (well, I do).

Now, I've talked you out of the fixed 600, I'll pm you my phone number. I'm sure we can come to an arrangement. Enjoy your travels.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Robert,
as you can see Dave has a similar view as regards the 600mm for safari, but that said , if your past metadata is
indicating your past safari images are all in the 600-800mm range your shooting style and subject mix would seem to be
markedly different from mine.

Like you i vascillated which big lens to take with me on safari my first time, and at that time i had a 500mm F4 Nikon but at the
end of the day i opted for my 400mm f2.8(nikon at the time) and yes it was personally disappointing to leave my 500mm behind
but after alot of research my choice to take the 400mm with a TC x1.4 proved to be more practical from my perspective.

Agree there is not much diffrence between aspc implementation and cropping ,other than you can save some post production effort.

at the end of the day your preferred mix of a 70-200 with a TCx1.4 and/or aspc will cover the range from 70mm to 450mm max
and with your 600mm lens you will be left with a 450mm to 600 range void which you will not be able to optimise should a
critical shot come about within that range........this is the beauty of having the 200-600mm telephoto....

Anyways good luck and here's hoping you have a successful trip ........

 

[iamdlewis]

I think cropping is really just the same as APSC mode, yes?

Correct.

Interesting to read that most of your safari shots are 400mm or less! I did a metadata search on my LR catalogue, and virtually all of them are 600mm or 840mm! Birds eh?

It sounds like you are doing a trip like this Namibia: Birding with a Camera. Which yes the 600 would be good for since birds will be a major subject of the trip. That said there will probably be a significant amount of time in which you will be switching between birds and animals for which the 600 will be great and then not. I advise reading past trip reports and even contacting them to see if you can get some advise from a guide on what to bring. The guides can also advise on things you may not have considered. Like are you bringing a beanbag?

Even if that is not the trip you are taking the past Trip Reports could still be helpful.

I also want to minimise lens swaps, and I was thinking that my default daily setup might be A1/600 and A7S3/70-200 (+/- 1.4TC). The latter for stills+video.

That would be my setup as well. I would leave the 20mm and 2xTC at home. You may have short periods of time for landscape stuff or something else in which the 16-35 could be useful but don't be shocked if you don't use it.

If you haven't done trips like this before I can tell you that though night photography sounds like something that might be good you may find that you don't have the energy for it. A lot of these trips start a couple hours before dawn (4am can be a common wake-up time) and the day/dinner ends 8/9pm.

 

[Roland]

I am working on my pictures of my Tanzania trip. Most pictures I took between 350 and 600 mm and for some I used my 1.4 telekonverter. I also brought my 16-35mm for the shots on the Serengeti but I took less than 10 pictures. My go to second lens was my 24-70 for the close up shots. And not just elephants but also the cat pictures.
Here is the problem with Safari drives. The animals are used to the vehicles and it will be right next to the road. Sometimes 200mm of my zoom was just too much. Your driver will try to get as close as possible to the animals since the heat after 8 am or before 4 pm will have a negative effect on long focal length, no matter what you use.
As you mention, you could have hole between 200 and 600mm, which are most of my pictures were taken.
I never owned a 600mm prime and I understand that you don‘t want to leave it at home but check out the pictures people took at your camp site/resort to see how close the animals are to the roads.

 

[Astacus]

Hi Robert,
as you can see Dave has a similar view as regards the 600mm for safari, but that said , if your past metadata is
indicating your past safari images are all in the 600-800mm range your shooting style and subject mix would seem to be
markedly different from mine.

Like you i vascillated which big lens to take with me on safari my first time, and at that time i had a 500mm F4 Nikon but at the
end of the day i opted for my 400mm f2.8(nikon at the time) and yes it was personally disappointing to leave my 500mm behind
but after alot of research my choice to take the 400mm with a TC x1.4 proved to be more practical from my perspective.

Agree there is not much diffrence between aspc implementation and cropping ,other than you can save some post production effort.

at the end of the day your preferred mix of a 70-200 with a TCx1.4 and/or aspc will cover the range from 70mm to 450mm max
and with your 600mm lens you will be left with a 450mm to 600 range void which you will not be able to optimise should a
critical shot come about within that range........this is the beauty of having the 200-600mm telephoto....

Anyways good luck and here's hoping you have a successful trip ........

Thanks! I guess nearly all of my shots are bird-related, and it is rare that I end up with a shot that doesn't need crops. See our rjbwild site here...
There's no way I'm not bringing the 600 f4.. it is an unbelievable lens. I've been on safari before (TZ x 2, ZM) and birding trips to BR, CRx3 (4th booked), AUS and would love to revisit them all with this lens.

But, you've persuaded me to pack the 200-600 in case....

Thanks for the good wishes. I'll post a trip report here

 

[Astacus]

I am working on my pictures of my Tanzania trip. Most pictures I took between 350 and 600 mm and for some I used my 1.4 telekonverter. I also brought my 16-35mm for the shots on the Serengeti but I took less than 10 pictures. My go to second lens was my 24-70 for the close up shots. And not just elephants but also the cat pictures.
Here is the problem with Safari drives. The animals are used to the vehicles and it will be right next to the road. Sometimes 200mm of my zoom was just too much. Your driver will try to get as close as possible to the animals since the heat after 8 am or before 4 pm will have a negative effect on long focal length, no matter what you use.
As you mention, you could have hole between 200 and 600mm, which are most of my pictures were taken.
I never owned a 600mm prime and I understand that you don‘t want to leave it at home but check out the pictures people took at your camp site/resort to see how close the animals are to the roads.

Thanks! 70mm for cats IS close!
Birds are, in my experience, rarely this close, and even then, a little bee eater would be very close to exceed the frame at 600mm.

The wide angle lenses will come, because Namibia is a dark sky site and I want to try to improve on this type of shot (from Zambia).

 

[Astacus]

This link might explain my strong attachment to the A1/600!

Experiences in Costa Rica (A1 and 600f4)

I have just returned from a wonderful trip to Costa Rica (8 sites, 24 days), mostly birding with me as attendant recorder. A few observations The A1 and the 600f4, usually with the 1.4TC, performed superbly. I noticed an occasional issue where AF stopped, but this was cleared with a quick...

www.alphashooters.com

 

[Astacus]

Let's get the elephant in another room straight away.

I seriously envy you having the 600 f4, but it wouldn't be my choice for a safari.

First up, light in Namibia won't be too much of an issue most of the time. Then, there will be times when you really do want the flexibility of a zoom. I have been photographing fairly distant animals, to turn round and find the vehicle dangerously surrounded by elephants on 3 sides. A 600 fixed would have been useless and yes I was carrying a second body, but time is money and underwear disposable in such a situation. Then of course, weight and pointability do come into play, regardless of what the airlines allow you. If you have a vehicle to yourself, you won't be limited, but if sharing with 6 or 7 others, you may be grateful for the relative compactness of the zoom, as may your companions.

I wouldn't bother with the 2X TC, the 1.4, maybe. With the a1, you have so much potential to crop, and the purpose of a good guide is to get you sensibly close. That said, neither take up much room.

My aim in these situations these days is to travel as lightly as possible and to maintain a high degree of versatility.

My list would include

A1
A7CR when it becomes available
200 - 600
70 - 200 f2.8 ii
24 - 70 f2.8

In all honesty, my landscape photography is weak, so I don't worry too much about going for less than 24. Whenever I've seen huge African vistas, they are so huge, 8mm doesn't make much difference anyway. You tend to end up with a lot of sky and a lot of dirt, (well, I do).

Now, I've talked you out of the fixed 600, I'll pm you my phone number. I'm sure we can come to an arrangement. Enjoy your travels.

It's the two of us + driver/guide in a vehicle - there's a ton of space. I usually sit in the back with access to both rear windows for shooting. When the 600 becomes a doorstop, I'll let you know!

 

[Astacus]

Correct.

It sounds like you are doing a trip like this Namibia: Birding with a Camera. Which yes the 600 would be good for since birds will be a major subject of the trip. That said there will probably be a significant amount of time in which you will be switching between birds and animals for which the 600 will be great and then not. I advise reading past trip reports and even contacting them to see if you can get some advise from a guide on what to bring. The guides can also advise on things you may not have considered. Like are you bringing a beanbag?

Even if that is not the trip you are taking the past Trip Reports could still be helpful.


That would be my setup as well. I would leave the 20mm and 2xTC at home. You may have short periods of time for landscape stuff or something else in which the 16-35 could be useful but don't be shocked if you don't use it.

If you haven't done trips like this before I can tell you that though night photography sounds like something that might be good you may find that you don't have the energy for it. A lot of these trips start a couple hours before dawn (4am can be a common wake-up time) and the day/dinner ends 8/9pm.

the 20mm is small, light, super sharp and will be good for astro - shorter exposure time - less trailing. I tend to agree re the 2.0TC. I bought it on a whim and have rarely used it

 

[Astacus]

Correct.

It sounds like you are doing a trip like this Namibia: Birding with a Camera. Which yes the 600 would be good for since birds will be a major subject of the trip. That said there will probably be a significant amount of time in which you will be switching between birds and animals for which the 600 will be great and then not. I advise reading past trip reports and even contacting them to see if you can get some advise from a guide on what to bring. The guides can also advise on things you may not have considered. Like are you bringing a beanbag?

Even if that is not the trip you are taking the past Trip Reports could still be helpful.


That would be my setup as well. I would leave the 20mm and 2xTC at home. You may have short periods of time for landscape stuff or something else in which the 16-35 could be useful but don't be shocked if you don't use it.

If you haven't done trips like this before I can tell you that though night photography sounds like something that might be good you may find that you don't have the energy for it. A lot of these trips start a couple hours before dawn (4am can be a common wake-up time) and the day/dinner ends 8/9pm.

I had a look at that tour. yes very similar, and seems to follow the same pattern as many tours. However, when we leave Etosha, we're moving east through the caprivi strip until we get to Botswana. Then, we return on the E side of the mountains, including Okonjima for the leopards. As regards the 'hours'.. yes we have done this type of trip often enough to look forward to pre-breakfast trips, and early dinners. Our normal wake time is 5.30 ish. It won't take long to set up a timelapse on the balcony of the room before going to bed! I'll save a few grams by leaving the 2TC at home !

 

[Astacus]

Morning all,
I'm debating my trip to Namibia.
Not particularly restricted in terms of luggage, but there is a scenario when one lens needs to be checked

This is a trip that is focused primarily on birds & other wildlife, but which will also give me opportunities for some landscape night skies and scenery. The gear I'm def taking are

• A1
• A7S3 (mostly for video/low light)
• 16-35 f4 PZ
• 20 f1.8
• 70-200 f3.8 II
• 600 f4
• 1,4 TC
• 2.0 TC (though I use it rarely)

My debate comes down to whether I should also take the 200-400 f5.6-6.3. In the past, I have taken this lens and tbh, rarely used it (birding trips). But with big mammals at watering holes, maybe it would have more utility. Without this lens, and and assumign I can get away with the 2.0TC on the 70-200, I have two 'holes' in my focal range. One, round 50mm, I don't think is a big deal. The second is between 400mm and 600mm.

Here's the kicker - the 200-600 will have to go into my checked bag. (generally stuffed with socks inside the 600 carbon fibre hood, which also won't fit inside my carry on camera bag.

Needless to say, there is a shed load of ancillaries - ND, mic, batteries, charger etc. PLus the amazing iFootage Cobra 3 monopd (my trust Velbon monopod finally died on my last year after 20 years) and a Velbon tripod and Manfrotto head for video.

What would you recommend? Can I live with the 400-600 'hole' in range? Or, will I regret it?

Advice appreciated. I know I go on these trips 'heavy' but I do want to capture the whole experience/lodges and landscapes. The 200-600 might spend some time on the A7S3 for video.

Thanks in advance.

(p.s. I know this is a nice problem to have!)

Well, I'm going to take everything. Let's see how often I use each item. Thanks everyone

 

[Astacus]

Atta' boy! Suck it up and take one for the team! We expect to see at least one image with every available combination. No excuses!

Who needs underwear anyway - two items, quick rinse overnight..... #socialpariah

 

[AlphaWorld]

I took an SLR and a lens in my checked bag some decades ago, wrapped in a towel and padded by all my clothes. When I got to my destination neither worked. Indeed, neither worked ever again.

You could put your 200-600 in something like a Pelikan case, and it is likely to survive. Just in your suitcase - I’d strongly recommend not. Checked bags are treated brutally.

I’d suggest you would be better off shooting the watering hole shots with 70-200 + TC, rather than risking your 200-600 to the minimal mercies of the baggage handlers.

 

[Astacus]

So, I bit the bullet, and the 200-600 went into my hold liuggages, and thence into my camera bag, once the 600 f4 was extricated and always available.
I've now loaded the 18,000 shots, and using LRCC, have these data.

The bottom line is that I am not sure I'll keep the 200-600, and certainly am unlikely to take it on future trips.
The data are interesting..the 70-200 +/- TC is fabulous, light and lovely
The high shot count for the 16-35 was me taking series of images for star trails -the night skies in Namibia, especially in the Namib Desert, are breathtaking. I wish I had ore time for this style of photography.

I'll post a trip report once I have processed soem of the images.

THis trip also raised a couple of issues, which I'll post separately.

Thanks for the advice, everyone.

Rob

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Is there a particular reason you wouldn't use it again?

 

[Astacus]

Is there a particular reason you wouldn't use it again?

I'd use it less. But, because of the gear I carry on long trips in aeroplanes, I don't think I'd carry it. More likely to use it on trips from home as the 'light' lens. No issues over performance. And, the 70-200 with a 1.4 is a rather good mid range zoom, so I'm quite well covered. THis is not a down on the 200-600.. but since getting the 600, I know how lucky I am. I also know that it is rare for a bird to fill a 600mm image, so the FL of the 200-600 would most probably stay at 600mm anyway.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Cool, I was curious if it had been performance related as I am hopefully heading on safari next year.