Which telelens for Madagascar? 150 – 600 eq. or 225 – 900 eq.?
Hello,
I am going to Madagascar in September/October, doing Andasibe, Ranomafana, Ankarafantsika, Anja and Kirindy. Except for baobab alley, we are not doing any landscape focused site (such as Tsingy or Isalo).
I will be bringing a D500 with a telelens, and a D600 with 90 mm macro. For full frame, I am also considering taking Laowa 15 mm. I do not use it nearly at all in Europe, but on the other hand there really is not much wildlife that would stay still and close, so that you could take a wide-angle shot. This is different in tropics, especially in tropics which have a lot of chameleons.
My first issue is, which primary lens to bring. This is a wildlife trip, focusing on mammals and herps. I have Tamrons 100 – 400 and 150 – 600, I do not use 100 – 400 at home anymore. I am used to hiking with all my gear on my back, but still, 150 – 600 is way more cumbersome and heavier than 100 – 400. I can take it to Madagascar, but maybe its an overkill?
I read many recommendations, that the best lens for Madagascar is a 70 – 200 f/2,8, but if I look at the angle of view of my 90 mm lens, I cannot really imagine shooting wildlife with just twice as much reach. Obviously, f/2,8 would be great, but I fear that 200 mm (or 300 mm eq.) is simply not enough. I did all my rainforest travel except the last trip to Thailand with 400 mm f/6,3 on full frame, in Thailand I had a crop body. I only bought the 600 mm this spring. Quite importantly, I do not have a 70-200, so I would need to buy one, and they do tend to come quite expensive (talking of Tamron G2, Sigma Sport or VR II) on European used market. But if everyone tells me “you do not need more than 200 mm”, I am willing to make the purchase. Rental makes no sense, I could always sell the lens after if I had no use for it.
Obviously, I would only bring one tele lens.
As the last issue, I am thinking of bringing something not-15mm-wide-but-still-wide for baobab alley and possibly even local life etc. I have 24 – 120 f/4, but I also feel it is quite heavy to lug it around for… dozens of images? But I could always have it in my large pack (backpack or suitcase) except for flights and moments when I need it. I also thought of buying a 50mm f/1,8, which is cheap and weighs nothing, but 50 mm is too long, I think. I also feel I could get by with 90 mm and 15 mm only for landscapes.
Could please someone with experience advise, which lenses to bring?
Thank you .
Post author
2 Comments
-
-
Asanoth
Thank you. 500 PF has, however, MFD of 3 meters, while my lens has 2.2 meters. This still means one can get too close and get too much foliage between oneself and a subject. 100 – 400 has 1.5 meters, which does not seem like much, but feels like a suprisingly great deal of difference when in use. Also, it is 800 g lighter 😀 .
-
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Therabu
Hi
If you are not into birds, I would say that the 600 is not necessary at all. The 400 might be too short for some of them but you will be comfortable most of the time. I had a 500 pf a few years ago, and was several times too close from my subject (and the 200 was very handy in that situation).
Your 24 – 120 would offer quite a lot of flexibility and I would put it on one of your body to quickly snatch pictures of the amazing everyday life you will see on the roads.