Re: Information on reserving campsites in Kaokoland, Namibia

Passports: Home [ Africa ] [ Americas, Australia & Oceania] [ Asia] [ Europe] [ Other documents ]
Travel:[Europe] [ Asia ] [ USA-Canada ] [ Latin-America ] [ Africa ] [ Australia ] [ Carabben ] [ Air ] [Cruises ]

Live chat

Forum

[ Webmail Login ] [ Immigration, Travel Forum Australia | Canada | USA ]

[ Home ][ Group Home ][ Random article ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]

Re: Information on reserving campsites in Kaokoland, Namibia

Posted on: 12 May 2004 15:03:37 GMT

> Also, Hans, I see that you are a photographer. Your website is great
> and is extremely helpful. I love the photo of the hyena with the
> elephant foot! I have been trying to decide which lens to use with my
> Nikon F100 body. I am debating between the 80-400VR and the new
> 70-200VR (with 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters). I have pretty much
> ruled out the 300mm f/4 because most reiews I've read indicate that
> the 70-200VR with a 1.4x teleconverter performs as well as the 300mm
> f/4 plus it has the advantage of VR, which would certainly be helpful
> when taking photos through the window of my vehicle. As for the
> 80-400 VR, the disadvantages that I see is that it is a slower lens
> than the 70-200 (obviously this isn't te case when the 70-200 is used
> with teleconverters) and focuses more slowly (although I am not sure
> that this is a big deal when shooting large mammals). Do you think
> that the lens is too slow to use during the early morning and late
> afternoon? I will most likely be shooting Fuji Provia 100F slide film
> (which doesn't seem to mind being pushed one stop) and some Fuji
> Velvia(50). The main advantage I see with the 80-400VR is being able
> to zoom all the way from 80mm to 400mm without fumbling with
> teleconverters. The main advantage of the 70-200 is that it is a fast
> 2.8 lens and supposedly performs well with teleconverters. Its main
> disadvantage is that its zoom range is more limited than than the
> 80-400 and would require fumbing with teleconverters. Do you think
> that being able to zoom from 80-400 without changing lenses is useful
> in the places that I will be visiting?
> I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the matter. Thank you.

Hi Mark,

first I should say that I have no personal experience with Nikon
equipment as I only use Canon. A friend of me however has the
70-200/2.8VR lens and he frequently uses it with both 1.4x and 2x
converters. The results are astonishing, very good quality.

Personally I would choose for this option rather than the 80-400VR lens,
specially if you intend to use the lens a lot on other occaissions. If
you are only shooting wildlife in Africa, than the 80-400 may be the
right thing. But as you already mentioned the AF of the 80-400 is
"slow". It is not an AFS lens. The 80-400 is also big, bulky and heavy.
Not too much of a problem when using it in a car in Africa. But if you
intend to used it too "at home" for things like portraits, then it will
be too big and heavy. That is where the 70-200 is much more versatile.

The only thing with the 70-200 is that you may have to fumble a bit with
converters. Maybe you will just leave the converter on it in Africa.
Just be careful about the dust in Africa, specially some places in
Namibia when changing lenses.

Conclusion: if it is just for this trip, the 80-400 might be the best
choice, maybe even with an 1.4x converter. If you'll be using this lens
a lot after the trip, the 70-200 will be a much better choice. And with
converters the 70-200 performs very well. Just be carefull with the dust.

Regards,
Hans

==================================
Hans Martens

Wildlife & Nature Photography
http://www.wildpicture.com
==================================

[ Home ][ Group Home ][ Random article ] [ First Article ][ Previous Article ] [ Next Article ] [ Newest Article ]