Surfing Photography: telephoto lens?

[SurfKahakai]

Hello all,

I'm looking for a decent telephoto lens for surf photography. What can I find in the $400 range? I'd like something with auto and manual focus (EF I believe?) and although I don't need the best photos I want something with some good quality.

Do you think a 75-300 will give me a good distance? I know most pro surf photographers are using a 600mm to shoot from land but I can't afford, nor do I think I really need something that big at this stage in the game.

Here's a photo my girlfriend took of me with my Digital Rebel and the 18-55mm lens full zoom and also zoomed in on my computer :D . I'm approximately 75-100 yards out.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/surfkahakai/Benspraychopped.jpg

[KevC]

Digital Zoom is no good, as you can tell with the loss of quality in that image. Some are very happy with their 75-300mm but it's only f/4-5.6. Do you think you need 300mm? The 70-200 f/4L is an awesome lense, for a little more. (~$570).

However, the 75-300 seems like the best bang for your buck, considering you're shooting outside and probably will want a narrow aperature anyway.

[SurfKahakai]

Yea the only reason I even digitally zoomed in was because otherwise I looked like a little ant riding a ripple.

$570 is definitely more than I'd like to spend at the moment. I'm quitting my job and going to school full time and have got to get my $8500 balance on my car loan paid off by November.

$400 is even pushing it right now but I think I can swing it. Thanks for the advice.

[Nightcrawler]

You can always consider the Canon 100-300 f4.5-5.6 USM ($275). Super fast focusing and FTM.

There is also the Sigma 70-300 APO that I hear is pretty good too. Don't know much about it other than the fact that it is fairly sharp but slow focusing.

[Rtrac1]

I just ordered a Canon 100-300mm f-4.5-5.6 USM for under 300 bucks. I chose this lens based on reviews I read about it vs. the 75-300 lens. the 100-300 is rear focusing and faster focusing. plus it has a manual focus. (not sure it the 75-300 has that)

Again, I cant offer any experiece with it yet, as it is in the mail.

[Mike Panic]

another vote for the 100-400 as a great budget lens

your other option would be to buy a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 1.4x convertor... you'll loose a full stop but you'll gain IS w/ the convertor

[SurfKahakai]

I just ordered a Canon 100-300mm f-4.5-5.6 USM for under 300 bucks. I chose this lens based on reviews I read about it vs. the 75-300 lens. the 100-300 is rear focusing and faster focusing. plus it has a manual focus. (not sure it the 75-300 has that)

Again, I cant offer any experiece with it yet, as it is in the mail.

I'd like to hear what you think of it when you start shooting with it. I've read mostly bad reviews but I guess beggars can't be choosers.


another vote for the 100-400 as a great budget lens

your other option would be to buy a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 1.4x convertor... you'll loose a full stop but you'll gain IS w/ the convertor

Thanks Mike, but unless I'm looking up the wrong lenses, both of these options seem to be well out of my price range.

[cmM]

if you're only gonna shoot surfing, I wouldn't choose the IS version of the 75-300. The 75-300 (Non IS) is considerably cheaper ($170), and optically superior to the other one (theoretically...practically, they're the same). As long as you use high shutter speeds, you'll be fine.
I don't think the 70-200 is long enough... of course you could get a 1.4x tc (more money though).

[SurfKahakai]

After looking at some reviews and photos it seems like the 100-300 holds clarity better throughout its range.

Do you guys think it's worth the $100 difference between the 100-300 and the 75-300?

[Nightcrawler]

I would say it would be, but I don't actually own the lens. Hopefully someone with that lens can answer that question.

[KevC]

Do you guys think it's worth the $100 difference between the 100-300 and the 75-300?

I'd say nah... better off getting a 50/1.8 for the difference. Or maybe save up for the 85/1.8.