Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all...I'm planning to go to S Africa for Safari...and to see capetown, vic falls...and I really don't want to buy the 100-400...it's just soooooooo big!!!!!!

 

So I'm looking for suggestions.

 

Can I use a teleconverter with my 55-200?  This is my longest fuji zoom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went on a safari in Botswana in 2004. I was still shooting film and took my trusty and indestructible Nikon F2. My longest lens was the 300 mm f4.5. For those who don't know old Nikon primes, it is a traditional telephoto: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/300ais.htm 

 

I used that lens most of the time, apart from a 24 mm wide-angle for some landscapes. But I do remember wishing that it was longer and faster. Most of the shots weren't close enough and a good number suffered from motion blur – even with the bright African sun, the combination of f4.5 and 100 ISO film meant that the shutter speed wasn't enough to compensate for the vibration of the jeep.

 

If I were doing it again today, I would definitely take the 100-400. No question. Yes it is heavy but what you get in return is more than worth the hassle of carrying it around. Plus the OIS will give you sharp photos without motion bur. You will regret it forever if you don't take it. If you want to save on weight, take only one other lens.

 

You really should take WR lenses, not because of the rain but the fine dust. That rules out the 23 mm f1.4 but not the 16 mm f1.4, which is also a better lens. Alternatively you could take the 16-55mm f2.8 if you have it, because it is also WR. Zoom lenses make sense on safari because you minimise the risk of getting dust on the sensor. And of course you will need a WR camera.

 

One other thing: get a small beanbag. You use it as a cushion on the side of the jeep to steady the lens. Quick to deploy and really effective. If you want to save on weight on the flight, get an empty one and fill it with South African sand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

good advice...thx so far.  additionally when I'm going...over xmas/new years it's going to be ungodly hot...another good reason to have WR lens...but I just don't want to spend the cash!!!!!!!!!  I've got some time to maybe sell some stuff to make it less painful!  

 

And...I do not have the 16-55...the only WR zoom I have is 18-135.  Maybe I should sell some lenses and change up my arsenal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to South Africa a few years back when I was shooting m43 and took a 100-300mm (200-600mm focal length) and X100S. I wouldn't entertain going on another safari without at least a tc on the 50-140mm, but would seriously be considering the 100-400mm as you really need the reach.

 

I'd actually be tempted with both lenses (50-140mm & 100-400mm) for a combination of light gathering (don't forget the drives happen at sunrise and sunset) and reach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd buy and then sell it when you get home. I bought a used 100-400 when I shot Canon and sold it after the safari for what I paid for it. Probably not a lot of used fuji's yet, but it would probably be cheaper than renting for 3 weeks. You would also have more time to play with it.

 

I have the Fuji 100-400 now and don't feel the need for the grip to hold it with my Xt-2 though the higher frame rate might be nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

When I participated in a photo safari in SA I carried a X-T1 with a 16-50 and a 50-200, but those lenses should be in separate bodies: everytime I changed them an enormous amount of dust went in...

Depending on where you are staying, the need of a very long tele can or cannot be important: private lodges allow the trucks to go closer to the animals, while at Kruger one cannot leave the roads. The common ground to all is dust, so changing lenses is bad...

The Fuji 18-135 shines there for "wildlife action": the bad corner sharpness with that lens isn't an issue because everything is about "look at that beast in the center!!!". 

For animals far away the 50-200 wasn't appropriate and I had to crop a lot, so either have a Fuji 100-400 or a m4/3 camera with a Pana 100-300/Olympus 75-300 (or a Pana 100-400). 

If you stay at a private lodge the 18-135 could be all you'd need, plus a good fast prime. But "mileage varies", of course.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used my 50-140 with a 2x TC when I went to le mans last year and it worked really well.

That's about 400mm at f/5.6 in 35mm terms.

The only drawback, which was a drawback of the whole system rather than that lens combo, was not being able to shoot at f/11 or smaller than continuous high and past detect AF. It was sunny and I wanted to try to stay the shutter to get some blurred backgrounds. If you'd like some samples, let me know.

 

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and I really don't want to buy the 100-400...it's just soooooooo big!!!!!

 

But its size/weight doesn't really matter, IMHO, if you are on a LandRover in the bush... On the other hand, Fuji allows cropping reasonably, and a 55-200 or a 50-230 would bring good pictures anyway. Been to SA a couple of years ago, and the animals come and go so often and so close that I craved for a superzoom like the 18-135. Later I purchased that lens but the copy I have doesn't show good IQ away from the center below f/8 at all focal distances.  ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

While I haven't been on safari with my XT-2 yet, I have been on several (short) safaris in Kenya and South Africa. Here are a few thoughts based on my experience but not specific to Fuji gear:

  • It is great to be able to go wide and get close ups. I took 2 camera bodies on our last safari so I was ready for anything and would not need to change lenses in dusty conditions. Another tip I saw (and used) was to cover up the camera with a cloth while driving through dust.
  • There were times when animals walked right up to the vehicle and were too close for my husband to use his 100-400mm lens but it was nice to have that extra reach at other times. (I had the flexibility to go wide or zoom in but 300mm was my longest reach.)
  • Someone mentioned the fact that you may be taking a lot of photos in low light because of the timing of game drives (to maximize the chance of good sightings). You may want to figure out what lens (and camera settings) you might use in very low light. On our first safari in Masai Mara, we were taken on a sunset drive and saw leopards on our way back to the lodge. On our last trip, we photographed a lioness licking her cub at sunset. 

Hope you have a great time! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again...thanks everyone for the suggestions...at this point I'm laying things out for the trip, calculating weight of luggage and such...and I'd really like to go light and compact as possible...as there are weight restrictions on my tour.

 

I have most available fuji lenses.  

 

For hopefully the last time...what do you all think would be a good, relatively compact kit where I can get some good shots.  I will be at krueger, a private safari...then j-berg and capetown and garden road.

 

My last consideration is:

 

18-135...100-400 or 50-140 w/1.4 tele and 27mm 

 

What do you guys think of that?

Edited by ullmandds
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then most likely you are not getting the correct results.
    • I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
    • I don’t have the 23 f2 but I have read several times that it is considered a little soft at close distance, compared to the 23 f1.4 lenses. These will also focus at shorter distance from the subject, esp. the new one. So that might make a difference. The new 23 f1.4 LM WR  has better resolution, esp. in regard to the 40Mpix sensors, which you don’t have on the X-T2. What practical difference that makes for the value of the pictures one makes is disputable and subjective.  f1.4 will gather more light but with a smaller DOF, which may be desirable in some situations but not so in others, depends. If you like to shoot close ups, you will probably use higher f numbers to get a bigger DOF. Same for landscapes. If you are a bokeh fan, yes the f1.4 lens are better.  The older 23 f1.4 lens that you are considering is a very good and respected lens. The f1.4 vs f2 aperture per se is perhaps not so important. The 23 f2 is very small, light and practical and a great lens for travel and landscapes. So, go figure. I am afraid I just sent you further down the road to insanity !
×
×
  • Create New...