1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  1. Christoph

    Christoph

    Messages:
    116
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Hi, I am going on safari soon and I have a Nikon D500. The lenses that I have are: Nikon 200-500 5.6, Nikon kit lens 18 -105 (quite old so possibly due for change soon) and a Sigma 10-20. It seems quite a gap between the 18 -105 and the 200-500 and I would like some advice please about which lens or lenses to fill the gap. I have been looking at the Nikon 70-200 F4 or possibly the 24-120 F4. I would appreciate any advice/views, thanks
     
  2. Craigus

    Craigus

    Messages:
    687
    Name:
    Craig
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    For a Safari are you sure you need that range between 105 and 200 covered? If you need longer than 105 then you probably want 200+ anyway, especially on a crop sensor...

    I'm afraid I'm not familiar with new Nikon gear, but I think it can be a common thing that people do is try to cover all focal lengths when it isn't actually necessary.
     
    Christoph likes this.
  3. PaulButler

    PaulButler

    Messages:
    3,202
    Name:
    Paul
    Edit My Images:
    No
    The 18-105 is an older lens now, decent enough but not great. As Craig says above, it isn't essential every focal length is covered, I've not been on a safari so van't comment on what focal lengths you will need either.

    However a few thoughts, if you want to replace the 18-105 then the 18-140 gets decent reviews so may be worth considering. The 70-200 f4 is an excellent lens having owned it. The other option is to consider renting a lens, however that may not be cost effective for the range you are looking at.

    I have looked at a few safari type holidays and one thing that is often said is that you don't want to be changing lenses if possible, as there is usually an awful lot of dust around. Given that, it may make sense to use a second body perhaps, even a compact such as a Sony Rx100 (plenty of other good options too).
     
    Christoph likes this.
  4. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    29,204
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Depending on any budget and weight constraints and taking into consideration the dust factor, I would consider a second body and an 18-200 of some sort.

    As an uncle (recently returned from a safari [lucky bleeder!]) said, the scene can change in an instant and people were missing shots faffing with a lens change while he (with a Sony bridge of some description IIRC) could just zoom in/out as necessary. Using a second camera is significantly quicker than changing a lens (IME).
     
    Christoph likes this.
  5. Nawty

    Nawty

    Messages:
    5,895
    Name:
    Ned
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Yeah, on safari you really don't want to be changing lenses if you can at all help it - the dust is extreme.

    So, one camera with your long lens which you will use 90% of the time and a second body with a superzoom or something would be good. To be honest I wouldn't worry about the gap between your 18-105 and the 200-500 so I would just get another body to use with the 18-105 (with the added bonus that you have a backup body).
     
    Christoph likes this.
  6. nuttyboy78

    nuttyboy78

    Messages:
    681
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Just been on Safari in South Africa and took my 17-55 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4 and rented a 100-400 ii to go with my 7D.

    2 bodies would have been nice but too cumbersome to carry around for me.

    The lens I used the most was the 100-400. I occasionally used the 17-55 for landscape type shots, when we were up close to the animals and after it became too dark to use the zoom. Although I carried the 70-200, I didn’t use it once.

    Switching lenses was difficult, especially when your subject is mobile and you don’t have much time to get your shot before the scene changes. I had the 100-400 on as default on game drives with the wide angle in a pouch in front of me, set up to switch at a moments notice.

    I don’t think you need to fill the gap between 105 and 200mm. Switching between 3 lenses will be a nightmare
     
    Christoph likes this.
  7. GeeJay57

    GeeJay57

    Messages:
    1,647
    Name:
    Glenn
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    Recently went to South Luangwa National Park Zambia. I took a Canon 7DII, 15-85mm, 100-400mm and a 1.4x TC and a very decent pair of binoculars. That covered everything I needed on the trip. There's not one thing I would have left at home, but didn't need more in the field than I had with me.

    One thing to have in mind is the carry-on weight limit on internal flights (if you have any). In Zambia, the limit was 5kg. I was just over, missus was just under so as we were travelling together there was no problem.

    Have a great trip. Ours was amazing.
     
    Christoph likes this.
  8. Christoph

    Christoph

    Messages:
    116
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    No
    RE GeeJay57 reply "Recently went to South Luangwa National Park Zambia. I took a Canon 7DII, 15-85mm, 100-400mm and a 1.4x TC and a very decent pair of binoculars. That covered everything I needed on the trip. There's not one thing I would have left at home, but didn't need more in the field than I had with me.

    One thing to have in mind is the carry-on weight limit on internal flights (if you have any). In Zambia, the limit was 5kg. I was just over, missus was just under so as we were travelling together there was no problem."

    Have a great trip. Ours was amazing.

    Thanks for all the advice above plenty of things to consider. We are going to South Luangwa Glen very much looking forward to it. The weight restrictions are the same as yours looks like
    i'll have to fill up the wifes backpack.:naughty:
     
  9. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    29,204
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes

    Reading this sort of proves my point! The unused 70-200 is as bulky as a second body... ;)

    I started using Fuji kit a few years back and now carry 3 bodies with 10-24, 18-135 and 100-400. The kit is lighter than the Nikon (FF D750) with 12-24, 24-120 and 70-300 and covers a far greater focal range.
     
    Christoph likes this.
  10. Christoph

    Christoph

    Messages:
    116
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Beginning to think that way myself Nod, the idea of a compact as suggested by Paul seems a good idea rather than another body.
     
  11. Nod

    Nod Kronus

    Messages:
    29,204
    Name:
    Nod (NOT Ethel!!!)
    Edit My Images:
    Yes
    That's a good call too. Handy to have in the bag/pocket as a backup and/or a more discrete camera for general use.

    ALL my carry on luggage (and some of Mrs Nod's!) is taken up with photo kit but it's Sod/Murphy/Nod's law that if I leave anything at home, I'll need it!

    One thing my uncle did say was that he and the other non (serious) photographers saw much more than those who spent most of their time peering through their viewfinders, even if they do have fewer and (possibly) worse shots of what they did see.

    Enjoy the trip whatever kit you take.
     
  12. Christoph

    Christoph

    Messages:
    116
    Name:
    Chris
    Edit My Images:
    No
    Thanks for the advice Nod - my wife has already commented about spending too much time peering through a lens and not seeing the bigger picture (no pun intended):naughty:
     

Share This Page