Best lens for rock climbing

I'm looking for a lense to fit my Elan 7e. I've got a 28-105 USM and it's

worked great for me so far. Now I need something to shoot with when I'm taking

pictures of my buddies rock climbing. They can be 90 feet or so up a rock and

I'm back another 50 feet or so from the rock to get a decent angle on them.

So what length lens should I get, and also do you have any reccomendations. I

do need to point out that I'm a broke college student and don't have much to

spend, definately not any more than $500 but I'ld like to keep it around $300.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Tom

It depends on what sort of field of view you want. If you want them to fill about 1/10 of the frame then you would probably need a fairly long lens. If you want your buddies to fill the frame of the photo, then you need a really long focal length lens.

 

Sorry I can't give specific answers, but maybe try a zoom that goes up to 300mm. They'll be about 3x larger in your photos with a 300mm lens than with a 105mm lens.

 

I would advise trying to get a vantage point above the ground, preferably equal height or higher than them. Rockclimbing photos of asses are not very good. If you can't climb, perhaps they can rig a toprope for you and let you hang from halfway down the cliff, then just lower you after the climb.

 

If you are going to be on the ground and using something like a 300mm lens, get a tripod. Even just resting the camera on a rock will be a huge improvement. Also, try to find a good vantage point from the side rather than from behind.

 

Good luck, and post some photos when you get them.

I can't answer your specific question re: a lens but permit a few pointers that will serve you well. I think you'll be disappointed with the majority of your images taken from the ground (meaning same elevation as belayer). If moderate terrain rises on either side of a climb, allowing you to 'scramble' without gear, then that is advantageous. Shooting rockclimbing successfully is no simple thing...emphasis on 'successfully'. Snapshots from the ground-up are a dime-a-dozen as these give the viewer little flavor of the rigors of climbing. A sense of place and difficulty is what often distinguishes the better images. You'll find that the better shots, though not always, are from a dangling shooter that is independent of the climbing team, shooting from about the same or higher elevation as the climber. This scenario generally calls for 'wide' (24mm on 35mm format is the 'money lens') and being close to the climber. A zoom is especially handy due to the difficulty of quickly approaching / distancing oneself from the object.

 

Take a little time and experiment. Climb a difficult pitch, making mental note of the more aesthetic body positions / cruxes along the way. Fix a rap line and shoot a lead climber as they ascend. (Keep the rap line out of the image. How's you jumarring technique?) Compare the dangling shots with those shot from the ground. Enjoy!

Lilly is right on with her recommendations. The 24mm provides such great depth of field that you can often get away with hyperfocal-distance prefocus - one less thing to worry about up there! Some leaders might not feel comfortable with you being 24mm close, however.

Yep, as mentioned earlier, you have to be right there, next to the climber or slightly above. Shots from below make the climbers look like they're on all fours, kneeling on some boulder. Only slightly better is shooting directly down onto them.

 

As such, another vote for the 24mm...

Cheers,

I take most of my climbing pictures with a slightly beat up 80-200/2.8

(on a Nikon D70). The advantage of buying a pre-worn lens are a) price (my 80-200 was slightly less than $300) and b) no need to worry about putting that first dent into it...

 

I agree with the earlier comments regarding the need for an

elevated vantage point very close to the wall, preferably one that you can walk/scramble up to. Pictures from below are almost always pretty pointless, and even shots from above get boring fast (check out the

'Red River Ruckus' DVD to see what I mean). Have fun, Stefan

I second (fourth?) the EF 24mm f/2.8 recommendations. It'll run you about $290, new. My biggest reason for recommending it is the field of view. Now, don't get me wrong. My favorite lens is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM. I'm no stranger to telephoto lenses. However, to really make the viewer feel like they're "there", you're going to need a wide angle lens. A human's field of view is close to 180°. The 24mm's field of view is 84°. Your current lens will allow from 75° to 23°. However, it's maximum aperture at 28mm is only f/3.5. The wider your aperture, the closer you can be to your subject and still have a lot of the background still in focus. The prime is also 3.68 ounces lighter than your current zoom.

Personally I haven't a clue, but you should check out some of the late Galen Rowell's work to see what he used. He writes a lot about equipment in his book, The Inner Game of Outdoor Photography (see link).

 

http://mountainlight.com/books.html

 

The above website also links to a number of articles he wrote.

A longer lens is not a good idea for all the reasons already mentioned, plus if it is any good it will be expensive, heavy and big. Go wider.

 

I have a Sigma 21-35 that I love using. They stopped making it years ago, for a 18-35 i think. The reviews I read said the 18-35 is not as sharp, but it is lighter and wider. I love this lens on my film camera, and if I still climbed, it would be the lens I would carry.

 

I'd check out ebay for one of them.

 

Good luck.