African Safari - Nikon 24-120mm f/4 + Nikon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Agool said:
I went for the last 5 years in the month of July to Sabi Sands and the Kruger Park. Last year with the Z9 - Z400mm 4.5 and the Z8 - Z70-200 2.8. Most of what I have used in Sabi Sands is the Z8 with the Z70-200 2.8. Very happy with the 400 and the 70-200. Unfortunately no Sabi Sands this year but Tswalu and Madikwe game reserve. Which lodge are you going to in Sabi Sands
Click to expand...
We are staying 4 nights at Sabi Sabi Selati and 4 nights at Arathusa.

Thanks for your feedback, I'll keep putting it into the decision matrix. ;-)
 
Member's gallery
Ivy said:
Another opinion to consider.
Just returned from safari in South Africa and Botswana. Stayed at 4 camps in private conservancies so we off-roaded. On the Z9 I had the 180-600. If I needed more reach (typically for birds) I switched to DX mode rather than add the 1.4 TC. Smaller file size on photos that would be heavily cropped later was my rationale. Plus you do not want to swap lenses or add a TC in the field if you can avoid it. On the Z8 I had the light 70-180 f/2.8 lens. Since game drives started before sunrise and ended after sunset, this fast lens came in handy. I also spent time in a hide by a waterhole. In the past, I used the 24-120 here but this time I went with the 70-180 or 24-200 in addition to the 180-600.

My back up telephoto for this trip (which I never needed) was the f mount 300 PF/1.4 TC.

I mount the Z9/180-600 on a monopod which makes handling easier and allows me to lower SS when subjects are still and I want to lower ISO. Shoot Manual Auto ISO.

100-400 does not have adequate reach for me so I much prefer the 180-600. Less expensive and better all around for my purposes. Have used 500 PF in past safaris, but personally prefer a zoom for composition and flexibility.

Had a 70-200 f/2.8 lens in past but did not travel with it due to size/weight limitations. But the lighter, less expensive 70-180 is now always with me. And both 180-600 and 70-180 take the 1.4 TC if more reach is needed. Or just DX to avoid 1 stop loss. I have no issue going into DX mode since I previously owned the d500 and was just as happy with it as the d850.
Click to expand...
Based on your post, what are your thoughts on the following: a Kenya/Namibia trip including landscapes and wildlife, and owning a Nikon Z8, 24-120mm f4 S, 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 S, and 500mm PF. I will be on private reserves and near watering holes. For low light (sunrise, sunset, hide photos) I'm thinking I should take a f2.8 lens. Would you take a 24-70 f2.8 for landscapes and close ups of wildlife instead of 24-120mm F4 and/or a 70-200mm f2.8 and a 1.4 TC instead of the 100-400mm ? I'm definitely taking 500mm PF. I'm taking a 2nd Z8 - one for distance, one for closer shots. Many thanks!
 
Member's gallery
AlanDB said:
We are staying 4 nights at Sabi Sabi Selati and 4 nights at Arathusa.

Thanks for your feedback, I'll keep putting it into the decision matrix. ;-)
Click to expand...
Both are nice places!! Last year we stay at Nottens and Nkorho. Nottens also drives on the property from Sabi Sabi, and Nkorho at the property of Arathusa. Both perfect places to see every gamedrive Lions and leopard nearby. Sabi sabi you have more change to see Cheetas.
 
Member's gallery
Agool said:
Both are nice places!! Last year we stay at Nottens and Nkorho. Nottens also drives on the property from Sabi Sabi, and Nkorho at the property of Arathusa. Both perfect places to see every gamedrive Lions and leopard nearby. Sabi sabi you have more change to see Cheetas.
Click to expand...
We tried to spread out a bit - 4 nights southern Kruger and then 4 nights in southern Sabi Sands and 4 nights in northern - hopeful to get a wide variety of critters.
 
Member's gallery
Agool said:
Both are nice places!! Last year we stay at Nottens and Nkorho. Nottens also drives on the property from Sabi Sabi, and Nkorho at the property of Arathusa. Both perfect places to see every gamedrive Lions and leopard nearby. Sabi sabi you have more change to see Cheetas.
Click to expand...

We are staying at Nottens in July, nice to hear of someone else who has stayed there :)
 
Member's gallery
Eilish said:
If you had to choose between Nikkor 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 or 70-200mm f2.8 with 1.4TC on a Z8 for safari, which would you choose and why?
Click to expand...
From what I've learned online and in this thread I think there are various considerations:

1. The 70-200mm (even w/ the 1.4TC) would provide better subject isolation in general

2. The 70-200mm (even w/ the 1.4TC) would work better (or slightly better w/ the 1.4TC) in low light situations

3. If your game drives are expected to result in closer subject opportunities then the 70-200mm would be sufficient, if, on the other hand you are expecting to be much further from your subject, the extra reach of the 100-400mm might prove useful.

4. If you are carrying a longer lens (prime telephoto - e.g., 400mm / 600mm / 800mm) then the 70-200mm + 1.4TC would provide the optimal image quality across a wide focal range.

5. They weigh about the same, although the 70-200 is slightly smaller, if that is a concern for packing.

6. Having said all that, the 100-400 should suffice for most people if push comes to shove.
 
Member's gallery
I think it comes down to number of lenses :
1) If just one, the 100-400 makes more sense as you will need in most cases access to 400mm or beyond. In addition, you don't want to have to add / remove the TC on the 70-200 because of the dust risks. That means your 70-200 stays at that focal length which is too short or it stays on 100-280 in which case the 100-400 makes more sense.
2) If two lenses or better two bodies : the 70-200 is great as the shorter lens. Can be used in low light and no need to use the TC. Cropping-in will work because this is such a good lense.
 
Member's gallery
There is also the consideration of redundancy - almost everyone I have read/seen state that you really should have two camera bodies. And that it also makes sense to have one body w/ a longer-reach lens, and one w/ a shorter one.

Then to take the redundancy argument further, you have to think about the catastrophic loss (broken, lost) lens. That would suggest you need a minimum of three lenses.

For example, one kit I am strongly considering is: 24-120mm f/4 + 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 + 400mm f/4.5

If something happens to the 24-120, I've got my cell phone (not ideal, but it would have to do). If the 100-400 goes belly up I've got the 24-120 + 400 - lost some range between 120 + 400, but I could live w/ a DX crop getting me to almost 200. If the 400mm f/4.5 dies, I've got the 100-400.
 
Member's gallery
Thnx for your thoughts. I’m taking two Z8s, a 500mmPF, a 24-70 / or 120. The question remains, a 70-200 f2.8 or 100-400 f4.5-5.6. Think low light at sunrise & sunset. Hmmm…
 
Member's gallery
I have seen people rely upon the 70-200mm f/2.8 (+ 1.4TC) and 400mm f/2.8 as their main go to set up. The 280mm to 400mm is apparently not too big of a focal range miss for them.

I would worry about 280 to 500mm, but that's me- and I don't have any experience. ;-)
 
Member's gallery
AlanDB said:
I have seen people rely upon the 70-200mm f/2.8 (+ 1.4TC) and 400mm f/2.8 as their main go to set up. The 280mm to 400mm is apparently not too big of a focal range miss for them.

I would worry about 280 to 500mm, but that's me- and I don't have any experience. ;-)
Click to expand...
Both photos shot at the same time by me and the other one by my daughter in Sabi Sands 2022 with the 500mm pf and the other with the 70-200 2.8
 

Attachments

  • _DSC1954.jpg
    _DSC1954.jpg
    753.3 KB · Views: 42
  • _Z623833.jpg
    _Z623833.jpg
    873 KB · Views: 40
Member's gallery
Alan, keep in mind it does get dark very quickly in mid winter in South Africa.
With the loss of light you will need a faster lens or you will miss out on super opportunities. Both lions and leopards get active early evening which offers good opportunities for some action photos with help from the vehicles spotlight operated by the tracker.

The spotlight would help with focusing on the animals but high ISO comes into play with slower SS, but you can get decent shots.
I am attaching another photo that was taken 17:15 in the afternoon, already dark and the spotlight in use.
This is by no means a master piece but I have a fair looking visual memory of the young leopard male wrestling his mother, SS to low and had some headroom as far as ISO was concerned which I should have utilised. (I have removed the photo and posted it in the wildlife section)
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
AlanDB said:
I have seen people rely upon the 70-200mm f/2.8 (+ 1.4TC) and 400mm f/2.8 as their main go to set up. The 280mm to 400mm is apparently not too big of a focal range miss for them.

I would worry about 280 to 500mm, but that's me- and I don't have any experience. ;-)
Click to expand...
I rarely have time to "compose" a shot, so don't mind missing a range, like the 280-500mm. Partly I got used to primes when zooms were not as good as now (my first two lenses were zooms about 15 years ago and was disappointed with them so switched after several years to primes). So just focus on the most interesting part of a shot.
Also, if you haven't bought the 70-200mm f/2.8, you might consider the 70-180mm. Much lighter (and cheaper). I brought it on my last trip to Africa as my 3rd lens (had the 400mm and 800mm). The other advantage is that it has a much closer minimum focus distance (useful if the lions are very close). I realize that it doesn't have VR but the body does. Just a thought.
 
Member's gallery
For my trip to South Africa (Phinda Game Reserve) a couple of years ago I took two cameras (D810 and D7500) and two zooms (70-200 f4 and 200-500 f5.6) and that was enough (70 to 750 mm)...I also added my light 18-35 f3.5/4.5 that served for a couple of landscape images, no more than that. The 200-500 was a bit cumbersome as it is not very friendly when you have to zoom it, but it worked fine. If I were going there today, maybe the 500pf would be a better alternative due to its better IQ, weight and handling, but the 200-500 range would be a problem. That's why I think that the 300pf could be a nice addition (so one zoom and two fixed focal lenses). I am still in the DSLR world....and happy there....my latest addition has been a D850...so next time maybe three cameras and three lenses? :)
 
Member's gallery
I'd definitely choose a 70-200 over the 100-400 to pair with a 500PF.

As others have said, aperture will be king.

I actually prefer now to carry the Tamron 35-150 f2-f2.8 instead of a 70-200. It's faster, lighter, shorter, and shoots wider. I found I never used a TC with my 70-200, so that wasn't really any value lost.

I think with big animals I tend to prefer environmental shots anyways, and the wide aperture is just an added bonus.
 
Member's gallery
AlanDB said:
We are starting to plan a 40th wedding anniversary trip to South Africa and whilst this is *not* a photography expedition, my wife fully encourages me on these trips to do some semi-serious photography ;-) Anyways, I have been a (mostly) landscape photographer for a number of years now - but as I approach retirement I want to start picking up wildlife photography (birding in particular). And for this trip, mostly mammals of course, I'd like to bring appropriate gear. We will be staying at (mostly) private game reserves - and from what I've seen that can result in a lot of close-in photography as you can get quite close to the animals on game drives. But, of course, you also need some distance. (sigh). I currently own the 24-120 + 100-400 (+ 1.4TC) for my Nikon Z9. [Before retirement I am looking into a long prime lens for birding - maybe the 600 or 800 PF?]

In my research I've seen a lot about (a) needing faster lenses for early morning/evening times, (b) that you really need to get to 600mm if at all possible, and (c) having two set ups with you can really make a big difference. To that end I am thinking of renting a Z8/Z9 as a second body and taking these two lenses. I know w/ the 1.4TC I get to 560mm w/ the 100-400mm - and I can DX it into a 20MP 840mm f/8 lens at the touch of a button. My thoughts are to have the 24-120mm on the rented body and the 100-400mm on the Z9 in lower light situations and add the 1.4TC when the light is better. [That would give me a focal distance range of 24-400/600mm(DX) in low light and 24-560/840mm(DX) in good light]

The question is then: would I really suffer during the low-light periods w/ the relatively slow lenses - f/4 at best, f/5.6 at worst? Should I really be thinking of dropping the (say) 24-120mm and renting some fast-ish prime instead?
Click to expand...
i used to take 2 bodies with z9 24-70 2.8 and d850 80-400. and a 1.4tc which i rarely used.

current trip z8 24-70 and z9180-600. my friend used the 100-400. all good choices.

a noticeable gap between 70 and 180. to bridge, i put the z8 in DX. and the z9 with the 180-600 in DX works well as well.
 
Member's gallery
AlanDB said:
I do have the 1.4 and 2.0TCs currently and plan on bringing them.
Click to expand...
I brought a 1.4X and did occasionally pop it on (and off), though often things happen to fast to do it. Maybe one day I will get a lens where you can engage the TC with a flick of the switch. I am sure you will get some amazing images, there is nothing like Africa for wildlife.
 
Member's gallery
ricardo00 said:
I brought a 1.4X and did occasionally pop it on (and off), though often things happen to fast to do it. Maybe one day I will get a lens where you can engage the TC with a flick of the switch. I am sure you will get some amazing images, there is nothing like Africa for wildlife.
Click to expand...
If I go the route of taking the 400mm f/4.5 it is with the plan of using it "naked" during low light and when the light is better adding the 1.4 during better light. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top