Best lens to use for outdoor rock climbing?

I'm going outdoor rock climbing next month and wanted to bring my dSLR, what is the best lens to use for rock climbing shots? (It's going to be sport outdoor routes, if it matters). I'm willing to rent a lens just for the trip, so I'll leave the question a little open ended.

Google search has come up with two opposites -- UWA or telephoto.

Also should I bring a flash (for fill-in effect)?


Any tips? (I think after someone sets up the route, I'll climb up and either try to shoot horizontally parallel to the climber or climb above them and shoot down)

Thanks!

It really depends on what you're climbing. I really haven't done much photography of rock climbing, but I've done a bit of rock climbing itself. Something like a 70-200L would probably work fine if you're doing fairly small climbs where you won't be very far from the climber. Since you're outdoors and will probably have plenty of light, the f/4 may actually be preferrable to the f/2.6 just to save on some size/weight. Top-down or side shots are definitely going to be the way to go in most cases. If you're going to be doing higher climbs, the 300 f/4.0L (possibly with a 1.4TC) would probably work well. It's not a huge lens, and if you've got some wrist strength you can even shoot with one hand if you have to.

Now, if you can get even closer, I've seen some very impressive shots with a UWA. It gives much more depth to the photo and really amplifies distances, drawing emphasis to how high the climber is off the ground. It really depends on the effect you're going for, though.

IslandCrow wrote in post #9769129
It really depends on what you're climbing. I really haven't done much photography of rock climbing, but I've done a bit of rock climbing itself. Something like a 70-200L would probably work fine if you're doing fairly small climbs where you won't be very far from the climber. Since you're outdoors and will probably have plenty of light, the f/4 may actually be preferrable to the f/2.6 just to save on some size/weight. Top-down or side shots are definitely going to be the way to go in most cases. If you're going to be doing higher climbs, the 300 f/4.0L (possibly with a 1.4TC) would probably work well. It's not a huge lens, and if you've got some wrist strength you can even shoot with one hand if you have to.

Now, if you can get even closer, I've seen some very impressive shots with a UWA. It gives much more depth to the photo and really amplifies distances, drawing emphasis to how high the climber is off the ground. It really depends on the effect you're going for, though.

Thanks for the reply.

I was sort of hoping that 200 would be enough, but I may need to look into renting the 300mm for the week.

It's going to be single pitched climbs, ranging from 30'-90' off the ground. I have a 70-200 f/4. I think I'll take both my crop and FF camera's and see if I'll need the "reach" of the crop.

I'm not sure how close I'll be able to get, as I've never been climbing to where we're going (Red River Gorge, Kentucky). I'm guessing since the routes are bolted, they'll be relatively far apart (horizontally).


I think I'll take the 17-40 with me as well, but wont use it unless someone goes bouldering.

You're probably right about not being able to get too close with sport climbing, though I know around here there are definitely some places where there are multiple routes up that are fairly close together, so you may get lucky. 30-90 feet isn't too bad, either. Especially if you're shooting from above and you figure your subject is half way up or closer. I bet you can get away with the 70-200, especially if you use the cropped sensor. Let me know how it goes. I should be doing some climbing myself once it warms up here.

IslandCrow wrote in post #9776481
Let me know how it goes. I should be doing some climbing myself once it warms up here.

Yeah, we're going in less than a month (so it should be somewhat warmer).

I'll update this thread with details about which lenses and I used and if I needed more reach and maybe post some pics (if anything comes out decent :lol.

I bring two lenses on my climbing trips: my 17-55 f/2.8 IS and my 70-200 f/4. I'd bring a 10-22mm (or something similar) if I had one since I find that I'm almost always shooting at the wide end of the 17-55.

I shoot bouldering for the most part though, so having enough reach is rarely a big concern; if you're going to be on the ground then you'll want enough reach (300mm at least) to get good shots of people climbing without having to be directly beneath them and getting nothing but butt-shots. If you're going to be hanging from the anchors of a single-pitch route shooting down, then you're probably going to find yourself in the 24-100mm range an awful lot.

For lighting: I never leave the house without my WhiteLightning X1600 and Vagabond II. This is obviously impractical for longer routes, but fill light will drastically help your shots unless the people you're climbing with are willing to do a lot of dawn/dusk climbing for you. 2pm on a sunny day at a cliff creates some pretty harsh shadows, and you'll be kicking yourself if you don't have a way to fill them in at least a little bit.

Happy shooting!

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

CUclimber wrote in post #9786169
I bring two lenses on my climbing trips: my 17-55 f/2.8 IS and my 70-200 f/4. I'd bring a 10-22mm (or something similar) if I had one since I find that I'm almost always shooting at the wide end of the 17-55.

I shoot bouldering for the most part though, so having enough reach is rarely a big concern; if you're going to be on the ground then you'll want enough reach (300mm at least) to get good shots of people climbing without having to be directly beneath them and getting nothing but butt-shots. If you're going to be hanging from the anchors of a single-pitch route shooting down, then you're probably going to find yourself in the 24-100mm range an awful lot.

For lighting: I never leave the house without my WhiteLightning X1600 and Vagabond II. This is obviously impractical for longer routes, but fill light will drastically help your shots unless the people you're climbing with are willing to do a lot of dawn/dusk climbing for you. 2pm on a sunny day at a cliff creates some pretty harsh shadows, and you'll be kicking yourself if you don't have a way to fill them in at least a little bit.

Happy shooting!

(more here on my blog & site)

Thanks for the info (and nice shot), I'll check out your blog/site shortly.

Hi all

How do you protect your camera while climbing multi pitch routes?

CUclimber, your climbing photos are amazing

If it helps at all: a 1.6x crop body a 200mm lens will be able to frame a 6 foot tall person at about 60 feet away. I think you can probably get by with the 70-200mm. Something wider would be good for the shots with the environment included.

BenJohnson wrote in post #9828276
If it helps at all: a 1.6x crop body a 200mm lens will be able to frame a 6 foot tall person at about 60 feet away. I think you can probably get by with the 70-200mm. Something wider would be good for the shots with the environment included.

That does help... thanks a lot

Update: we went climbing and I took a lot of pictures. I'll post some of what I learned (in case someone wants to hear):

-The FF camera got used, I didn't need the reach of the crop
-The UWA got used 90% of the time, the 70-200 was used sporadically and mostly from the ground.
-The shots where the photographer is above the climber and where the photographer is level with the climber came out much better than the shots from the bottom (as expected).
-I put a sling in a tree and was at a ledge near a bolted route. The people who climbed the route closest to me came out pretty well with the 17-40. The 2nd bolted route out (maybe 10 feet away), the 17-40 was a bit too wide and the 70-200 was way too zoomed in. I needed something in the 24-70/24-105 range on the FF camera (or the crop with the 17-40 would have worked too). I should be able to crop those pictures and still get decent resolution out of them.
-Trying to use the 70-200 to shoot from top-down didn't produce good results, because it would appear that the climber was only slightly off the ground with that focal length and the height that I was at. I would usually wait for them to get much closer to me and use the 17-40 to fit some or most of their body in the shot and show how high up they are.
-The CPL came in handy for some shots
-Fill-in flash was a life saver. The rock would cast horrible shadows on the faces of the climbers, and with some fill-in flash it lightened the climbers up quite a bit. I took the 430EX with me, and for the distances at which I stood it was powerful enough.

I think that about summarizes my experience. Later this week I'll chose 3-4 of the top shots (I think there were a few decent ones, nothing too spectacular as this was my first attempt at it) and post them up here.

I posted what I thought were the best 4 pictures in the the photo sharing section

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=9986165

great shots, I love the background in #4

Where were you climbing?

Thanks!

Red River Gorge, Kentucky