Safari lens 70-30 DO IS USM

AMac

AMac

Messages
194
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I am going on Safari in June and I am looking for some advice regarding a lens to take.

I am using a Canon 550D, 17-40L and 28-105. From what I have read so far idealy I should be looking at 300mm.

As I do not think I would use the lens so much after the safari I was planing to hire the lens.

I have looked at Canon EF 70-300 DO IS USM as it seems to be a fair bit smaller and a bit easier to move arround.

I have read some so so reports about the image quality, has anyone any experience?

Most of the images will be on my pc screen and the better ones in a photo book at A4 size.

Or I could buy for about £200 a 55-250mm F4/5.6 or 75-300mm F4/5.6 but again so so reports about quality.

So any advice or thoughts would be great.

Cheers,
alex
 
I personally wouldn't recommend the DO as a safari lens, its a good travel lens because of its size and weight, but people have reported that the lens is abit soft at 300mm.

I when on safari last year in the Kruger Park in SA and I was using a 300mm f2.8 prime with TC's (1.4 + 2x) and a 70-200mm f2.8

The 300mm lens and TC's got used the majority of the time and in some cases I even stacked TC's to get the shots. It depends on your restrictions with the vehicle, we had to keep to the roads or tracks, so it varied greatly as to how close or far the animals were.

If your hiring a lens, personally I would look at one of the longer lenses, unfortunately that also means significant increase in size and weight. For a wildlife lens the sigma 50-500mm OS would work. The light conditions should be good enough for you to get away with using that lens 95% of the time.

Would avoid buying either the 55-250mm F4/5.6 or (especially) 75-300mm F4/5.6 and just hire.

www.lensforhire.co.uk speak to Stewart
 
If you want the 70-300 range then why not try the Canon 70-300L. It's an excellent lens and is also relatively compact.
 
Another lens to look at is the Sigma 120-300 os f2.8 Make sure it's the new os version as it takes a 2x convertor very well giving you the option of 240-600 at f5.6 although it's best to open it up to 6.3 to get the best image quality. In it's 120-300 state it's very sharp and fast even at f2.8
 
Last edited:
I have the canon 55-250 and they can be had for a lot less than 200, but I would think that if you're considering the Do, your budget is a bit higher. You could always hire a lens, but purchasing and selling on is not going to be much difference.
Having looked online at possible upgrades for my 55-250, the 70-300L lens has appealed a lot - smaller than the 100-400, but good image quality.
 
The lens I would consider if hiring would be the 100 - 400 L which is proberbly the easist to hire.
 
I have the 55-250 lens and I find that I have to stop it down a little to get the best out of it. However if I had a £800ish budget I would be looking at the 70-200 range and hire a tele converter for the safari.
 
DaveKing said:
I have the 55-250 lens and I find that I have to stop it down a little to get the best out of it. However if I had a £800ish budget I would be looking at the 70-200 range and hire a tele converter for the safari.
Click to expand...

People people........please read what the OP's written. He doesn't have £800 or £1000 to spend. He wants to hire a lens and was asking whether the 70-300mm DO was any good (small compact lightweight).

So he wants suggestions for a lens to hire (option 1)
or whether a 55-250, the 70-300L lens would be worth buying (option 2)

As for a safari lens, 200mm ain't going to cut the mustard in about 90% of situations on a proper safari. It depends what type of safari the OPs going on and the access to the animals. In the Kruger I was using a 300mm lens with a 1.4 and 2x TC stacks, that's nearly 1300mm with the crop factor of my camera.

So hiring a 120-300mm or 50-500mm would be more sensible options for the OP.
 
pete.rush said:
People people........please read what the OP's written. He doesn't have £800 or £1000 to spend. He wants to hire a lens and was asking whether the 70-300mm DO was any good (small compact lightweight).

So he wants suggestions for a lens to hire (option 1)
or whether a 55-250, the 70-300L lens would be worth buying (option 2)

As for a safari lens, 200mm ain't going to cut the mustard in about 90% of situations on a proper safari. It depends what type of safari the OPs going on and the access to the animals. In the Kruger I was using a 300mm lens with a 1.4 and 2x TC stacks, that's nearly 1300mm with the crop factor of my camera.

So hiring a 120-300mm or 50-500mm would be more sensible options for the OP.
Click to expand...

Whoops - sorry, missed the hiring bit! The Safari I went on I had a 400mm equivelent compact and I found that to be more than enough for full body shots of the big game. However if you are looking to get 'up close' without cropping you may want a couple hundred mm more.
 
The point made regarding where the OP is going on safari is very valid.
I have been to both the Kruger and the Masi Mara and they are very different. In the Kruger the vehicles are restricted to the roads so the majority of shots require the longest lens you can comfortable handle. The Masi Mara IMO is far better than the Kruger, the vehicles go off road therefore you get much closer to the animals. For most of your shots, other than birds you can get away with a 200mm to 300mm lens. Also bear in mind that safaris generally go out early morning and late afternoon, so for the latter trips you may need to consider the maximum aperture in your choice of lens, or be prepared to wind up the ISO.
If you are going to hire a lens then IMO the best all round lens would be the Canon 100-400mm zoom. I will not give an opinion on which to buy (unless your budget will stretch to the latter) there are too many options and I do not think you should base the purchase on the need of a single trip.
Davol
 
Cheers guys for all your thoughts and advice.

I think I will have a chat to the guys at Lens for hire as I have used them before and they have been helpful.

As I said I don't think I would use such a long lens after the holiday, I did not think buying one of the bottom of the range lens would work but I wanted to ask the question.

Evrything I have read says the EF 70-300 DO IS USM os a bit soft, so I think I will hire one of the other longer lens, perhaps a L lens.

I am going to Tanzania Selous National Park, I am not sure what the access is like, I have 2 vehicle safari days, one walking safari day , one boat safari day.

Thanks for your help, any other tips would be great.
 
Personally, I'd take the 100-400. While it's a little larger and heavier, the difference in length and image quality makes it worthwhile. And I've used both the 100-400 and the 70-300 DO on safari.

The DO was used in Botswana, where the bush means that animals are close, and the ability to go off-road gets them closer. In Tanzania I was grateful for the extra reach of the 100-400 because we were stuck to the roads.

DO pics are here, 100-400 are here.
 
Whatever you decide on, make sure you get in there asap, as they are generally booked in advance, so you'll have to get in there quick to secure yourself a lens.

It would also be sensible to get it a few days before the off, to get used to it, you don't want to be reading manuals and missing shots, plus if there god for bid is a problem, you have time to return it and receive a replacement.

I used to use that 55-250mm IS EFS lens and got some great results but it's only good enough for the zoo, it really doesn't cover that much distance.

I would recommend http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/

If you have a local Jessops/Jacobs etc.... Try a few lenses to get an idea of what sort of range you're getting out of said lens on your body. M.
 
Hire 100-400L. Pretty much standard safari issue, and it's actually quite small closed at 100mm.
 
Thanks guys,
If you all have any other general safari tips, please let me know. I am not sure I will get the wife to come on a 2nd one!

By the way Frank you have some great shots there, makes me want to go tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
I have a 100-400 L which I have used extensively and it's a great lens. Not too big and heavy, great IQ and great IS. I also have a 70-200 f4 L and a Kenko 1.4x TC which also gives great IQ when combined and brilliant IQ without the TC. I've just bought a Sigma 150-500 OS which surer looks like it's going to be another regularly used lens. The 100-400 on my 7D and the 150-500 on my 5D2 and I should be set up for all the airshows I can manage.
 
I've got the choice of pretty much every lens I could want, but if I were going on a safari I'd take a 100-400L. Yes, I'm sure I'd get better pictures with a 300/2.8 or a 500, but they'd take over the entire trip. The 100-400 is much more easily manageable, and its ergonomics are superb.
 
It depends - partly - where you are going. June is mid-winter in Southern Africa and the bush will be less dense, because it doesn't rain very often, but the topography and vegetation can vary quite a bit. Will you be in a vehicle, on foot, or a bit of both? Is this a private reserve with guided game viewing, or a self drive safari in a national park?

The 100-400L is probably the best and most versatile choice, but it might be a bit slow for dawn and dusk - wonderful light and more wildlife activity - so you'll probably have to increase the ISO. I'd strongly recommend that you take something shorter and faster too, there are times when it can be very useful. Two bodies, with both lenses mounted, is a very good option if you can borrow a second one? Saves changing lenses in dusty conditions too, and Africa can be very dusty at that time of year.

One more thing. Have you checked to see if the area you're going to is malarial? This is important. The risk is less in the dry season, but malaria is a very serious disease and you may need to take prophylaxis. Please don't take chances with this. A couple of my friends in SA ended up in ICU after fishing trips to the lowveld.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top