Short Surf Lens

My 80-200 AFS seems pretty indestructible, and I take it down to the beach reasonably often. Buy it a good 77mm filter (I don't generally use filters, but salt air is an excellent excuse) and go nuts. 200 is not enough reach here in SoCal unless you're shooting off a pier, but you make it sound like it would be OK. Beware, this kinda stuff will send you off the deep end on the lust. :biggrin:

Do you see other surf photogs around where you shoot? They can probably help. I regularly see guys with big glass here if the waves are good, but I'm very near a famous SD surf spot (Windansea).

 

hi brian-

how about the 80-200mm AF-S with a kenko 1.4TC? i've had good results with the 70-200mm VR and the kenko, and the 80-200mm should have image quality that's about up there with the 70-200mm VR.

ricky

 

My Kenko and 80-200 do not get along. The converter is better on every other lens I own! Perhaps the Sigma might be better for you if you want the reach.

Kenkos run about $160+, if I recall correctly.

 

hi brian-

you're concerned about sigma's quality, that's why i recommended the nikon route :smile: the advantage of using a TC is that the 80-200mm is a f/2.8 lens without it, although with a shorter reach. the 100-300mm remains an f/4 lens, so you have a little more flexibility if you go for a TC.

taking a look at the pic you posted, i think you'll need at least 300mm to get tight shots. the 80-200mm + TC may end up being too short later on as get more experience taking surfing shots. i started at 300mm, then moved on to 420mm (300+1.4TC), and even then it's not enough as i want to go for even tighter shots of the action.

there's no easy answer :frown:

ricky

 

hi nancy-

ah, i wasn't aware of that problem. there's always the TC-14E, although it's a bit more expensive.

ricky

 

If you want quality 300mm shots then the Sigma 100-300 or a Nikon 30m f/4 prime will give you better results than a 80-200 + converter.

Also, the 70-300mm VR is IF...

 

Ah I see what you mean, you mean the lens barrel doesn't extend while "zooming"? The 70-300VR does do that.

 

I have several Sigma's and can attest that their build quality is "up there". I don't know why they have such a bad rap. I have never had a problem with Sigma QC either. The only issue I have with them is their exterior paint doesn't seem to be as durable as Nikon. Sigma makes the best stock tripod foot (feet?) that I have seen.

I don't have the Sigma 100-300 but have strongly considered it. The only reason I purchased the Nikkor 300 f4 instead is because I got a good deal on it and it was available when I needed it. I would think the 100-300 f4 lens would fit your budget objectives fairly close and would be a great lens for your purposes. It has internal focus and it also zooms internally, just like my Sigma 70-200 (that I love), and I think pretty well sealed from the elements, as well as any prime.

If a 300mm fixed length suits you better, the Nikkor 300 f4 prime is a very nice lens and mine works well with the Kenko 1.4. The stock foot sucks though.

 

The 70-300 VR isn't push/pull, its a twister.

I have it, obviously, and I think its pretty good.

At the beach, with little shade and lots of light, I don't think you will suffer for it being f5.6

 

The Sigma 100-300mm f/4 can be difficult to find at times and also doesn't usually find the same discounts as other more common Sigmas. I'd consider the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM (non-Macro) along with a 1.4x Sigma TC. This way you can shoot short w/ f/2.8 and longer w/ f/4 and minimal image degredation. If you go used you can pick up this combo around $700 from KEH in EX or better condition (and KEH grades VERY conservatively).