Canon mirrorless lens recommendations for safari trip

[bombfrog]

Hi all,

I haven't posted on here for a while but I'm planning on going on a 3 week safari this summer and I was planning on upgrading my camera for the trip. My original plan was to hire both camer and lenses because I haven't been using my camera much recently, but for the cost of hiring a good camera and lenses for a month I may as well buy it earlier to get some practice with it and sell it all for a fairly minimal loss at the end of the summer. Do you think it will hold.... 90%? 80% of it's value if I look after it all and keep all the boxes and contents safe?

Anyway, I've done a fair amount of research and Youtubing and I have decided that the camera will be the R5, my main question is about lenses.

When I go travelling I usually take one wide-angle, one standard zoom and one telephoto zoom. In the past I've used canon 10-22mm at the low end and EF70-200mm IS with 2x extender at the other end, but having never been on a safari before I have no idea how close I am going to be to the animals or what I might want to take photos of. I'm also working with a weight limit for my whole luggage of 15kg on the small flight to Masai Mara and back. I only want to take a total of 3 lenses so here are my thoughts on options....

Wide shots/landscapes

* Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8 L IS
* Canon RF 14-35mm F/4L IS

Standard length

* Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 L
* Canon RF 24-70mm f2.8 L IS

Telephoto zooms

*Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
*Canon RF 100-500mm F/4.5-7.1 L IS


So, the wide and standard length choices seem to come down to price/quality, unless I'm missing something that's fairly simple. The longer focal lengths are the problem I think. I understand that the extenders don't work with the 70-200mm which leaves me thinking that the 100-500mm is the only option. I don't have the weight limit or the budget for a telephoto prime lens so am I right in thinking that the 100-500mm is the only option? Is the gap between the 70mm limit of the standard and the 100mm limit of the telephoto lens a problem?

As I said, I have no idea how close we'll be to the wildlife when in the vehicles but I do also expect to do a bit of landscape photography and we will also be going mountain gorilla trekking in Rwanda on the same trip so I'll need the best quality lens when standing up to 10 metres away.

Anyway. Any and all help from seasoned safari photographers would be gratefully received.

 

[lindsay]

A good safari guide will get you pretty close to most of the wildlife in my experience - I've been within 15ft of lions, elephants, rhinos and 20-30ft from hippos, elephants, rhinos and buffalo. The more shy and retiring types - cheetah, leopard - require the longer telephoto but I have personally managed fine with a max 200-300mm on FF equivalent. Better contextual shots of various antelopes, elephants and giraffes should still easily work with those lenses you've mentioned. If you are going for wild birds - flamingos for example, and bif, I'm no expert but the 100-500 might be better. I'd personally choose the 70-200 over the 100-500 unless the birds are particilarly important.

 

[bombfrog]

Thank you Lindsay,

I guess it's just the fear of taking a 200mm lens and then seeing a leopard or somethin gin the distance and not being able to get it, or not being able to zoom in on the face of something a bit closer. It is a very high resolution camera though and as you say I'm not interested in birds.

I have read a few articles form people saying that you should take a short/mid/long lens but they have the 70-200mm as the "mid range", with just the 28-70mm being the only wider option. Does that sound sensible?

 

[nandbytes]

Was planning something similar myself.... if you are buying new anyway not sure why you are wedded to canon (not that its bad by any means).
I have/had a Sony line up planned with 3 lenses:
Sony 16-35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8
Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3

2 bodies one with 35-150mm and other with 200-600mm.
I was unsure if I wanted to swap 35-150mm f/2-2.8 for 70-200mm f/2.8 since the 70-200mm can take TCs (RF version doesn't either).

Have considered canon also... and if I was forced to make a similar setup for canon... I'd personally look at:
RF15-35mm f2.8
RF70-200mm f2.8
EF 400mm f/4 DOii + 1.4x TC on a adapter

2 bodies ones with 70-200mm and other with 400mm DOii (or may be with 1.4x TC).

Good luck on your trip whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy it.

Anyway, I've done a fair amount of research and Youtubing and I have decided that the camera will be the R5, my main question is about lenses.

I'd have done it the other way i.e. look at the lenses first and then pick a body to put it on.

 

[robinsslee]

From your list, I'd pick F4 over F2.8 and 100-500mm

Alternatively you can consider RF 24-105mm F4

 

[bombfrog]

Was planning something similar myself.... if you are buying new anyway not sure why you are wedded to canon (not that its bad by any means).
I have/had a Sony line up planned with 3 lenses:
Sony 16-35mm f/2.8
Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8
Sony 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3

2 bodies one with 35-150mm and other with 200-600mm.
I was unsure if I wanted to swap 35-150mm f/2-2.8 for 70-200mm f/2.8 since the 70-200mm can take TCs (RF version doesn't either).

Have considered canon also... and if I was forced to make a similar setup for canon... I'd personally look at:
RF15-35mm f2.8
RF70-200mm f2.8
EF 400mm f/4 DOii + 1.4x TC on a adapter

2 bodies ones with 70-200mm and other with 400mm DOii (or may be with 1.4x TC).

Good luck on your trip whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy it.


I'd have done it the other way i.e. look at the lenses first and then pick a body to put it on.

Hi nandbytes,

I'm going Canon because my current camera is a 50D and I've loved it since I had it.

I'd love to be able to afford 2 bodies, or a 400mm prime but both push the (monetary and weight) budgets too far over I'm afraid.

My options currently seem to be....

Option 1 - 15-35mm + 28-70mm + 100-500mm

Option 2 - 15-35mm + 28-70mm + 70-200mm

Option 3 - 28-70mm + 70-200mm + 100-500mm


Anyway, thanks very much for your advice. I hope you enjoy your trip too.

 

[bombfrog]

From your list, I'd pick F4 over F2.8 and 100-500mm

Alternatively you can consider RF 24-105mm F4

Hi,

Is there any reason to pick the F4 over the F2, apart from cost? Or is it just to cover the gap up to 100?

 

[nandbytes]

Hi nandbytes,

I'm going Canon because my current camera is a 50D and I've loved it since I had it.

I'd love to be able to afford 2 bodies, or a 400mm prime but both push the (monetary and weight) budgets too far over I'm afraid.

My options currently seem to be....

Option 1 - 15-35mm + 28-70mm + 100-500mm

Option 2 - 15-35mm + 28-70mm + 70-200mm

Option 3 - 28-70mm + 70-200mm + 100-500mm


Anyway, thanks very much for your advice. I hope you enjoy your trip too.

I'm sure 50D was a very nice camera but things have moved on since then. If you are simply buying something for a trip why do you care. they are all just tools for a job, just buy whatever you think will be the best at it.

Well on Sony you could afford two bodies as lenses are cheaper than the canon ones and easier to find used.

On canon I'd pick an option between 2&3
So 15-35mm + 70-200mm + 100-500mm.
For the range between 35-70mm just crop from your 15-35mm, R5 has plenty of resolution.

Regardless of the brand you choose I suggest taking a backup body. On once in a lifetime type trips last thing you want is to be stuck with many nice lenses without a working body to put them on. Also I'd suggest shooting with dual card slots for redundancy too.

Honestly I'd really take out brand loyalties and emotions and buy whatever would be the best for such a trip within my budget constraints. That'd include back up bodies, dual cards, a backup SSD drive, etc etc.

 

[LCPete]

How close you can get to the animals depends where you are going some places you have to stay on the road/track
I would take the 100-500 especially as the R5 is full frame
I found on my last trip to Kenya a lot of my shots were at 600mm on an R5
Agree with nadybytes about taking a spare body I normally use a long lens on R5 and shorter zoom 70-200 f4 on my 6D2
Also you may not always have time to swap lenses sometimes only get a few seconds before the animal turns or moves away and it also can be dusty
I’ve never been on a Gorilla trip so can’t advise there

 

[bombfrog]

Hmmm,

Good advice both! Now where am I going to get a second body and get it into my luggage weight limit

We will be taking my old 50D as my wife wants to start to learn photography but I guess the RF lenses aren't backwards compatible so we'll both be taking different lenses (she'll probably just take 2).

 

[GeeJay57]

We went on safari to Zambia in 2017.

I took a 7Dii, EF-S 15-85mm and an EF 100-400mm L II. Covered everything I needed. I may have also taken a 1.4x TC as well, but can’t remember. My wife took an 80D, EF-S 18-135mm Nano USM and an EF-S 55-250mm. Again, covered pretty much what she needed, but was a bit short sometimes. Both of us have very decent binoculars, which for us are a must have for wildlife trips. This kit was just inside the weight limit

The guides got us pretty close to the wildlife, but the 400 end of my zoom did come in handy.

Enjoy your trip.

 

[nandbytes]

Another idea for a backup body could be something like Sony RX10M4. 1" 20mp sensor with 24-600mm FoV lens. The lens is also sharp and fast enough f2.8-4.
The AF is pretty reliable too. This would save on your budget plus give you a great all in one package.
If you buy used they barely lose any value so you can sell it back for almost no loss.

If you are shooting good light you won't really care about the ISO performance limitations of a 1" sensor.

My main problem with this body for such a trip is the single card slot. Otherwise would made for a nice backup all in one package.

 

[rob-nikon]

Hi nandbytes,

I'm going Canon because my current camera is a 50D and I've loved it since I had it.

I'd love to be able to afford 2 bodies, or a 400mm prime but both push the (monetary and weight) budgets too far over I'm afraid.

My options currently seem to be....

Option 1 - 15-35mm + 28-70mm + 100-500mm

Option 2 - 15-35mm + 28-70mm + 70-200mm

Option 3 - 28-70mm + 70-200mm + 100-500mm


Anyway, thanks very much for your advice. I hope you enjoy your trip too.

Looking at your options you’ve thought of cost doesn’t seem to be an issue so you’re not limited in that respect. Any reason why you aren’t interested in the f4 versions? The biggest benefit of f2.8 lens is the one stop extra of light which you probably wouldn’t need in Africa (I’m guessing). Other benefits were the use of teleconverters but teleconverters now don’t fit the canon rf 70-200 f2.8. F4s are also lighter than there f2.8 counterparts so another benefit (and cheaper too).

I’m a bit biased as I’ve recently gone through what’s right for me and I’ve gone with them myself so I’d consider the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4. Lower cost and lighter weight whilst still giving good performance. If a ultra wide angle is really needed I’d go with the 14-35 f4, again lower cost and weight being the big draws for me. The 14-35 is a very wide lens on full frame so may not be too useful for safaris (never been on one so don’t know what’s really needed).

When looking at the cost of the f2.8s and f2 lenses compared to the f4 the cost difference + 100-500 cost could be a used 400mm f4 DO II (circa £4200 used with warranty). The big question is whilst you’re buying for this trip in mind what will suit your uses in the future?

Have you spoken to the travel operator regarding what they would recommend? I was on Skomer a few years ago and a lady in a photography tour group had hired a canon 500mm f4 without asking the tour leader. It really wasn’t suit for the location or her, she’d have been better off with a 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a 1.4TC.

 

[robinsslee]

Hi,

Is there any reason to pick the F4 over the F2, apart from cost? Or is it just to cover the gap up to 100?

Apart from the weight and the other question is whether you need the F2 or F2.8 in your photo adventure.

Rent another body and put a wide angle or 24-70mm for close up actions. Changing lenses on the field sometimes isn't ideal.

 

[rob-nikon]

Hmmm,

Good advice both! Now where am I going to get a second body and get it into my luggage weight limit

We will be taking my old 50D as my wife wants to start to learn photography but I guess the RF lenses aren't backwards compatible so we'll both be taking different lenses (she'll probably just take 2).

If you want two bodies it is possible especially if you went with the lighter f4s. A two lens setup of 24-105 f4 (700g) and 100-500 (1530g) along with 2 R5s (650g each) would be circa 3530g which is 1.09kg lighter than your R5, 28-70 f2, 70-200 f2.8 and 100-500 option. You could even add the 14-35 f4 and still be 0.5kg lighter.

The R6 is roughly the same weight as the R5 but half the weight. You could sell it afterwards and not lose too much if you bought a used model. There were some R6s in the classifieds recently which you’d be able to sell for roughly the same price when you get back. I don’t have two camera bodies but if I was thinking of going on a once in a lifetime trip I’d look at cost effective ways to take another with me just in case my camera failed on me whilst away.

Some weight info I looked up:

Canon R5 650g

14-35 f4 540g

24-105 f4 700g

70-200 f4 695g

15-35 f2.8 840g

24-70 f2.8 900g

28-70 f2 1430g

70-200 f2.8 1030g

100-500 1530g

The easy way to compare would be to create a spreadsheet with the cost, weights and focal length they would cover to see how different options stack up.

 

[nandbytes]

Apart from the weight and the other question is whether you need the F2 or F2.8 in your photo adventure.

Rent another body and put a wide angle or 24-70mm for close up actions. Changing lenses on the field sometimes isn't ideal.

We know he'll be shooting some wildlife on his safari but don't know what else he'll be shooting.

Talking about Skomer for example I got a couple really nice close up wide angle shots. Only wish I could have been there for the sunset.
Plus it's a great place to shoot stars, and Africa will likely be too.

I am planning a similar trip (but not Africa) and expect to be spending the nights with some stars. Not to mention I'll also wanting to shoot some family shots too.

I'm thinking of also taking a pocketable camera... Something like a canon G5X ii.

 

[bombfrog]

Looking at your options you’ve thought of cost doesn’t seem to be an issue so you’re not limited in that respect. Any reason why you aren’t interested in the f4 versions? The biggest benefit of f2.8 lens is the one stop extra of light which you probably wouldn’t need in Africa (I’m guessing). Other benefits were the use of teleconverters but teleconverters now don’t fit the canon rf 70-200 f2.8. F4s are also lighter than there f2.8 counterparts so another benefit (and cheaper too).

I’m a bit biased as I’ve recently gone through what’s right for me and I’ve gone with them myself so I’d consider the 24-105 f4 and 70-200 f4. Lower cost and lighter weight whilst still giving good performance. If a ultra wide angle is really needed I’d go with the 14-35 f4, again lower cost and weight being the big draws for me. The 14-35 is a very wide lens on full frame so may not be too useful for safaris (never been on one so don’t know what’s really needed).

When looking at the cost of the f2.8s and f2 lenses compared to the f4 the cost difference + 100-500 cost could be a used 400mm f4 DO II (circa £4200 used with warranty). The big question is whilst you’re buying for this trip in mind what will suit your uses in the future?

Have you spoken to the travel operator regarding what they would recommend? I was on Skomer a few years ago and a lady in a photography tour group had hired a canon 500mm f4 without asking the tour leader. It really wasn’t suit for the location or her, she’d have been better off with a 70-200 f2.8 and maybe a 1.4TC.

Main reason for preferring the 2.8 is simply that I prefer to go for quality over price (when I can afford it of course, which isn't the case with the longer primes).

Also, it's not just about the extra stop of light but the shorter focal length too, but I take your point about the weight and possible use of teleconverter.

 

[bombfrog]

Apart from the weight and the other question is whether you need the F2 or F2.8 in your photo adventure.

Rent another body and put a wide angle or 24-70mm for close up actions. Changing lenses on the field sometimes isn't ideal.

Just quality and depth of field, no other reason. I'm open to suggestion though.

 

[robinsslee]

We know he'll be shooting some wildlife on his safari but don't know what else he'll be shooting.

Talking about Skomer for example I got a couple really nice close up wide angle shots. Only wish I could have been there for the sunset.
Plus it's a great place to shoot stars, and Africa will likely be too.

I am planning a similar trip (but not Africa) and expect to be spending the nights with some stars. Not to mention I'll also wanting to shoot some family shots too.

I'm thinking of also taking a pocketable camera... Something like a canon G5X ii.

I can only assume that he isn't photographing anything other than wildlife and landscapes on good lights. Hence I didn't suggest that he should bring the F2.8s. If he does nightscapes then a wide angle F2.8 could do the job but for me I'd rather have either 14mm 2.8 or 24mm 1.4.

You'll need overnight in Skomer to get the sunset shots with the puffins

I thought Sony RX100 is a better option? Or maybe phone camera?

 

[robinsslee]

Just quality and depth of field, no other reason. I'm open to suggestion though.

What's the subject you want with shallow DoF?

 

[bombfrog]

We know he'll be shooting some wildlife on his safari but don't know what else he'll be shooting.

That's the tough bit as I'm not sure myself.

I doubt there will be many photos indoors, although I'll want to take some photos of our accommodation they are just for memories and I won't be showing them to anyone else so quality is not important.

As for other things, I would like to get some sunset shots. Our accommodation is on the top of an escarpment so some wide open shots of the plains will probably feature, and if we're lucky enough to see thousands of wildebeest migrating then the wide-angle will definitely come in use.

 

[bombfrog]

What's the subject you want with shallow DoF?

Probably just close ups, gorillas for example, maybe big cats if we're lucky enough to see any lounging in trees. Never done this before but like a nice close up with a good bokeh.

 

[rob-nikon]

Main reason for preferring the 2.8 is simply that I prefer to go for quality over price (when I can afford it of course, which isn't the case with the longer primes).

Also, it's not just about the extra stop of light but the shorter focal length too, but I take your point about the weight and possible use of teleconverter.

I understand there is a quality upgrade with the f2.8s but the f4s are still pretty good quality and their light weight can be a bonus in some circumstances (like the one you potentially have where weight is limited to 15kg for luggage). I’d recommend having a look at reviews of the f4 versions as it may surprise you how little difference there is.

 

[bombfrog]

Thank you all, the one message that's coming through fairly clearly is that the wider apertures probably aren't needed. My instinct was to go for the best quality kit that I can afford but it makes sense that going for the F4s might reduce the weight and give me some other options. As usual, this forum has come up trumps.

 

[Jim_Tod]

I’d be thinking 24-105, 70-200 with mirrorless body Plus fz82 or rx10 iv or even both.

if your wife is looking to take a camera why take the 50d with even more weight with an old camera to be carried that isnt lens compatible? If she’s getting into photographythen a superzoom bridge with decent manual plus auto controls would be better

that 50d with a value of £100-150 appears to be driving a lot of decisions that dont make sense.

i went on safari in tanzania 4 yrs ago d50p, d810, 24-105, 70-20p, 120-300 plus tc for 70 and 120 zooms

if i knew then what i know now it would be d500, 24-105, 150-600 plus a 1” sensor superzoom with a 1200mm+ equivalent. Lighter, covering the bases. If you’re a pro you’d have different guides and access. Most park access is restricted in terms of timeS so you’re unlikely to be there early or late so generally decent light. I’d use any weight saving to get a my passport ssd that backs up from and to sd cards and a load of sd cards. Backup card, keep ssd and card seperate and new card, no reformatting in the field, 2 copies for a once in a lifetime trip

 

[rob-nikon]

Thank you all, the one message that's coming through fairly clearly is that the wider apertures probably aren't needed. My instinct was to go for the best quality kit that I can afford but it makes sense that going for the F4s might reduce the weight and give me some other options. As usual, this forum has come up trumps.

don’t forget canon do the test drive service which is a great way to try a lens/camera for a couple of days before purchasing one.

 

[bombfrog]

that 50d with a value of £100-150 appears to be driving a lot of decisions that dont make sense.

Not at all, it's only coming with us because it's lying around.

My decision to go with Canon has more to do with the fact that The R5 has had some amazing reviews and because I know a lot more about these lenses having watched more Youtube videos than I can remember. Also, I have an 84" 8K TV so I'd like to get the chance to do a bit of 8K video too, although that's not particularly important, just a bit of fun. The R5 just seems to make sense to me.

 

[bombfrog]

don’t forget canon do the test drive service which is a great way to try a lens/camera for a couple of days before purchasing one.

I did not know this! Can I just buy from any shop like Jessops/Park/Wex etc. ?

 

[rob-nikon]

I did not know this! Can I just buy from any shop like Jessops/Park/Wex etc. ?

It’s basically free hire for a couple of days. It’s done directly through canon rather than a shop. After hiring they usually give you a 10% off code too.

 

[bombfrog]

It’s basically free hire for a couple of days. It’s done directly through canon rather than a shop. After hiring they usually give you a 10% off code too.

Wow, if that works it could save a lot of money. Will definitely try that.

Edit: Looks like it's 5% right now which is still great. They were also doing cashback on lenses but that seems to have finished last April

 

[nandbytes]

I thought Sony RX100 is a better option? Or maybe phone camera?

RX100 versions with fast lens has a short range (24-70mm) and the one with long range (24-200m) has a slower f2.8-4.5 lens.

G5x ii has a 24-120mm f1.8-2.8 lens. The AF is only CDAF but for occasional use it's good enough.

that 50d with a value of £100-150 appears to be driving a lot of decisions that dont make sense.

Tried telling him this but doesn't seem like he's particularly interested in other brands. His money so he's the boss

plus a 1” sensor superzoom with a 1200mm+ equivalent. Lighter, covering the bases. If you’re a pro you’d have different guides and access. Most park access is restricted in terms of timeS so you’re unlikely to be there early or late so generally decent light. I’d use any weight saving to get a my passport ssd that backs up from and to sd cards and a load of sd cards. Backup card, keep ssd and card seperate and new card, no reformatting in the field, 2 copies for a once in a lifetime trip

I don't think such a body exists but the RX10M4 has a 24-600mm equivalent f2.8-4 lens. Only issue is single card slot.

Also, I have an 84" 8K TV so I'd like to get the chance to do a bit of 8K video too, although that's not particularly important, just a bit of fun. The R5 just seems to make sense to me.

Make sure you have plenty of storage if you are shooting 8K

 

[Jim_Tod]

RX100 versions with fast lens has a short range (24-70mm) and the one with long range (24-200m) has a slower f2.8-4.5 lens.

G5x ii has a 24-120mm f1.8-2.8 lens. The AF is only CDAF but for occasional use it's good enough.


Tried telling him this but doesn't seem like he's particularly interested in other brands. His money so he's the boss


I don't think such a body exists but the RX10M4 has a 24-600mm equivalent f2.8-4 lens. Only issue is single card slot.


Make sure you have plenty of storage if you are shooting 8K

You’re right i’ve got the fl’s mixed up with smaller sensor size.

 

[1dmouse]

I went on a safari trip with the gorilla trek in Rwanda a few years ago and I bought a Canon 1D MK IV specifically to go along with my 50D. The only two lenses I had then was a EF24-105mm f4 L and the EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6 L and came away with some pictures I was happy with although there were times the animals were either too small or too far away but that will always happen with wildlife.
One thing I would say with regards to the gorilla trek is if the group are in a covered area of the forest then a f2.8 lens will help greatly it can get pretty dark up the volcano. My experience was it rained very heavily and I had to shoot at 5000 ISO just to be able to get a decent shutter speed so I was pushing my 1D to it’s limits. The rain also caused both of my cameras to pack up after half and hour but it was great just to put my camera down and enjoy the wonderful experience. I’m sure the R5 will do an excellent job and the 30fps will burn through memory cards.

 

[robinsslee]

Probably just close ups, gorillas for example, maybe big cats if we're lucky enough to see any lounging in trees. Never done this before but like a nice close up with a good bokeh.

I see, close-ups you can use 100-500mm and zoom in for portraiture. Longer reach = shallow DoF. Wide angle is useful for surroundings too, so don't forget this and hence, second body so you could just point and shoot quickly to avoid missing the actions.

 

[ShinySideUp]

If I may put in my two pen'orth.

Why are you going on a safari: Is it to get professional-style pictures of big game or to have an enjoyable, once-in-a-lifetime trip? I suggest that it is the latter, in which case I suggest taking a 28-70mm some sort of 200mm and a bloody good pair of binoculars. Better folk than you or I have taken pictures of African fauna while accompanied by cases and cases of professional-quality equipment so they can get their pictures in National Geographic or some such and get large quantities of money for it, but you can see these pictures anytime by picking up a magazine or trawling the internet. In the end, what is the point of coming back with loads of excellent pictures when all you've done is seen the same things through a viewfinder rather than actually experiencing them. Concentrating on returning with pictures is akin to going to a rock concert and staring at the band through the screen on a mobile phone.

Take pictures by all means but mostly just enjoy the experience and don't let photography define your holiday.

 

[bombfrog]

Concentrating on returning with pictures is akin to going to a rock concert and staring at the band through the screen on a mobile phone.

And if it were a rock concert I would entirely agree with you because I'm more interested in seeing a band perform than I am in photography. I especially don't understand it when I'm watching somebody at Glastonbury filming through their mobile phone when the BBC are filming it on professional grade TV cameras.

However, this is not a gig, this is a safari and my interest in photography far outweighs my interest in wildlife. It's my wife who's mad on every part of the animal kingdom. I only agreed to it because I thought I'd get a chance to practice my photography ;-)

 

[nandbytes]

Why are you going on a safari: Is it to get professional-style pictures of big game or to have an enjoyable, once-in-a-lifetime trip? I suggest that it is the latter, in which case I suggest taking a 28-70mm some sort of 200mm and a bloody good pair of binoculars. Better folk than you or I have taken pictures of African fauna while accompanied by cases and cases of professional-quality equipment so they can get their pictures in National Geographic or some such and get large quantities of money for it, but you can see these pictures anytime by picking up a magazine or trawling the internet. In the end, what is the point of coming back with loads of excellent pictures when all you've done is seen the same things through a viewfinder rather than actually experiencing them. Concentrating on returning with pictures is akin to going to a rock concert and staring at the band through the screen on a mobile phone.

pretty much anything and everything has been photographed now.... looks like we are all wasting our time and money. A simple google will show pictures of almost everything.
what's even the point of this forum? in fact what's the point in life, someone else I am pretty sure will have done all the same things as me, do the same job as me and live a similar life as me.
oh noes.... Its all pointless

 

[LCPete]

If I may put in my two pen'orth.

Why are you going on a safari: Is it to get professional-style pictures of big game or to have an enjoyable, once-in-a-lifetime trip? I suggest that it is the latter, in which case I suggest taking a 28-70mm some sort of 200mm and a bloody good pair of binoculars. Better folk than you or I have taken pictures of African fauna while accompanied by cases and cases of professional-quality equipment so they can get their pictures in National Geographic or some such and get large quantities of money for it, but you can see these pictures anytime by picking up a magazine or trawling the internet. In the end, what is the point of coming back with loads of excellent pictures when all you've done is seen the same things through a viewfinder rather than actually experiencing them. Concentrating on returning with pictures is akin to going to a rock concert and staring at the band through the screen on a mobile phone.

Take pictures by all means but mostly just enjoy the experience and don't let photography define your holiday.

I know what you mean but it depends on the individual, to me it means a lot to get a nice shot of say a lion, leopard or elephant and have the picture on the wall , sure more capable people than myself have taken better pictures but it’s the memory of the occasion captured
Everyone is different, the OP I think is wanting to get decent pictures
But I did spend time watching the elephants once I’d got the shots

 

[ShinySideUp]

However, this is not a gig, this is a safari and my interest in photography far outweighs my interest in wildlife. It's my wife who's mad on every part of the animal kingdom. I only agreed to it because I thought I'd get a chance to practice my photography ;-)

Then I retract my post and would advise your good lady to invest in a good pair of binoculars.

 

[ShinySideUp]

pretty much anything and everything has been photographed now.... looks like we are all wasting our time and money. A simple google will show pictures of almost everything.
what's even the point of this forum? in fact what's the point in life, someone else I am pretty sure will have done all the same things as me, do the same job as me and live a similar life as me.
oh noes.... Its all pointless

That is all true. I was merely trying to help the OP see the wood rather than the trees but as you can see above, my assumption about why he was going was erroneous and I have changed my opinions. He IS going for the photography and therefore should take as much gear as he considers necessary, I was originally just trying to lighten the load.