70-300mm lens for surfing - is this enough?

If this a long enough lens? If not, how can I boost it? It's a sigma on a digital canon rebel

thanks so much

Hello David. I was trying to shoot some surfing with my 20D+300/f4 in September. There's just no way it's long enough, unless you have a boat or some waders.

The waders part was serious. I asked about this subject in the Royal Photographic society forum. Someone there had been using a sigma lens that was 800mm, I think and had been out in the water in waders too.

It's not a good shot, but this is 100% crop using the 300/f4 from the beach.

Sorry if this isn't too helpful.

Pete<div></div>

Hi David -

I often find myself wishing for a longer lens when shooting surfing, but I've gotten some decent shots with the 70-300. Just about all the photos in my "surfing" folder were shot with it from the shore. I'd have something longer if I could afford it, though!

David,

I would say that a 300mm lens is almost-but-not-quite enough for most surfing shots. It depends a lot on the surf spot and what you are looking to achieve. Even with the Canon 1.6 (?) digital factor it probably isn't quite enough for tight action. You could get some very nice overall setting and more distant wave photos however.

I got away in recent years using a Nikon 300mm f/4 with a 1.4TC on a digital Nikon body giving a film equivalent 630mm focal length. This was my "poor man's big glass". You can see the results on my photo.net page. Most of the shots in the Wave and North Shore galleries were taken with this setup. Most of them have been cropped to a greater or lesser degree. The 300mm f/4 is slow but is a very sharp lens and it seems to hold up pretty well with the TC.

Of course shooting surf on the north shore of Oahu I am surrounded by pros and near-pros shooting with Canon 600mm f/4s, with 1.4 and sometimes 2.0 TCs. It is amazing all the big Canon glass around here. I recently got my dream lens, a Nikon 200-400mm VR. The Pipeline Masters shots were taken with this lens with the 1.4TC. That is a film equivalent focal length of 840mm. Even some of these shots are cropped to some degree.

The Mavericks photos were shot with a 70-200mm VR with the 1.4TC but those were shot from a boat in the channel. That was fun!

Some day when I have $9,000 burning a hole in my pocket I might have to get that 600mm f/4 myself. I am not a pro but just shoot surf as a hobby/passion. When I wanted to get a big lens I went for the 200-400 because of the versatility, the VR and the lower cost. If I shot surf for a living I would have held out for the 600.

Back to your question, unless you are shooting from a pier or a boat, or with a housing from the water, you will need more than 300mm for close action. Also unless it is a very high quality 70-300 it probably would suffer greatly with a TC. That depends entirely on the lens but many 70-300's are not great at full extension (chromic aberration, etc.) and a TC would make for very low quality results.

Aloha, Chuck

<p>I am using the Nikon D80/AF-D 70-300 ED zoom. My camera is a DX which turns my lens into a 105-450mm lens. I have it mounted on a Kirk BH3 ballhead with an older Bogen aluminum tripod. I shoot from the shoreline, always try to position myself higher than the surf line. (I usually do not want the horizon line in my images). I also use an 8GB SDHC card and shoot large fine jpegs. I live in California, and the best light is in the morning which works best.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=864789">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=864789</a></p>