Is 80-400mm overkill on a DX (crop factor 1.5) body?

I

insomniac

Messages
172
Edit My Images
No
I'm going on safari, and was thinking of renting the 80-400mm for use on a D90 body. But the more I think about it, the more reticent I'm becoming about this lens.

One, it's heavy - about 1.5kg. Two, it's very expensive (north of £250 for the rental). Three, not sure how ergonomic it will be to swing a large, heavy lens around in a jeep. (Any experiences to share?). Four, I'll be using this on a DX body, a crop factor of 1.5x to keep in mind.

Given these constraints, would the 70-300mm or 70-200mm be a better choice?

Thanks in advance.
 
Well I have a 100-400mm for my Canon 650d and not 70d and for Animals, I would say it's definitely not overkill!

Weight/size might be a little awkward at times but it's definitely worth the hassle imo. You might even get somewhere to prop up the camera or just stick it on a tripod with the legs not fully deployed or something.
 
I did safari with a 55-300 on a nikon d5100 crop body a couple of years ago when I was new to photography and knowing what I do now I would definitely take something longer if I got the chance to go back. Saying that there was times when 55 was just wide enough as we had some very close encounters with lions, elephants and baboons. 2 bodies would be a nice solution of money was no problem. Bring a bean bag, it is really good if you are in the vans with the pop up roofs. There is a few of my shots if you go away to the start of my flickr.

Phil
 
Not done wildlife but would say you can never have enough!!! A sigma 150-500 may be an option?
 
I loved my 80-400 on my gripped D200, gave me excellent results

Although you are right, its really heavy, when I went to races, I made sure I had my monopod just to assist in the weight!
 
I have the new 80-400 & tbh don't find it too heavy at all. It's a lot lighter than the 300 F2.8 I had!
I've never been on a safari, so can't comment on that, but it must be a better option than a large prime, or even taking 2 bodies + lenses & having one swinging around.

It's a quality lens with a good range.

As Simon said, maybe a siggy?

I guess it also depends if you're gonna use it much when you get home.
 
The prevailing school of thought seems to be that one needs two types of lenses - long and longer. Basically the better endowed the lens, the more fertile the results.

I was reading Nathan Myrvhold's blog entry on the subject. His philosophy seems to be that size isn't everything, rather it's the only thing. But I'm also trying to be a bit practical.

OldCarlos, I'm renting the lens as I have very little use for it on a day-to-day basis. Mind you, the rental isn't cheap either, though once the aggregate cost of the trip is considered, I think the weight/ergonomics would be more of a clincher than the marginal cost of the rental, if that makes sense...

Ahhh.. choices, choices.
 
It's a tough decision for sure. If you were purely `birding`, i'd say yes, longer is better! (as usual :D ) but shooting bigger animals may not be the case.

It may be best to ask a few folk who've been on the same safari previously, just how near they got.

As you say, considering how much you are spending on the trip, renting gear probably isn't too bad.

Also factor in your carry on allowance, with your airline.
 
I've been on safari with a 100-300 & only wish I could go back with my present 70-400 ...
 
I'd be tempted to buy the sigma 150-500mm and then sell it on after, can't see you loosing £250 on it, more like £100
 
I am also looking at this subject with a view of doing it in the next 2 years...
Some thoughts are - what body are you taking?
If D90 how much can you crop before subject is considered too small... Which then requires a longer lens ... arghhh

I'm looking at the D800 if only to allow me to crop more successfully & also allow me to undersize a lens.
Prob take a 3/400mm F2.8 & a Sigma 150/500
 
I don't have that option, as I'm really trying to control the weight of my gear. So the choice is renting either a 70-200mm, 70-300mm or 80-400mm.

I'm taking a single body - the D90. It's going to be very dusty on the game drives/walks so I won't be changing any lenses outside of camp. I think 70-200mm is a bit too short at the long end, so it's bottom of my list. Ergonomics and cost-wise 70-300mm wins hands down.

But the crop factor makes me think that the long enough of the 300mm would be 450mm equivalent, which is enough... Is my thinking wrong?
 
Last edited:
Just got back from Sri Lanka. Would definitely go as long as possible, it's a shock how even Elephants can diminish in size at any sort of distance!
 
FWIW, I have never been on Safari but I do own the new Nikon 80-400 and have owned the Sigma 150-500 (in Canon fitment) and would rate the Nikon as a much better lens for Safari use. IMVHO it is sharper across the range, focuses much faster and does not suffer from colour cast or flare/ghosting issues in bright sunlight. You may be happy with the Sigma 150-500 or 50-500 for that matter but I would certainly not discount the 80-400 if I were you.

Good luck with your selection.

Gary
 
If this length of lens is something that you do not normally use in your day to day photography i would say rent.

My personal choice if it was me would be sigma 50-500, that way if the animals come close you can go wide ish but still have the extra length to get that pesky lion that will not come out from under the bush 200 yards away lol.

saves the hassel of having to spend time money selling it when you get back and you have some excellent pics.
 
I had a Canon 100-400 IS L and a Sigma 150-500 OS and mostly used the Canon on a 7D (crop at 1.6x) and the 150-500 on the full frame 5D2 body. I've now got a 5D3 and recently acquired a 70D as backup and still use the 150-500 on both bodies. IMHO I really don't think you can have enough reach rather than limiting yourself.

I also use a Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII and a 2x Canon MkIII extender giving a great zoom range of 140-400 and that often gets used on the crop body when the Sigma is on the 5d3.
 
I've not been on a safari but it seems your question is more about the size and weight of the lens. If you want smaller and lighter than the 80-400 then the 70-300 would be a good choice. I'm guessing a 70-200 f2.8 would be in the same boat as the 80-400, unless you went for the 70-200 f4.

The size and weights are below.

70-300 vr
Size 80 x 143.5 mm
Weight (g) 745

70-200 f2.8
Size 87 x 209 mm
Weight (g) 1540

70-200 f4
Size 78 x 178.5 mm
Weight (g) 850

80-400 newer version
Size 95.5 x 203 mm
Weight (g) 1570

The 70-300 vr punches well above its weight and is a very good lens for the money. I only sold mine as I bought a 70-200 f2.8 but there are times I wish I still had the 70-300. Rather than renting you could buy a 2nd hand 70-300vr for the price of renting the 80-400. I would say a wide angle lens would be a nice combination with the any of the above.

Regarding support a bean bag would be ideal and a monopod may be useful, with either the 70-300 or 70-200 f4 you wont need a monopod as they have no tripod foot on the lens (unless you buy it separately with 70-200 f4). At least you didn't start thinking about renting the 200-400 f4, now that is a big lens!
 
Are you desperate to carry loads of heavy kit around or do you just want to be able to take photos? Would you consider a super zoom like the HS50 or SX50? They've certainly got the range on them.
 
Rob, you're right - it's a case of balancing out the weight, cost, ergonomics, etc and I think the 70-300mm fits the bill a bit better as this point. As you mentioned, the cost of buying one second hand is comparable to the cost of renting the 80-400mm.

Thank you all for the replies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top