Appropriate lense for shooting surfers?

[christen_jackson]

Here is my question, I would like to get a replacement lense for my

F50 and I would love it to be versatile enough to shoot my boyfriend

when he is out in the water or take portfolio shots of my artwork.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[harry_akiyoshi]

What sort of artwork? Like, what size? If it's small, you'll need a macro lens, and not many macro lenses would be useful taking surfer photos; they're just not long enough. From where do you want to take these surfer photos, incidentally? From the beach? People routinely use huge, multi-thousand-dollar lenses for that sort of thing; at surfing competions you see some really big lenses, 600mm or 800mm long. There aren't many lenses versatile enough to to both macro work and long telephoto sports shots; maybe the Sigma 50-500mm with an extension tube? It might be better to buy two lenses. As you're using an F50, I'm betting you don't want to spend too much money. . . the Vivatar 55mm 2.8 would be excellent for photographing artwork, and it's cheap. It's also made mostly of plastic, so don't hit it on anything. Then for telephoto work you'd have something like a Tokina 400mm f/5.6, which is quite respectable on a tripod.

 

If one lens absolutely must do it all, you're more or less stuck with a macro zoom, probably one of the 70-300mm ones. It would make passable portfolio shots, and passable surfer photos, at least at closer distances. I think the Nikon 70-300 F/4.5-5.6G currently goes for around $125 on *Bay. It's not a bad choice, really, but the quality will be a little disappointing compared to either the vivitar or tokina lens I mentioned. But then, it's also cheaper, and you can more or less leave it on your camera.

[testingname]

I shot a bit of surfing (maybe 3-6 sessions) years ago with a beloved 80-200 AF ED 2.8, and it was too short. I had to get in up to my waist, and then worry about splashes, traction on the sand/rocks etc...

 

I guess it also depends on how far out the break is. If it's a 'good paddle' type of break, you're going to need way more than 300, it's that simple. Or settle for shots with the surfer not filling the frame. Hey, that won't kill ya.

 

I'd get two lenses. I'd get a cheap 50mm for shooting your artwork. I just bought a new 50mm 1.8 AFD for $100.

 

Then get a used something-over-300mm or that 70-300 with a 1.5 teleconverter. Sorry, don't know the specifics of the 70-300/teleconverter setup, nor if it even works in practice.

[charlie_garcia]

well if you have a grand lying around do what i did and get the Nikkor 300mm F4 AF-S. if you add the TC-14E teleconverter you get 420mm F5.6 with autofocus. I purchased this lens for surfing photography and it performs marvelously, especially if the break you're at has a pier or jetty. not to mention the fact that if anyone tries stealing it from you, you can beat them over the head with it and not worry about harming the lens. it IS a tank of a lens. just get one of these and dont look back!

[jimvanson]

I must caution you re; one size fits all lenses lke the 50-500...they are not very good. I don't believe I've ever seen a truely sharp shot from one, anyone, except maybe (and yes I own one) the Canon 100-400 IS which is an expensive lens. Better to get two lenses, something like a Sigma or Tokina 400 for the surf shots and a 50 or 90/100 for the closeups.