EOS-1D X Mark II or Sigma 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM | S?

[Hammer]

I currently have EOS 5D Mark III and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and I am taking a trip to Kenya for a Safari next May. While I may be able to obtain both before my trip, I need to know which is more important to prioritize from people who have taken similar trips and used either product.

I could use the 70-200 with an extender, but will that be enough? Is the 5D good enough to make sure I don't regret the gear I am bringing? This may be my one and only change to go and I want to make sure I get images I will be happy with years from now.

The trip just became available, so I am reaching out to see what opinions there are on these questions.

Thanks!

[jrhoffman75]

I went in November 2011. We went to Sweetwater, Lion Hill, Masai Mara.

Only once did we have a "speed" situation when a cheetah took off to take down a topi. That happened so fast that personal and camera response was insufficient to get the actual run and takedown sharply.

I was using a 1D Mark IV and 70-200 f/2.8L IS with 2X mounted almost all the time. 2/3 of photos with that configuration and 1/3 with 24-105 f/4L - many of the images were less than 300mm focal length.

My recommendation would be use the 5D Mark III and rent a100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II II.

[RobertTheFat]

People planning such trips generally complain that they don't have space for more equipment. On that account alone, I'd recommend the 5D over the larger, heavier 1DX.

With a 1.4 extender your 70-200 will have almost the reach of the Sigma. And without the extender it will be useful in situations where the Sigma might be too long. I'd go with the 70-200. And if you need something longer as well, you might consider the Canon 100-400, which I believe will also work with the 1.4 extender on a 5D3.

[Hammer]

I was also looking at the Sigma 150-600 5-6.3 Sport with a 1.4 converter. Cheaper and more range. Loss of light, but hopefully not that bad. The savings could be used to upgrade the body for better low light shooting.

Also, no mounting or tripods...beanbags from what I am told.

Thoughts?

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Hammer wrote:

I was also looking at the Sigma 150-600 5-6.3 Sport with a 1.4 converter. Cheaper and more range. Loss of light, but hopefully not that bad. The savings could be used to upgrade the body for better low light shooting.

Also, no mounting or tripods...beanbags from what I am told.

Thoughts?

---

The 5D3 is already very good in low light; again I'm not sure the 1DX is worth the extra size and weight. If you really think a body upgrade is warranted, you might look into the 5D Mark IV.

If you're bouncing around in the back of a truck, a tripod is sure to be hard to handle. A beanbag does sound more practical.

[Hammer]

Thank you for all the comments. I am going to stick with the 5D Mk 3 for now and get the 150-600 with the 1.4 and that should cover any distances I would need.

[ebiggs1]

"I am going to stick with the 5D Mk 3 for now and get the 150-600 with the 1.4..."

As much as I love the big Siggy S this is a bad choice.  Even the 5d3 and the Sigma 120-300mil is a bad choice if it is the only lens you can take along.  If you are truly limited to one body and one lens, the 5d3 with the ef 70-200mm f2.8L and 1.4x converter is the only logical choice. Also the ef 100-400mm by itself is not a good choice.

When Rob went he took two cameras (5d3 and a 1Dx)  and several lenses.  Are you sure you have such a restrictive limitation?  Some of Rob's shots are here along with a lot of other folks. Africa photos  He did mention that tripods are not allowed.

[TTMartin]

---

@Hammer wrote:

I was also looking at the Sigma 150-600 5-6.3 Sport with a 1.4 converter. Cheaper and more range. Loss of light, but hopefully not that bad. The savings could be used to upgrade the body for better low light shooting.

Also, no mounting or tripods...beanbags from what I am told.

Thoughts?

---

Keep in mind that lens weighs a lot. (7.45 lbs) Correction 6.3 lbs for the 150-600 Sport. The 120-300 f/2.8 OS weighs 7.4 lbs

The 7D Mk II (2 lbs) and EF 100-400 L IS II (3.5 lbs) combined weigh 5.5 lbs.

[TTMartin]

---

@Hammer wrote:

I currently have EOS 5D Mark III and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM and I am taking a trip to Kenya for a Safari next May. While I may be able to obtain both before my trip, I need to know which is more important to prioritize from people who have taken similar trips and used either product.

I could use the 70-200 with an extender, but will that be enough? Is the 5D good enough to make sure I don't regret the gear I am bringing? This may be my one and only change to go and I want to make sure I get images I will be happy with years from now.

The trip just became available, so I am reaching out to see what opinions there are on these questions.

Thanks!

---

Get the 7D Mk II and EF 100-400 L IS II for your long shots and use the 5D Mk III with the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II for your low light shots.

7D Mk II with EF 100-400 L IS II

7D Mk II with EF 100-400 L IS II

7D Mk II with EF 100-400 L IS II 

7D Mk II with EF 100-400 L IS II + 1.4X TC III

[Hammer]

I am limited on Weight for this trip.

I can only bring 1 Body and 1 Lens...and a converter. I think 33 lbs. total for all my belongings - so I am trying to maximize my effectiveness.