dean100 Loc: New-Biden did steal 500,000+ votes in OH

Bill,

If interested and you decide to go with the AF-S Nikkor 80-400 I have one in mint condition that I just decided to sell. I have both the Nikon lens collar and the Really Right Stuff LC-413 collar and foot package (mounted) as well as a Hoya HD UV filter (mounted since day one).

Dean

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I have a fb friend who travels the world with his Sigma 50-500 and gets excellent photos. He's been to Namibia once and Kenya twice in the last three years with amazing results. You might consider that lens. He is finally going to upgrade to the 150-600, but I don't know if the better of the two is available for Nikon.

JFleming Loc: Belchertown, Ma

I'd look at the new Sigma 100-400, the sharpness blew my Nikon AF-S 80-400 away! Over the last few years I've had both versions (old & new) of the Nikon 80-400 and I struggled to like either one; they just weren't sharp on the long end. Sure you'd get a decent image here and there but not at 400mm and for the $$$ costs of these two it's not worth it, at least not to me. Needless to say I dumped both versions and haven't looked back.

My wife bought the Sigma 100-400 at a Photo Conference and when I saw how sharp it was even at 400 I bought one for myself. All this may not mean much but believe me when I say, I was never a big fan of third party lenses for their form, fit and function - I was Nikon all they way.

John

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

200-500mm and 150-600mm lenses are pretty big and not what you'd call "lightweights".

A better option might be to use a DX camera with a 400mm lens, instead. That gives you the same effective "reach" as 600mm on FX, but with a smaller/lighter lens. But, of course, it means getting and using a different camera.

Personally I'd take the D850 with shorter lenses for landscape shots, portraits and such... Plus take and use a DX model such as the D7200 or D7100 with an 80-400mm or perhaps the new Tamron 100-400mm (with the optional tripod mounting ring) for the wildlife photos.

Instead you could switch the D850 to DX mode, but that will reduce it to around 19MP.... Quite a bit less than the 24MP resolution offered by the D7200 or D7100 (but not much different than the 21MP D7500).

Also take a monopod for support. In spite of these lenses having stabilization and not being as big as the 200-500mm and 150-600mm, if you find yourself hand holding for an while waiting for a shot, they can get pretty uncomfortable to hand hold. Another option is a bean bag... those can be taken empty to pack easily, then filled on location (buy dry beans at a local store). When it's time to come home, empty the beans and give them to someone, and re-collapse the bean bag to stow it in your luggage.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Consider traveling light and GETTING the shot with the Sigma 100-400 - then, if need be, CROP and use pixel enlargement software for larger printing. The 850 will crop well.....

Otherwise, the 200-500 makes a lot of sense - just bigger, heavier and more $$$.

Oh, and as a backup, take the Sony RX10 III or IV.

..

jimneotech Loc: Michigan

kangavkar

I am not telling you which camera and lens/es to use. I can tell you what I did. I spent about 10 days in Kruger park in South Africa. Almost all pictures were taken from inside our car. The only camera I used was Panasonic Lumix FZ 18 which has a Leica Lens and you do not have to change lenses or different cameras. I did not have to use 18 magnification any time. One thing I suggest is carry an attachment with which you can fix your camera to the partly lowered glass in the car window.

Newsbob Loc: SF Bay Area

Not all safari vehicles have windows. Ours was a triple level Land Rover. I sat behind the driver and got excellent shots with a Tamron 150-600 on a monopod for support. But I also had another camera with a 24-70 lens which came in very handily when a rhino came right up to the vehicle. He was just curious. Our guide said they have bad eyesight. But the other vehicle in our group was threatened by a very angry elephant and the cell phone videos were amazing.

For tBragg Guy Loc: Fort Bragg Ca

One my trips to Africa I took two cameras. On one I used the 70-200 and the other had the 200/400 with the built in 1.5 extender from Canon. I also took extenders for those distant shots where I had a stable perch. Consider renting a lens. I also have a good point and shoot for those surprise too close for a big gun picture which happened with animals walking next to our vehicle. The new phones do a pretty good job with those.

NormanTheGr8 Loc: Racine, Wisconsin

For info you can trust check out wild-eye.com ,and The Wildlife Photography Podcast. Gerry is fantastic and willing to help

IDguy Loc: Idaho

I was very happy in Botswana with my 200-500 on a D800. There were a few times I had ask the driver to back up but not many,

You don’t want to be changing lenses of fussing with teleconverters in the field. You’ll miss shots and it can get dusty.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I've done that. A 2X teleconverter takes out a considerable amount of image quality, slows down AF, makes it imprecise. There is no "case by case" here. You may get somewhat acceptable results, but nothing to write home about.

BTW, a 70-200 F2.8 VRII with a 2.0X TC III weighs a hair over 4 lbs, and a Tamron 150-600 G2, which provides considerably better image quality, focus performance etc, weighs 4.4 lbs. At $1300 (with the instant $100 rebate) it also costs half of the $2600 price of Nikon solution. So what were you thinking about when you wrote expensive and heavy?

I've now used the G2, own the heavier and more expensive Sigma Sport, used the 80-400 VR, Nikon 200-500, the Sigma Contemporary and the original G1. The G2 rocks as does the Sport. These reviews seem consistent with my results. I also own the Nikkor 600mm F4 and use a D800 and a D810 and a 1.4X and 2X TC.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/tamron-sp-150-600mm-f5-6-3-g2

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-200-500mm-f5-6e-vr

There is no question in my mind that any lens without a converter provides better image quality and ease of use than a good lens of similar focal length without a TC, even a 1.4X.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

we've gotten lazy, circa 1945 we had no zooms. we depended on 3 to 5 lenses to cover our needs. we might not want to but we could make it with fixed primes,

Bullfrog Bill Loc: CT

Thank you all for your thoughtful and helpful comments. After further research I find a newer version of the NIKON 80-400 that Thom Hogan thinks is a major optical improvement. Since weight and the ability to hand hold is an issue I think this solution works. I can leave my 70/200 behind, bring my 24-70 2.8 for night sky and 16-35 f4 for wide landscape. Since I will be in private game preserves, I hope that 400mm does it and I can always switch to DX crop or crop in post.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

You might consider picking up a Nikon 1.4TC for use on the 80-400. You may find you need the extra reach for some shots. DX mode isn't a TC its a 'crop before shooting'. During my visit to Kruger last May there was very little dust about and changing lenses during stops wasn't much of a problem with sensible precautions.