-
Definitely on the right track. We went on a safari 4/5 years ago (S. Africa, so slightly different) and I had the Fuji 55-200, which was great. Couple of pics below for reference.
I sort of wish I’d had the 100-400 as well, but less of an issue in S. Africa as you’re basically restricted to what’s near the roads anyway.
I have literally just traded in both a 55-200 and 100-400 with Wex, but would very happily get them back if you wanted to have a look at them.
5 Attachments
-
PeteJChurchill
-
Thanks! Lovely photos. Excuse my ignorance (and apologies for being a bit off-topic), but how is S. Africa different to Kenya for a safari? Totally new to it all.
I'm up in Manchester, so probably out of range to look at your lens, but thanks for the offer - if only we'd started planning it a bit sooner!
@C4r1s I have seen those, but I like the idea of it all being weather- and dust-sealed. I've dreams of taking photos of rainy rally stages at some point if I own the lens, or just using it for general all-weather hiking like I do the 16-55.
jgadd
We're looking at booking a safari (Masai Mara etc) for later this year, which inevitably leads to looking at buying long lenses...
I've got a Fuji X-T3 and the 16-55 f2.8 that I really like, and it looks like the Fuji 100-400 might be the best thing to get? Cheaper and more packable than the more bongo 150-600, and longer than the 50-140. I was thinking ideally I'd probably end up with a second body, and have a lens on each to swap between 16-55 and 100-400. I also feel like the 100-400 would be a great toy, so I'd be OK with buying instead of renting.
Does that seem like a sensible way to go, or am I going completely the wrong way with it? Safaris, wildlife photos, and long lenses are all new to me, so I've no idea.