Zoom telephoto choices for safari

[tbar23]

Hi all - I’m a new forum member and a pretty new photographer. I purchased an EOS RP last summer and have mostly used it for astrophotography photos.
This summer I have the good fortune to go on safari.
I’m thinking about Canon RF 100-400 (the $650 version) or the 100-500 (~$2900, I think) and maybe even one of the Sigma 150-600 (or similar) lens with a converter.

Given the travel aspect and outdoor shooting, I am pulled towards the inexpensive Canon lens. That said, I can afford the more expensive lenses, and am looking for inputs from the experts on what types of things I should be taking into consideration.

 

[RedCobra]

The RF 100-500 is an awesome lens. Better than my old EF 100-400. I don't know about the RF 100-400, but the extra 100mm reach is advantageous for safari work.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

If you have the budget and can find one I would say definitely go with the 100-500mm. I have one on my R5, and I had the Sigma 150-600mm Sport that I shot when I had Nikon. No question the native Canon lens is lighter and sharper, even with the 1.4x TC.

That said, if you need to stay on budget the 100-400mm is actually an amazing little lens, and works well with the 1.4x TC as well - and you can keep it on for the entire range of the zoom, unlike it's more expensive cousin. I would also go with that one before the Sigma and converter - and I've been a lifelong fan of Sigma lenses.

 

[tbar23]

Thanks for the input.
Okay, so let's take the non-Canon lens out of the picture for the moment.

If I compare the 100-400 IS + 1.4x TC to the 100-500 L IS, some of the key differences are:
100-500 costs about 2.5x as much
100-500 weighs about 1.6x as much
100-500 lets in about 3x more light
100-500 includes weather seals.

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, but that is what jumps out at me.

 

[Jake Shoots Birds]

I'm sure I'm missing some stuff, ...

100-500 is built to survive a trip like yours.
And, oh yeah, the 100-500 includes a lens hood. Seriously.

Safaris are often once in a lifetime things. They also involve lots of dirt, dust, and rough terrain. If you're worried about the expense or possibly never using it again then rent one. Or sell it when you get back and get 90% of your investment back.

 

[tbar23]

100-500 is built to survive a trip like yours.
And, oh yeah, the 100-500 includes a lens hood. Seriously.

Safaris are often once in a lifetime things. They also involve lots of dirt, dust, and rough terrain. If you're worried about the expense or possibly never using it again then rent one. Or sell it when you get back and get 90% of your investment back.

I hadn't even considered the possibility of a lens rental and started looking into that recently. Looks like there are several good options with pickup locations near me. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[Hali]

As someone who has been on safari, I say for all the reasons you said and Jake said the 100-500 is the better lens for safari. I had my EF 100-400 and my EF 500mm f/4 prime with me on my safari (I was shooting an R so I had the converter). I didn't use the 100-400 once. I used the 500 prime, the 70-200 and the 16-35. You want the reach that the 500 gives you. You also want the weathersealing that the 100-500 will give you that other lenses won't. I will also suggest you get Lens Clense natural cleaning kits (they are a wet and a dry disposable cloth in each package. You will need to clean your front elements every time you get in from a drive. And your camera. They are light and easy to pack and weigh a lot less than bringing liquid and are eco friendly. https://hoodmanusa.com/collections/lens-cleaners.