Longer lens for safari?
Posted 15/10/2012 - 17:20 - Helpful Comment
Link
If weight is an issue, then perhaps the 55-300mm is the logical choice. It is an excellent lens and the light will no doubt be good enough to make up for the restricted maximum aperture.
The 200mm and 300mm, although also excellent lenses, would perhaps be a bit restrictive compared to the zoom. The 60-250mm would be another excellent choice, but heavy and expensive compared to the 55-300mm.
The 200mm and 300mm, although also excellent lenses, would perhaps be a bit restrictive compared to the zoom. The 60-250mm would be another excellent choice, but heavy and expensive compared to the 55-300mm.
Best regards, John
Posted 15/10/2012 - 17:23 - Helpful Comment
Link
I'm not sure about the lenses you mention but I went to Zambia a couple years ago and the majority of my images we're at 300mm. This is enough for most animals though I could have used something longer for birds.
Do you already own the DA*200mm? If so you may be better spending the money on a TC rather than 55-300mm.
We were limited to 12kgs each for luggage / carry on but still managed to get my Sigma 100-300mm on board. I invested in lighter weight clothes rather than sacrificing my camera gear! Don't forget the 'inside out, back to front' rule
Anyway, I'm jealous of your trip, wish I was going back
Do you already own the DA*200mm? If so you may be better spending the money on a TC rather than 55-300mm.
We were limited to 12kgs each for luggage / carry on but still managed to get my Sigma 100-300mm on board. I invested in lighter weight clothes rather than sacrificing my camera gear! Don't forget the 'inside out, back to front' rule
Anyway, I'm jealous of your trip, wish I was going back
Posted 15/10/2012 - 17:39 - Helpful Comment
Link
consider a bridge camera for this trip?
the x-5 or x90 seems like it'll do what you need, take up minimal space...
for the number of times I've used my sigma 400, I think I'd have been better off with a bridge camera.. nice back up camera attached to a nice telephoto lens perfect for daytime shooting on trips.. for the price of a telephoto lens...or less even..
the x-5 or x90 seems like it'll do what you need, take up minimal space...
for the number of times I've used my sigma 400, I think I'd have been better off with a bridge camera.. nice back up camera attached to a nice telephoto lens perfect for daytime shooting on trips.. for the price of a telephoto lens...or less even..
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 15/10/2012 - 17:46 - Helpful Comment
Link
It may be cheaper to hire from SRS?
Pentax Hire
About £150ish for a 60-250mm or DA*300mm from that link, though you will probably want to add insurance.
Pentax Hire
About £150ish for a 60-250mm or DA*300mm from that link, though you will probably want to add insurance.
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:07
Link
Thanks for all the quick responses.
Just about covered everything that has gone through my head, but nice to see it from other points of view.
John - to be honest that's the sort of decision I had arrived at. The 55-300mm is lighter and more flexible. It was just a case of only likely to go once so I just wondered if it was worth the extra expense of something like the * 200mm/300mm's. Having looked at the 60-250mm the other day it's really a bit heavy and bulky, plus pretty expensive.
woodworm - I don't have anything longer than 50mm at the moment so nothing to use with a tele-converter. It's likely to be animals and birds. Luggage allowance will be 23kg and I already have a decent amount of proper light travelling gear so weight is unlikely to be an issue. Camera stuff tends to be my carry-on anyway.
Don - that is something else I have considered. The problem is I upgraded from a decent Panasonic bridge to a K-r because i wasn't happy with the image quality. I have considered selling the K-r because of the weight, but haven't found anything smaller that comes close in IQ. Other than that it makes absolutely perfect sense, especially with the zooms available. Seen the X-5 very cheap, much less than a used 55-300mm, but reviews have been pretty negative.
Hiring from SRS is a possibility, but it's likely to cost a lot more than any loss I might make on a lens purchase, plus I would be terrified of damaging it. Looking at the DA* 300mm and 60-250mm it's going to be around £270 plus insurance for the 32 days. £202 for the 55-300mm which I could buy one for.
Appreciate all the comments. Thanks
Just about covered everything that has gone through my head, but nice to see it from other points of view.
John - to be honest that's the sort of decision I had arrived at. The 55-300mm is lighter and more flexible. It was just a case of only likely to go once so I just wondered if it was worth the extra expense of something like the * 200mm/300mm's. Having looked at the 60-250mm the other day it's really a bit heavy and bulky, plus pretty expensive.
woodworm - I don't have anything longer than 50mm at the moment so nothing to use with a tele-converter. It's likely to be animals and birds. Luggage allowance will be 23kg and I already have a decent amount of proper light travelling gear so weight is unlikely to be an issue. Camera stuff tends to be my carry-on anyway.
Don - that is something else I have considered. The problem is I upgraded from a decent Panasonic bridge to a K-r because i wasn't happy with the image quality. I have considered selling the K-r because of the weight, but haven't found anything smaller that comes close in IQ. Other than that it makes absolutely perfect sense, especially with the zooms available. Seen the X-5 very cheap, much less than a used 55-300mm, but reviews have been pretty negative.
Hiring from SRS is a possibility, but it's likely to cost a lot more than any loss I might make on a lens purchase, plus I would be terrified of damaging it. Looking at the DA* 300mm and 60-250mm it's going to be around £270 plus insurance for the 32 days. £202 for the 55-300mm which I could buy one for.
Appreciate all the comments. Thanks
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:10 - Helpful Comment
Link
Have you considered the new 18-270? just to give you maximum range for landscapes as well as animals.
When I went to Tanzania many moons ago I had a Tamron 28-300 on my Ds. Whilst I would have liked a bit longer on occasion, (and a bit wider sometimes too!) I was mostly happy with that range, and given the superior pixel count of the K-5, making cropping easier without losing too much quality you could get away with a 300mm. I would certainly choose a zoom rather than a prime - not everything is so far away you need the 300mm all the time, and whilst a close up of an elephant's eye might be good once, it would be annoying when you actually want the group of them .
Alternatively look at a bridge camera as Don suggests.
When I went to Tanzania many moons ago I had a Tamron 28-300 on my Ds. Whilst I would have liked a bit longer on occasion, (and a bit wider sometimes too!) I was mostly happy with that range, and given the superior pixel count of the K-5, making cropping easier without losing too much quality you could get away with a 300mm. I would certainly choose a zoom rather than a prime - not everything is so far away you need the 300mm all the time, and whilst a close up of an elephant's eye might be good once, it would be annoying when you actually want the group of them .
Alternatively look at a bridge camera as Don suggests.
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:10 - Helpful Comment
Link
You will need both long and short lenses as, depending on where you are going, animals come right up to the vehicles and so something like a 17-50/2.8 is going to be one you need.
For long you need really long and the 55-300 is soft at 300 and too slow (as often animals are most active early morning/dawn and late afternoon/dusk) also you are better shooting at 250 where the 55-300 is sharp and cropping to a 300 FoV.
Something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and then the Pentax DA*300/4 (plus the AFA x1.7 TC would be a must in my book) would be a lightish and small kit to cover most eventualities. All can easily be sold on your return if required.
For long you need really long and the 55-300 is soft at 300 and too slow (as often animals are most active early morning/dawn and late afternoon/dusk) also you are better shooting at 250 where the 55-300 is sharp and cropping to a 300 FoV.
Something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and then the Pentax DA*300/4 (plus the AFA x1.7 TC would be a must in my book) would be a lightish and small kit to cover most eventualities. All can easily be sold on your return if required.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:11 - Helpful Comment
Link
I think if you are concerned about weight then something like the 55-300 might be a good bet, or the sigma 70-300 (I personally prefer my battered old siggie to the Pentax lens, but perhaps I it's just my copies of the lenses - it also has a pretty handy 'macro' (ish) capability) - the DA* 200 and 300 lenses are great performers but they are heavier. The 200 is not so bad (pretty compact actually) but I suspect that you might find yourself wishing that you had 300mm (or more).
Other possibilities might be the sigma 100-300 f4 - now discontinued but might be had second hand; tends to be expensive and is also a heavy lens, although it does work well with the sigma teleconverters giving even more reach; or perhaps a Sigma/Tamron 70-200 which might also be used with a TC if you have one - more compact than a 100-300 but again, will be heavy and big compared with the 55-300 or 70-300...
Not sure I'm really helping much...
Other possibilities might be the sigma 100-300 f4 - now discontinued but might be had second hand; tends to be expensive and is also a heavy lens, although it does work well with the sigma teleconverters giving even more reach; or perhaps a Sigma/Tamron 70-200 which might also be used with a TC if you have one - more compact than a 100-300 but again, will be heavy and big compared with the 55-300 or 70-300...
Not sure I'm really helping much...
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:17 - Helpful Comment
Link
Gwyn wrote:
Have you considered the new 18-270? just to give you maximum range for landscapes as well as animals.
I think that's going to be around the same price as a decent used 60-250mm on release and imo it will drop like a stone (or a 18-135mm) once Pentax realise they have (yet again) overpriced the lens.Have you considered the new 18-270? just to give you maximum range for landscapes as well as animals.
Personally I would take a 55-300mm, the light should be good so the speed shouldn't be an issue and a zoom is far more useful in this sort of situation.
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:17
Link
Frogfish wrote:
You will need both long and short lenses as, depending on where you are going, animals come right up to the vehicles and so something like a 17-50/2.8 is going to be one you need.
For long you need really long and the 55-300 is soft at 300 and too slow (as often animals are most active early morning/dawn and late afternoon/dusk) also you are better shooting at 250 where the 55-300 is sharp and cropping to a 300 FoV.
Something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and then the Pentax DA*300/4 (plus the AFA x1.7 TC would be a must in my book) would be a lightish and small kit to cover most eventualities.
Cheers. I have the Sigma 10-20mm which I love and the DA 40mm Ltd so probably wouldn't need to duplicate that range. I don't tend to miss the 20-40mm range, but there is always a first time! Most of the game drives are going to be dawn/dusk so that isn't something I had considered with the 55-300mm so thanks. I also like shooting at night, where possible, but have the tripod for that.You will need both long and short lenses as, depending on where you are going, animals come right up to the vehicles and so something like a 17-50/2.8 is going to be one you need.
For long you need really long and the 55-300 is soft at 300 and too slow (as often animals are most active early morning/dawn and late afternoon/dusk) also you are better shooting at 250 where the 55-300 is sharp and cropping to a 300 FoV.
Something like the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and then the Pentax DA*300/4 (plus the AFA x1.7 TC would be a must in my book) would be a lightish and small kit to cover most eventualities.
Small and light, as far as possible is a must. I probably should just have kept the 18-250mm.
Haven't seen any prices for the 18-270mm yet, but rumoured to be quite pricey for what it is.
There is a Sigma 170-500mm for sale at a reasonable price on the forum, but the weight might be an issue. That said, I'm going to be in a vehicle for most of the game drives and can use the tripod from the lodge.
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:19 - Helpful Comment
Link
Sorry, didn't read your original post close enough where you said you didn't want heavy or to rent!
Pentax 55-300mm get's the best reviews if not heavy or expensive
Pentax 55-300mm get's the best reviews if not heavy or expensive
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:21 - Helpful Comment
Link
Milamber - you are going on what for many would be the trip of a lifetime, pack less clothes and a pair of shoes less, then beg, borrow (rent) or steal the DA*300 + AFA x1.7)
The WR will come in very handy in those dusty conditions where you don't want to be changing lenses if you can help it.
Low light will kill many of the suggested lenses - f2.8 to f4 max !
The WR will come in very handy in those dusty conditions where you don't want to be changing lenses if you can help it.
Low light will kill many of the suggested lenses - f2.8 to f4 max !
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Posted 15/10/2012 - 18:29 - Helpful Comment
Link
Mike-P wrote:
A 300mm f4 and 1.7x teleconverter (if you can find one) is going to be approaching the £950/1000 mark.
But if you buy used then you can get all/most of that back again on your return.
A 300mm f4 and 1.7x teleconverter (if you can find one) is going to be approaching the £950/1000 mark.
http://frogfish.smugmug.com/ Pentax. Pentax DA*300/4, Cosina 55/1.2, Lens Baby Composer Pro & Edge 80, AFA x1.7, Metz 50 af1.
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Nikon. D800. D600. Sigma 500/4.5, Nikon 300/2.8 VRII, Sigma 120-300/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 21/2.8, Zeiss Distagon ZF2 35/2.0, Sigma 50/1.4, Nikkor 85/1.8, Nikon TC20EIII, Nikon TC14EII, Kenko x1.4, Sigma 2.0
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
863 posts
15 years
Norfolk
I'm not going to get up close and personal with much South African wildlife with that, or my Sigma 10-20mm, so will need something longer. It will probably be a purchase for this specific trip and then sell on so I will probably look for used or something like one of the SRS ex-demo deals that crop up.
Probably too long a trip for hiring a lens - going to be a month or so.
I can read all the reviews I want, but would appreciate some input from actual users. The obvious choice is the 55-300mm, but given that used prices are holding up pretty well (I had the 18-250mm for about a year and got my money back) I might consider something more expensive as I'm unlikely to lose much when I sell it.
Bottom line is there a significant enough difference between the 55-300mm and something like the DA* 200mm or DA* 300mm to justify the additional cost? Would a crop from a DA* 200mm be better than a 300mm image from the 55-300mm? Is there any other lens I should consider?
Weight is an issue so probably rules out Sigma 150-500mm or similar, though the reach would be nice. Needs to be capable of being hand held much of the time.
I'm unlikely to go there again so want to get it right.