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
18 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 😀 .
-
-
Lennartv
Depending on how comfortable you are going to be travelling and how much time you are going to spend in places, I would recommend to keep it simple. The more lenses you have the more you have to carry around and the more specific they get, the higher the chance is that you have brought the wrong lens to the wrong occasion.
It sounds to me that the 150-600 would give you the most reach while you are not really giving much up at the short end. Those extra 200mm can make a difference when you want to go for a portrait or when an animal is staying just a bit more far away. However I don’t know how different they are compared to each other in terms of sharpness and weight. If the choice is difficult you could also just buy a 1.4 extender and take the 100-400. Then you can make a choice to attach the extender depending on local circumstances.
A 70-200 would only give you an extra reach from 70-100 or 70-150. That doesn’t allow for that much more artistic creativity. Obviously a 70-200 2.8 will give you better photo’s than the Tamrons you have within the ranges that overlap, but in my opinion there is not that much more added benefit unless you are going for a specific type of shot for which you want the best 70-200mm can get you. But if you are bringing a 70-200, I would sooner recommend to buy a 2x extender with that and leave the Tamrons home.
To me it seems that a lens like a 24-70 or a similar range would be a good choice to go with one of the Tamrons because it will give you the kind of pictures that will be impossible with the Tamrons. Your 24-120 would allow you even more creative freedom however a 24-70 will probably be lighter.
Personally my choice these days is to bring two bodies with just two lenses. One with a Canon RF 100-500 and the other with the EF 16-35 2.8III. This allows me to get the most out of wildlife and landscapes and it’s enough for wide-angle pictures of animals that I can get close to. However in such instances I rarily go as wide as 16mm. So I would think 24mm would be wide enough if your goals is to get wide-angle pictures of animals.
Added to that you could bring your 90mm macro which you could use when the opportunity arises. Depending on your expectations for the day I would recommend to put either the 90mm macro or a 24-70 (or something similar) on one body while leaving the telelens permanently on the other. When in doubt just leave the 90mm in your bag. Most macro situations will allow you plenty of time to change lenses.
I hope this helps and you have a great trip :).
-
-
Lennartv
With a 1.4 extender you’d be looking at F9.0 maximum. Personally I can still do a lot with that, but it depends on what you are going for of course and what ISO-level your camera can comfortably take. However with denoising software these days there is much more possible than there used to be.
I think it would be hard for anyone to guarantee you that 95% of your targets will be in comfortable range, unless you have a very limited amount of species you want to see. Often interesting things pop up at random. Even if the animal is not shy, the moment may pass quickly and you may find yourself wanting for more mm’s. To me it seems that the only real downside of the 150-600 would be the weight if I would compare it to the 100-400. A 1.4 extender would extend your reach without adding a lot of weight, but obviously comes with it’s own disadvantages.
-
-
Shonene
This is a helpful conversation for me, too. Lennartv are you using a full frame Canon? I am going to buy a new Canon and the 100-500m lens and I am debating the full frame R5 or wait for the not yet release R7 Mark ii (crop sensor). I take both mammal and bird photos, and often in forested conditions, so wonder about how good the reach of the 100-500 is in most situations with the full frame camera. Is 500 enough? Any thoughts on that? Thank you!
-
Shonene
This is a helpful conversation for me, too. Lennartv are you using a full frame Canon? I am going to buy a new Canon and the 100-500m lens and I am debating the full frame R5 or wait for the not yet release R7 Mark ii (crop sensor). I take both mammal and bird photos, and often in forested conditions, so wonder about how good the reach of the 100-500 is in most situations with the full frame camera. Is 500 enough? Any thoughts on that? Thank you!
-
Asanoth
The most important thing is what are your subject and where and how you photograph them.
For small birds in Europe, you need to go as long as possible (or, better, build a hide). For large mammals in Africa or even Americas, I would deem 500 mm on full frame enough.
I am from central Europe and when on foot, I rarely find 900 mm eq. as too long. -
Lennartv
@Shonene It’s always a trade-off between your budget, what’s available and what you are willing to carry around. If we are talking about relatively light quality zoomlenses for Canon it’s currently a choice between the RF 100-500 and the RF 200-800. The latter has more reach, but is not an L-lens which could be a problem if your plan to bring your lens into challenging weather conditions. Also it is less sharp and heavier, however I’ve understood that when you attach a 1.4 converter to the 100-500 to get more reach the image quality is about the same. Also it is not possible to zoom the 100-500 fully in with a converter attached. When I bought the 100-500 the 200-800 was not around. I would probably make the same choice still though. I like the fact that I can use 100mm’s, that it is light and easier to bring when travelling. However if there was an L-version of the 200-800 with internal zoom I would be very tempted to go for that one.
When talking in matters of reach, you rarily have enough of it. Sure, a mammal is obviously larger than a bird, but when it’s a 100 meters from you, you won’t regret your extra mm’s. And 100m distance can easily happen. Yet it’s also important to have a combination that is easy enough to carry and that is always by your side. A big prime lens in your backpack isn’t going to help you when a moments lasts only seconds.
So there is more than one good answer :). When we are talking about bodies it may be less complicated. People get sometimes confused by crop camera’s, but it is all a matter of calculation. Personally I own the R5 and I consider it to be better than the R7, also for bird photography. While the R7 might deliver you just a bit more pixels, the difference is not so great. However the R5 will give you a wider field of view (which gives you more freedom in post processing) and a full frame camera will give you better ISO-performance. If you take many pictures in the forest that is a relevant factor to consider. An image with a lot of noise will limit your cropping possibilities as well. I also own the R1 which is a dream when it comes to low light photography and action photography, however I do miss the cropfactor sometimes.
If you have the opportunity to wait for the R7II that could be a good choice however, because AF-systems have improved in comparison with the R5 and you might also get a bit better noise performance and speed. It will probably come out next year. You can also consider the R5II. The image quality is not better than the R5, but the autofocus has improved, especially for low light.
-
Asanoth
“Sure, a mammal is obviously larger than a bird, but when it’s a 100 meters from you, you won’t regret your extra mm’s. And 100m distance can easily happen. ”
Yeah, but how often can you actually make a good photo (through air moisture/waves/dust/shrubbery/grass) at 100 m? It is true though that I took some local deer photos a week ago and my 900 mm eq. was just enough.
When comparing noise FF-crop, FF has the edge only when it has similar (same) number of pixels on the subject. If you need to crop (and have same amount of pixels on both sensors), FF looses this advantage.
-
-
-
-
ian_h
I’ve been to Mada three times, first in 2010 and last was for a month in Sept ’24. First two trips i just had an 18-200 zoom, and last year i took a 150-400 on an MFT body. I never felt the need for anything longer, and would urge you to consider keeping it it as simple and light as possible (i also packed a shorter zoom and a macro last year, but they didn’t get used much; the ‘phone was good enough). Remember that weight limits on internal flights are significantly less than on your inbound international flight, and carry-on does get weighed. My Top Tip is to take a decent flash; i had a Godox V860 and was using it day and night in dim forest light. Much more important than worrying about that extra long-lens reach, imho.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/XCNv978v7RgP3STf8-
Asanoth
Thank you. But MFT is 2x crop, so you had 300 – 800 effectively. Which is pretty much same as 900 mm eq., and 1/3 longer than 600 mm. I imagine f/4.5 and the stunning IQ od the lens helped 😀 .
I was “lucky” and the day I needed to take my only internal flight it was very expensive, so I shed 20 EUR more for a business class with 10 kg allowance. I would never fit 5 kg with two cameras :-/ .
I also have V860, with a remote. How did you use the flash during the day? I imagine for pseudo-macro work such as herps etc.? Or as a fill as well? I do not have my experience with fill flash, as locally I try to take most photos early morning or late afternoon at good light.-
ian_h
Well, “effective” focal length is probably a topic for a separate thread….but imho, it’s completely bogus; a 400mm lens is a 400mm lens is a 400mm lens. Cropping (and that’s [almost] all you’re doing with an MFT sensor) doesn’t really turn it into an “effective” 800mm.
But yes, used the V860, mounted on camera, a LOT for fill-in (and just generally improved lighting). Simply setting it to TTL auto should handle 90% of situations. (You won’t need me to tell you this, but be sure to practice your setups before you go 🙂 !) I mostly used it without a diffuser, as birds and mammals are rarely so close as to benefit from one. (And “good light” is only good light when you’re out in the open; a lot [most] of the time you’re going to be in forest.)
Incidentally, i took the MFT gear (OM-1) in preference to a full-frame Nikon Z with 180-600 zoom — and have no regrets whatsoever (i’d certainly do the same again).-
Asanoth
Yes, I have been contemplating switching to Olympus for quite a while now… :-/ Especially because of the weight, and the price – to get the same performance from a Nikon you’d pay a decent used car money more 😀 .
Regarding the effective focal length, two things are important: How much light reflected from your subject hits how many pixels of your sensor and how large your pixels are. 400 mm is equal to 400 mm only if your pixel size is the same and then, if you crop, you get the same image. However, you would need a 77.6 MP full frame camera to get this effect – and much heavier lens to cover the FF area. If you would have a 40 or even a 20 MP full frame and then crop, you would have way less pixels on your subject, this means more noise and less resolution. This is the argument which made me switch back to DX after many years on (admittedly low tier) full frame.
Of course, you pay the price of smaller pixels (compared to 20 MP full frame), which translates to higher noise: But many things come into play regarding noise and I understood that OM noise is very well manageable and does not obscure details (unlike Nikon).
-
-
-
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.