surf photography? - DPChallenge Forums

06/11/2005 12:25:37 AM · #1

has anyone tried taking pictures of surfers? i was thinking about getting a rebel xt and a telephoto for this but im not sure which telephoto would suit the best.

I was debating between the 300mm F/4 IS or the 400 F/5.6. I'm worried the 300 might be too short. But the 400 might be too slow. I can't afford the faster versions of the 400 or any longer telephotos.

Oh, and i'll be taking these shots from the beach, not from a boat. so has anyone had experience with this or anythinge similar so they can give me insight as to which lens would suit the conditions better?

06/11/2005 12:28:48 AM · #2

oh and would the sand scratch up the front element? and are either of them weather sealed? and would you need this for beach conditions?

Message edited by author 2005-06-11 00:29:21.

06/11/2005 12:33:51 AM · #3

yeah, go to County Line out of Ventura, and to Manhattan Beach in LA alot.

I have a sigma 100-300 that I use quite a bit. But, I also use it as soon as the sun peaks over the hills.

The key that I get from the sun makes the photo. Any later in the day, it starts to get sillouette.

I am saving my pennies for a canon 100-400mm L, without the IS. I like to take sports pix and the IS can make the shots slower from the AF.

I also like to go in the water with my camera screwed onto a monopod and remote extension with a wide lens. I shoot blind, but it sometimes is rewarding.

Check out the surf mags to get some ideas.

Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 (E-mount)

06/11/2005 12:35:03 AM · #4

Originally posted by art-inept:

oh and would the sand scratch up the front element? and are either of them weather sealed? and would you need this for beach conditions?

been doing it for a while, just clean my stuff real good. use air alot, lens seems to be fine.

still learning myself.

grawk

Sony Alpha NEX-5

06/11/2005 12:41:43 AM · #5

Go for the longest lens you can get, slow is ok, and use a teleconverter. Then mount it on a tripod. Surfing really isn't that fast a sport.

06/11/2005 12:50:19 AM · #6

so i've heard a lot of people just end up glueing their 300 f/4 to a 1.4 converter, so i figure i might as well go for the 400 f/5.6? but i heard AF is very slow or you can't use it at all when you hook up a tele converter to that lens. is 400 long enough for this type of shooting is what im asking

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

06/11/2005 01:06:17 AM · #7

yeah, the AF is slow, but manuel is not hard to do.

Sunniee

Canon EOS-40D

06/11/2005 01:36:16 AM · #8

I used 300mm in Hawaii and felt it was too short.

Zoomdak

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/11/2005 01:41:44 AM · #9

Not an action shot, but:

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/11/2005 01:52:34 AM · #10

nice shot zoomdak.

so IS probably wouldn't help much?

petrakka

06/11/2005 01:59:21 AM · #11

man it's really dependent on the break that you're shooting at. If you're mostly gonna shoot beach breaks yeah get the 400 for sure. Don't worry about focus too much, youll be focused at infinity a lot of the time.
If you have point breaks around for you to shoot at, you can often get by with a lot more interesting angles and sometimes just 100-200 mm length.

I've got some decent surf shots I snagged with a 3x zoom p/s cuz the break was like a rock reef closer to shore. Pay a lot of attention to the lighting, what coast are you one? The sun setting behind you can illuminate the surfer better but give a more boring sky (not always though!). If you can find breaks in bays etc that face north or south you have opportunity for more interesting lighting as well. The light quality is a big deal because you are limited to natural light, there's no option for setting up lights at all.

I don't think 5.6 will limit you too bad, since most of the time there has to be a decent amount of natural light to even surf...I surfed past sunset a few times, and well I came across rocks I didn't know were there, and I heard it's when the sharks come out to play =-0

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

06/11/2005 02:13:43 AM · #12

I grew up surfing in California, and I used to shoot a lot of surfing too. Most of my best shots were taken from up on the pier. It lets you get a lot closer, and you can get some pretty neat angles. Each beach is different of course, but at most beaches the lineup is just too far from shore for a normal telephoto lens.

If you really want some good surfing photos, get yourself a good water housing. Then you can get out there with them and get close. No need for a multi-megabuck super-telephoto lens. Just stay out of the way and don't get run over. Those boards can really do some damage. :)

Good luck!

Mick

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

06/11/2005 02:17:49 AM · #13

Originally posted by petrakka:

I don't think 5.6 will limit you too bad, since most of the time there has to be a decent amount of natural light to even surf...I surfed past sunset a few times, and well I came across rocks I didn't know were there, and I heard it's when the sharks come out to play =-0

We used to surf H.B. pier at night all the time. It was awesome! Sometimes a bit scary too. :)

06/11/2005 07:42:17 PM · #14

i live on the west coast, south of huntington beach. the beach i'm thinking about shooting at is called T-Street if anyone has been there. i was thinking about getting the water housing but those are very expensive too.

will 400 be cutting it? or do you think i should get a 1.4x converter? but then i'll have a max f stop of close to f/8 which might be too slow?

06/11/2005 07:46:46 PM · #15

a prime lens is usually faster having less elements. can you afford th converter and a nice 300mm or 400mm prime?

06/11/2005 07:52:49 PM · #16

Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

a prime lens is usually faster having less elements. can you afford th converter and a nice 300mm or 400mm prime?

unfortunately, i can't afford the faster versions of the 300 f/4 IS or the 400 F/5.6 :( so a 1.4 extender wouldn't really do me much good?

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

06/11/2005 08:04:15 PM · #17

You're better off with a WA lens, a water housing, a boogie board and a wetsuit.

06/11/2005 08:18:06 PM · #18

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

You're better off with a WA lens, a water housing, a boogie board and a wetsuit.

i'll eventually get there.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

06/11/2005 08:51:33 PM · #19

Originally posted by art-inept:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
You're better off with a WA lens, a water housing, a boogie board and a wetsuit.

i'll eventually get there.

There are some nice housings for Olympus cameras out there. Prolly cost less than a 300mm lens.

CorySmith

06/11/2005 09:02:41 PM · #20

well this of it this way, you are going to be using a rebel so that adds 1.6 magnification to whatever lens you get, if you get a 300mm and add a 1.4x converter on it you are shooting at a 600mm focal length, if thats not enough i dont know what will satisfy you ;)

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/11/2005 09:40:50 PM · #21

okay i have another question for everyone. i have heard that the 400 f/5.6 has the fastest AF speed for any lens under 2,000$. has anyone found that instantaneous focusing is crucial for their work? and state which type of photography you do this for

Bran-O-Rama

Canon EOS-5D

06/11/2005 09:42:30 PM · #22

Here on the North Shore of Oahu, 600mm with a 1.4x seems to be standard. I'm nowhere near affording this glass so I've been shooting the 70-200 2.8L with a 2x TC for the (soft) equivalent of a 400/5.6 and I still find myself doing a bit of cropping depending on the break.

06/11/2005 09:48:11 PM · #23

Bran-O-Rama: is that 600mm on a film camera or a digital with a crop factor?

ebertdj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L

06/11/2005 10:04:53 PM · #24

I use a 100-400L IS - It seems to focus quite fast - if you are following the surfer with the camera the small amount of focus change should not be a factor for speed IMO

I am sure you have all seen this pic By Kurt Jones

Message edited by author 2005-06-11 22:07:36.