Steve'sDigicams

CityCoop · Feb 11, 2005, 7:49 AM

Hi!

Going on safari in 2 months. Own a D70 withNikon's 17-55/2.8.

Know that's not nearly enough lens for a safari, and would really like to spend under $2,000.

I've been looking at thenew Nikon 70-200/2.8 but don't know if that's enough lens either.

Also looked at the straight 300/4. Not sure about buying something that's not a zoom (but willing to try).

Is there anything else I should be considering? Maybe something even in an older lense that's (dare I say) manual focus? Figure I'll be out at infinite most of the time, making AF less important.

Thanks!!!

wmdyer · Feb 11, 2005, 9:38 AM

I'd recommend that 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 converter. That would give you the lens range equal to 105-300 2.8 with the 70-200 on your D-70, plus with the 1.4 converter you'd have the equal to 450mm and it would still be an f4. With the 300 f4 you'd have the equal of a 450mm lens, but less flexibility. Plus, the reviews I've read on the new Nikkor 70-200 VR say its one of Nikon's best lens ever.

Have fun!

Morris · Feb 12, 2005, 7:13 AM

You cant go wrong with the above combination. Plus the VR feature may be really usefull for this type of shooting.

CityCoop · Feb 12, 2005, 8:43 AM

Thanks! It's definitely one of the combos I was thinking about.

Just wondering how much I'll lose using the teleconverter? Not worried about the one f-stop but wondering how different the clarity and flares will be?

Thanks again for all your suggestions!!!

-AC

Wannabe · Feb 12, 2005, 1:24 PM

Doesn't the 1.4 with a 70-200 get you to 420, not 450? Small point maybe, but...

NHL · Feb 13, 2005, 7:34 AM

CityCoop wrote:

Quote:

Is there anything else I should be considering? Maybe something even in an older lense that's (dare I say) manual focus? Figure I'll be out at infinite most of the time, making AF less important.

If your plan is to shoot a 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC most of the time, take a look at the Sigma 100-300 constant f/4 - There's just nothing sharper in a zoom (Yes - rated even higher than the 70-200 VR before the teleconverter). BTW it also has the HSM (silent AF with full-time manual overide): http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Ztelel
Just about everyone loves it... and much more flexible than a fix lens! :idea:
http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD_85165_3128crx.aspx

cameranserai · Feb 14, 2005, 3:46 AM

Perhaps I can be of assistance here having just come back from South Africa myself. I took the D70, 70/200 VRIFED and the TC14E and in general was satisfied, but you have to comprehend that even with this combination I am forced to crop and enlarge to get satisfactory results. For most circumstances the above equipment has proved more than satisfactory for the last year (motor racing in point) but for wild life photography we are dealing with sometimes small animals at several hunded yards. A lion might look big and fearsome close up, but in real life on the veldt looks more like a pussy cat! It's like Arizona and Nevada - perpective is different.

If I was going again I would take the same lens but also buy the TC20E which in 35mm terms would push out to 600mm, which is really needed in these circumstances you'll find. However, there seem to be very good reports everywhere of the Sigma 70/200 HSM which is much cheaper, and a 2x converter is available with it. Whatever, you will be travelling in the back of a truck or bus on very bumpy terrain, so do not false economise - you'll need the VR version. I see also the 100/300 F4 Sigma is mentioned and while I have no personal knowledge that also would give good results, being the equivalent of 900mm with the 2X converter. However, if there is no VR version beware, or set a fast !SO rating to give you a fast shutter speed to avoid blur, risking the noise factor.

Hope this is of use.

CityCoop · Feb 14, 2005, 11:16 PM

Thanks to everyone for all the info... really sounds like I should get as much lens as I can afford. Anyone have any other suggestions for a long lens with VR or its equivalent?

I'll have to share the pics when I get home (mid-April)!

-AC

Morris · Feb 15, 2005, 10:09 AM

For VR or equivalent you will have only Nikon lens. If you consider a non-VR lens, Sigma recently introduced a 120-300 f2.8that has lots of praise.

kex · Feb 20, 2005, 12:39 PM

Wannabe wrote:

Quote:

Doesn't the 1.4 with a 70-200 get you to 420, not 450? Small point maybe, but...

right.
200*1.4*1.5=420.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Feb 11, 2005, 7:49 AM	#1
CityCoop Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3	Hi! Going on safari in 2 months. Own a D70 withNikon's 17-55/2.8. Know that's not nearly enough lens for a safari, and would really like to spend under $2,000. I've been looking at thenew Nikon 70-200/2.8 but don't know if that's enough lens either. Also looked at the straight 300/4. Not sure about buying something that's not a zoom (but willing to try). Is there anything else I should be considering? Maybe something even in an older lense that's (dare I say) manual focus? Figure I'll be out at infinite most of the time, making AF less important. Thanks!!!

Feb 11, 2005, 9:38 AM	#2
wmdyer Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3	I'd recommend that 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4 converter. That would give you the lens range equal to 105-300 2.8 with the 70-200 on your D-70, plus with the 1.4 converter you'd have the equal to 450mm and it would still be an f4. With the 300 f4 you'd have the equal of a 450mm lens, but less flexibility. Plus, the reviews I've read on the new Nikkor 70-200 VR say its one of Nikon's best lens ever. Have fun!

Feb 12, 2005, 7:13 AM	#3
Morris Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 113	You cant go wrong with the above combination. Plus the VR feature may be really usefull for this type of shooting.

Feb 12, 2005, 8:43 AM	#4
CityCoop Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3	Thanks! It's definitely one of the combos I was thinking about. Just wondering how much I'll lose using the teleconverter? Not worried about the one f-stop but wondering how different the clarity and flares will be? Thanks again for all your suggestions!!! -AC

Feb 12, 2005, 1:24 PM	#5
Wannabe Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 167	Doesn't the 1.4 with a 70-200 get you to 420, not 450? Small point maybe, but...

Feb 14, 2005, 3:46 AM	#7
cameranserai Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 548	Perhaps I can be of assistance here having just come back from South Africa myself. I took the D70, 70/200 VRIFED and the TC14E and in general was satisfied, but you have to comprehend that even with this combination I am forced to crop and enlarge to get satisfactory results. For most circumstances the above equipment has proved more than satisfactory for the last year (motor racing in point) but for wild life photography we are dealing with sometimes small animals at several hunded yards. A lion might look big and fearsome close up, but in real life on the veldt looks more like a pussy cat! It's like Arizona and Nevada - perpective is different. If I was going again I would take the same lens but also buy the TC20E which in 35mm terms would push out to 600mm, which is really needed in these circumstances you'll find. However, there seem to be very good reports everywhere of the Sigma 70/200 HSM which is much cheaper, and a 2x converter is available with it. Whatever, you will be travelling in the back of a truck or bus on very bumpy terrain, so do not false economise - you'll need the VR version. I see also the 100/300 F4 Sigma is mentioned and while I have no personal knowledge that also would give good results, being the equivalent of 900mm with the 2X converter. However, if there is no VR version beware, or set a fast !SO rating to give you a fast shutter speed to avoid blur, risking the noise factor. Hope this is of use.

Feb 14, 2005, 11:16 PM	#8
CityCoop Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3	Thanks to everyone for all the info... really sounds like I should get as much lens as I can afford. Anyone have any other suggestions for a long lens with VR or its equivalent? I'll have to share the pics when I get home (mid-April)! -AC

Feb 15, 2005, 10:09 AM	#9
Morris Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 113	For VR or equivalent you will have only Nikon lens. If you consider a non-VR lens, Sigma recently introduced a 120-300 f2.8that has lots of praise.