• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Surfing Photography....

Barry Johnston

New member
Does anyone here do surfing photography ??

I have been contemplating a new lens. From what I have read, most pro-surf photographers use the 600 f/4 lenses. Do you think a 400 f/2.8 + TC 1.4x or 2x would be another option giving you a 560mm f/4 & 800mm f/5.6 respectively, not quite 600, but you could use the 400 for a lot of other things as well. I am finding that the 300 f/2.8 I have now just isn't long enough for the sport that I do, so I also have the 400 in mind. I think the 400 would be a more versatile than the 600. How often would the 600mm be used for the sole purpose of sport? the 400 would be a lot easier to lug around than the 600 I expect, but my consideration is also for IQ.

Can I have your views please?

In the very near future, I could have a few 'L' lenses for sale. The lenses I use least often, 135mm f/2, 100-400 f/4.5 and my very special 300 f/2.8 would be sold in order to fund a new lens....

Thanks in advance....

Regards,
Barry
 

Nill Toulme

New member
I only have the 400 myself and don't shoot surfing, but have owned the 300, shoot a lot of sports and a little bit of wildlife, and have followed the "which should I buy" discussions for years. So, FWIW, a couple of thoughts...

First, don't kid yourself about the 400 being easy to lug around. It's a beast. It may be a little shorter than the 600, but it actually weighs a bit more. Once I got used to schlepping the 400, there was more than one occasion when I picked up the bag my 300 was in and stopped to check and make sure it was really in there, it felt so light in comparison. The best combination of reach and "easy" haulability is pretty clearly the 500 f/4.

That said, the 400 is simply superb for sports work, and reasonably versatile once you get used to carrying it. It's the best overall, hands down, for virtually any field sport, and yes, it's absolutely wonderful with the 1.4x and damn good with the 2x. So yes it will work for what you want to do. Heck I even use it for stage and church work.

Probably the real reason most surf and wildlife shooters either end up with or keep lusting after the 600 is the reach. As good as the 400 with the 1.4x is, the 600 with the 1.4x is probably just as good, and that means the 600 with the 1.4x is definitely better than the 400 with the 2x — and then you still have the option of putting the 2x on it. So if you really want to get way out there and maintain the very highest quality, the 600 is the answer.

The flip side, of course, is that while you can put the 1.4x on the 400 and have a superb 560 f/4, you can't do the opposite and cut down the 600. That's where we come back to versatility.

Bottom line, IMHO — if you can and will make plenty of good use of the 400 f/2.8 as such, then that's the way to go. The extenders are a compromise, yes, but they're a compromise operating at a very high level indeed. But, OTOH, if you what you really need for your work is one of the f/4's, then don't write them off for the sake of "versatility" that you won't really use.

[/ramble]

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

Tim Armes

New member
135mm - don't miss out

Barry Johnston;36121 In the very near future said:
Calling all portrait photographers! (and indoor sports photographers, and stage photographers..., etc)

Don't miss this occasion, especially if you're just starting out with L lenses. Here are a few facts about the 135mm:

1) It's very, very, very sharp.
2) It's a great focal length for portraiture on both full frame and "cropped" sensors
3) It's very fast. In fact, it's the longest focal length lens Canon makes with an aperture larger than 2.8.
4) The build is L-quality (obviously)
5) It's very fast at focussing
6) It's not expensive.
7) 8 blade aperture = lovely bokeh

135mm's have fallen out of popularity, for whatever reason. This is a great shame, and I personally love this lens.

Tim

P.S. Review: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
 

Barry Johnston

New member
I get your point .....

Thanks Nill and Tim,

Nill, yes I understand what you are saying. Can you tell me, how often does one use a 600 f/4 for the purpose of sport ? are they too long, or are they just used for the right up close action, like within a scrum ? At this point, I am probably tending toward the 400 I think, then at least I can add the 1.4 and the 2x.

Tim, yes, I agree with you, the lens is extremely sharp, and I would obviously regret selling it in the end. For what they are, they are relatively inexpensive in comparison to other 'L' lenses. For the price, I may as wll keep it; it's just that I don't use it that often.

Thanks for your points of view.

Regards,
Barry.
 
Top