Canon 500 or 600mm for surfing ?

I haven't shot surfing, but remember that the Canon 500 will take a 1.4TC and even a 2TC quite well. The 1.4 gives you 700mm and I'm sure a used 500 is much less expensive than a 600.

Search flickr for surfing photos that have EXIF data and see what was used. I did the same thing when I got into bird photos this summer.

Rent

http://www.lensrentals​.com/for-all
http://prophotorental.​com/

I would rent first and then decide. Reach is king in surfing. It also depends of what kind of shots you need. Do you need TIGHT shots or "pano" shots. Also...some of the "surfer" zines shots are from boats and frogman.

freedom35 wrote in post #8824819
Please forgive my ignorance, but I would like to purchase a used Canon 500mm IS lens and learn to take PaddleSurfing photos from the beaches.

Will this lens do the job? or will I find out down the road, that I should have kept on saving until I could afford the 600mm lens?

thank you for your advice.

i use a 100-400 zoom with 1.4 converter ,a few times it has been to short and i was wishing for a 600,

I would go 400 f/2.8 with teleconverters. When I was shooting that was the idea length at our beaches in Aus.

Tele Surf shots get boring quick.

A 600mm is expensive and VERY difficult to get creative with. I spend maybe 5-10% of my time viewing super tele surf shots when I look at mags.

Most of the images you see in pro mags are from established super pro photogs (usually staffers) that have crawled through the muck for years to get to where there at.

If your only/primary interest to own a tele for surf photos I would suggest a far cheaper lens like a 100-400 or 400 5.6.

You can get in a little closer and make it happen if you really desire a tight crop (the most boring surf shot IMO).

A 400 2.8.... hmmmm, not the lens I would start with. For one, in surfing unless you shooting in a location with a lot of overcast like No. Ca northward, or the UK, you will never shoot at f2.8.... ever. Your going to have way too much light going on. This is one case where fast doesn't equate to better. You could even get away with the baby 400 and do quite well. Won't look as cool as having a huge chunck of white encased glass stuck to the front of your camera, but for typical shooting conditions, more than capable of doing the job.

You really need to look at what other kinds of shooting you will do. If it is just surfing, look at the breaks you will be shooting and the distance you will be away. There are a whole lot of things you need to be looking at. Have you looked at a good water case with a wide angle.... get in the water and shoot? Don't over invest in equipment that limits what type of shooting your will be doing.

If I had to pick between the two, I would go with the 500. Much cheaper, more portable, and still tack sharp and takes a TC well. Or better, buy yourself a 7D to go along with it and skip the TC all together - and your still cheaper than a 600. You want flexibility.

freedom35 wrote in post #8838936
I am still a little confused by the diverse range of possibilities and your comment on "difficult to get creative" with.

Not that I've shot surfing, but I think the poster means that up-close and crops are only going to hold the viewer's attention for so long. People love seeing the wide shot where the massive size of the wave compared to the surfer and his board is put into perspective. Especially here on the East Coast- we never see those 15 foot, glass blue waves anywhere. You might not have enough beach to get that wide shot with 500-700mm. But you might at 200-400 or less.

Or consider a Sigma 150-500 covers a lot of ground especially with a crop camera.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I use a Canon 500mm.

You've really got to understand the geography of where you intend shooting. If you shoot from a beach, the break may be a long way out. If you shoot from a headland then even 500mm might be too long.

A 400mm f/2.8 is a killer lens but it's also very heavy. The 600mm f/4 is also a killer lens but perhaps too long for various situations and is also bulky as well as heavy - a prick to travel with!!!

The 500mm is lighter than both; has the reach; isn't overly bulky and for my situation happens to be the perfect lens for me.

Sometimes though I wish I had the 400mm f/2.8 or even the 300mm f/2.8 cos there's a fair gap between my 70-200mm f/2.8 and my 500mm f/4.

Either way, your guaranteed and awesome lens once you decide. However, i'd go the 500mm.