-
Wife and I did an overlanding trip before the kids came along, starting in Namibia, through Botswana, a bit of Zimbabwe and down to SA, taking in Makgadikgadi Pan, Chobe, the Ockavanga Delta, Victoria Falls and Kruger NP.
I only had a 70-300 at the time for the long stuff paired with a cropped sensor and I never felt I needed anything longer. On safari you're close and the animals are large! The first time I ever saw a wild lion, we came round a corner and there it was like 2m away from my foot.
I didn't take a second body, I had a Nikon P310 for wider stuff, it's a great little compact, which can be used fully manual. I would take a second body now though.
I now have a Sigma 100-400 which is not much bigger than the 70-300 and much, much smaller than 150-600. Its great.
9 Attachments
-
You are reading a single comment by @ELbowloh and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
ELbowloh
withered_preacher
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.