Canon EF 70-300 IS USM or 70-200 f/4 L for surf photography

<p>I'm trying to decide between these two lenses, which are both in my budget. I'll be using a 40d and a monopod *most of the time*. Lighting conditions will range from full sunlight, front lit, back lit, overcast and cloudy. Not so much low light indoor stuff.<br>

<br /> The only telephoto zoom I've used is an old Carl Zeiss 80-200 f4 manual focus with AF adapter, which I find to be a little short. I'm not sure if I should take the extra reach and IS of the 70-300 over the superior image quality, and speed of the 70-200 f4 L at the long end. I imagine a 1.4x teleconverter will be do-able sometime in the future.</p>

<p>I would go with the 70-200 f4 if that fits your budget. That way you have the better glass and the ability do add a teleconvertor later. </p>

<p>You need shutter speed to stop the action so IS becomes useless for most sports. A used Canon EF 300/4 L (original non-IS, about the same price as a new 70-200/4 L) would be ideal for surf photography but not have the all around photographic appeal of the 70-200 zoom. You could consider living with the manual zoom for now and go with the 300/4 but the next best choice is the 70-200/4 L and add a 1.4x later.</p>

<p>P.S. I forgot another alternative in the same price range. The Canon EF 200/2.8 L with a 1.4x later. Better IQ than the zoom and faster. Little more flexibility for general photography over the 300/4 L.</p>

<p>70-200mm hands down...end of discussion.</p>

<p>one thing you didn't mention in your debate between the 2 is the AF speed. The 70-300mm can take awhile to focus, the 70-200mm on the other hand is near instant. This is the biggest issue when deciding a sports lens. Although the 70-300mm has an extra 100mm of reach, that 100mm won't matter when you miss a shot b/c AF is searching. NO MISSED SHOTS WITH THE 70-200MM!</p>

<p>I know I said "end of discussion" in the last post, but I had to bring this up.</p>

<p>Either one will be too short if you are shooting from the beach. To be consistently productive from the sand you need to start at 500mm, and that's on a crop body. (There are a few beaches which would be exceptions to this rule, but generally the wave breaks too far out to shoot from the beach at 200-300mm.)</p>

<p>If you live in an area where you can shoot from a local pier, then either lens will work because you can position yourself close to the break. I've shot from the local piers using both a 70-200 f/4L and a 300 f/4L IS with good results. Having said that, once I got the 300mm I stopped using the 70-200 for surfing because the 300mm is more productive. You don't need to worry about zoom because you can "zoom" with your feet up and down the pier.</p>

<p>IS is very useful, even with high shutter speeds. It helps you follow the subject after a long day when your arms are tired. When using a monopod it's not as big of a deal, but I have mixed feelings about using a monopod for surfing and generally do not. It's easier on the arms and hands but restricts movement. I would never bother with a monopod for the 70-200, it's that light.</p>

<p>AF is not that big of a deal for surfing. They just don't change distance relative to your position that quickly. Use it of course, but understand that just about any lens can track a surfer.</p>

<p>So which would I choose? If you can shoot from piers and surf photography is very important to you, pick up the 300 f/4L IS. Another good potential choice is the 100-400L IS. If those are completely outside of your budget, then go with the 70-200 f/4L. Its optical quality is much better than the 70-300, especially wide open, even with a teleconverter. (See the ISO 12233 crops at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/) Its lens hood is also much deeper and better, which is very important in surf photography. You will be fighting flare all day long on sunny days. Even at good angles you will have to play with levels and contrast in PS to really bring out the photo.</p>

<p>One more piece of advice: the light and exposure is generally consistent in surf photography, with only minor adjustments through the day as the sun moves. As long as you don't have to fight rapidly changing light due to moving clouds, switch exposure to manual and zero in the best exposure for the light. Periodically check as you shoot to adjust 1/3rd stop either way as the sun moves, and always check when you change your position (i.e. from one side of the pier to the other). I've found AE to be nearly worthless for this subject matter because it is completely thrown by dark wetsuits, white foam, and specular water highlights.</p><div></div>

<p>I just re-read my post and realized it sounded like I was building up to the 70-300 (300mm, IS), only to recommend the 70-200 :-)</p>

<p>My point was that if you can afford it, get the 300 f/4L IS, it's worth the money. But when it comes to the 70-300 you sacrifice too much in terms of optical quality IMHO, even though it's 300mm and has IS. You could stop down in bright sunlight, but some of your best shots will come as the sun is going down and you will need to shoot wide open. The 70-300 can't touch the 70-200 wide open. You'll be much happier with the 70-200 if that's the limit of your budget. It's a lens you will keep.</p>

<p>A lense that I haven't heard mention that can fit into this relative budget is the trusty Canon EF100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS. It is fast enough for surfing photos, It likes using a monopod, it gives some extra reach without breaking the bank (relatively speaking). Only cons I can think of is it can be a little soft when it is really warm (90 degrees f+) and due to the push pull design it will potentially suck in some dust into the lens, but at the beach, unless there's a gale ablowin', then it shouldn't be a problem. The attached shot taken with a 40D, at 400mm in Galveston. Subject was about 150 yards away.</p><div></div>

<p>If you plan on making larger prints, a lens capable of 400mm is a must - 200mm is usually not long enough for surfing shots and 300mm gives you only a small amount of additional reach. This leaves you only a few choices - Canon's 70-200mm f2.8 with Canon's 2x converter (works pretty well) or Canon's 100-400mm (a better choice), both pricier than the 70-300mm. If you are not making huge prints and don't mind a bit of extra post processing, Sigma's xx-500mm lenses will give you the reach you need with reasonably good IQ at 500mm. If you get Sigma's non-stabilized version (which is very affordable), you will have to use a monopod or tripod with it. </p>

 

<p>matt,</p>

<p>Unfortunately neither is very well suited to surfing. I agree with the posters that say a 300 f4 or the 100-400 would be considerably better. If you are working a shore break I do however disagree with anybody that says a 70-200 can do the job, it can't and nobody can post a shot saying it can. Do not get the 70-200 f4 thinking it will work even if you can get a 1.4TC unless, like Daniel, you can work a pier or very close point break.</p>

<p>If your only choice is from the two lenses you list you have to get the 70-300 just for the reach. Surfing is not difficult to photograph but you do need reach.</p>

<p>I use a 300mm on a point break where the surfers come very close to the land but even then I often have to go to a 600mm even on a 1.3 crop.</p>

<p>Daniel makes other very pertinent comments too, AF is not important, flare can be a real problem so photoshop abilities are often needed, I find auto exposure works well though, but manual exposure does too, sea spray can be a real issue, it is not getting soaked but just constant exposure to the salt air is very harmful, wipe down all gear religiously after work with a clean slightly damp cloth and don't forget to clean the front element with lens fluid.</p>

<p>An example below, 300mm on a FF uncropped from a close point break, great light but horrendous flare.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Matt,<br>

It looks like you have already gotten some very good advice here. I am a Nikon shooter so I have no experience with Canon glass but I would agree that neither lens sounds great for shooting surf. When I started shooting surf from shore I was using a Nikon 300 f/4 with a 1.4TC on a 1.5 crop frame camera with surprisingly good results. This was my poor man's big glass. I have since upgraded but the point is that you need a LOT of reach to shoot surf from shore. I have even shot with a 600 with a 1.4TC on a 1.5 crop camera (see below). I believe the 100-400 is a good quality lens and might be worth saving for, and it will be quite versatile for your other shooting.<br>

Daniel's comments regarding manual exposure were right on for shooting surf. If there are not a lot of passing clouds he has given some very solid advice there. I have also found that my shots are quite flat out of the camera and generally need significant black point and contrast adjustment in Photoshop to get some pop. </p>

<div></div>

<p>if you're shooting surfing, ur probably only gonna need a long focal length and not the versatility of a zoom, what about the 200mm f/2.8 prime? super sharp and fairly cheap :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p> To be consistently productive from the sand you need to start at 500mm, and that's on a crop body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Daniel (or anyone else), just for clarification... Are you saying that you would recommend a 500mm on a crop (so 800mm equiv. on 35mm) or that you would recommend a 35mm equiv. of 500mm (so a 300mm lens would be your minimum)?</p>