BarbB

That's a great suggestion, and it responds to the question about same or different camera bodies for main and backup...but then still limits my reach with telephoto, unless I buy the longer lens as well...not sure budget will permit:-(

Bill_de Loc: US

How about renting one, the other, or both?

--

BarbB

I considered renting, and looked into that option, but the trip will be about a month, and cost of renting for that long is almost half of what a refurbished camera or lens would be..and I know I will be traveling in the future, so my thought is to buy and be able to use on future trips..

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

Trip of a lifetime. Personally I would just buy whatever you want pay it off later. We only live once.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

You have a great camera, the 100-400L with the 1.4x III is a great combination, I have both the body and lens. I also use the lenses on an 80D. The reach pays off sometimes.
But as someone said Murphy is watching. Something can always happen, but probably won't. I would add a good bridge camera for a backup to both the camera and lens. Unless you plan on BIG prints (larger than 16x20) the bridge camera should get acceptable images if you have to fall back on it or use it for something way out there.

You might also consider the Tamron 150-600, it is almost as good as the 100-400 and you wouldn't need the extender. That would give you enough left to get a refurbished crop sensor body as a backup & long reach camera.

kskarma Loc: Topeka, KS

To continue a bit...I have not been to Namibia, and I don't know what sort of trip/safari you might be on. I have been to Kenya, and for that trip, which was mostly in those "pop up" top of vans, I found that the longest lens I had...which was a 300mm..(35mm film camera...in those days..) it was plenty long enough for most of the shots I got. Kenya is fairly open country so the 6 power of the 300mm lens allowed me to get good shots of the larger animals that were grazing there..elephants, giraffes, eland, etc....oftentimes there would be nice groupings of several animals...or even herds of antelope, etc. All of these made for good photos and I never felt that having an extreme close shot of one animal would have improved the photo. Our general schedule was to awaken early, get in the vans and head out for 2-3 hours in the AM when all of the wildlife was most active. This 2-3 hour time would be repeated around 3PM...again driving and shooting pix for several hours. Usually the vans would stop..(on the request of any of us in the van...nice to do that...!)..for a period of time that allowed plenty of pix...then on to the next group of animals...so there was a lot of driving, stopping, etc.. My personal opinion...and it's worth what you paid for it....[G]...is that the 'need' for some super telephoto should be tempered by the cost of one of those big guns, plus the real need for a tripod...along with the time it takes to set one up....etc. Do I really like long lenses....absolutely....but my experience has been that when you look at the 'cost-benefit' factor, they just aren't worth the effort to lug them along on a safari. That being said, and since I have not been on a photo trip to Namibia, maybe the conditions there are different... That's my two...or three...cents worth.

3dees

if it's a choice between the two, I would get a Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm. no need for the tc. I do agree that a second body would be best if you can swing both.

maryo Loc: Santa fe

Everyone mentions that a teleconverter looses sharpness so I haven't purchased one. What have those of you with a teleconverter experienced.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Barb...My friend Benno indicated 300mm would be long enough, esp. since you should be able to crop since you're using a ff camera. However, he did recommend using a teleconverter, so that 100-400 L may be a good purchase. I doubt that a teleconverter would work well with your 70-300.

Benno made a youtube video of the photos he took on his Namibia trip. You might be interested in them. It will take about 3 minutes to get to the wildlife preserve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3tNxZ03LWg

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Normally, I’d go for the long lens. A new body is at most two days out with Amazon Prime and sufficient funds to buy it. In Namibia, not so much. Especially considering weather and environmental risks.

Get the backup body. If #1 screws up on a once in a lifetime shoot, you’ll thank me. If it doesn’t, your opportunity costs will still be low.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

For low budget, put a 1.4X behind your 70-300 L on the 5D - yes it will work - fine.

..

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

As long as you get the second body...

Good idea.

Andy "Belt and Suspenders" H

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I own the Canon 100-400L and the 1.4x III teleconverter, when the light is good the sharpness loss is so small 90% of people would not notice it.

jdub82 Loc: Northern California

When traveling in Africa, traveling lighter is better. I would recommend getting the longer lens instead of taking two DSLRS. Especially if you are going anywhere in Namibia other than a Safari, or staying any length of time, you won't want to carry two large DSLRS with you everywhere you go. Expensive cameras and lenses can't be safely left in a hotel room or in a vehicle in Africa. You will literally need to carry your equipment on your person everywhere you go. If you do decide to take a backup camera, a point and shoot with a zoom would be a reasonably lightweight backup to carry with you, along with your 5D Mark IV DSLR. I went on an extended humanitarian/mission trip to Kenya last summer. Since it was an extended trip, and not just a Safari, I took my Canon SX50 Bridge Camera as my primary camera and used my phone as my backup camera. I got some great pictures with the SX50 on Safari while we were in Kenya. I would imagine with a 5D Mark IV and the Canon 100-400 version II, you will get some amazing shots!