Zoom lens for surfing - SL1

[Stocktsi]

I’ve been trying to get some good pics of my son surfing, but he’s typically a little far out for my 55-250 STM.  While I really like this lens for my daughter’s soccer games it’s just a little too short for surf shots.  

Budget is a moderate consideration (don’t want to spend $1,000 but a couple hundred is Ok) I was looking at the Canon 75-300 but I’m worried about no image stabilization.  Only other lens that looks like it would fit the bill is the 70-300, either gen 1 or 2.  Is there a big difference between these if I can find the gen 1?

Any other lenses (Canon or non-Canon) that I should consider?

thanks in advance.

[Tronhard]

Thank you for your information.   The output was critical to me in establishing what kind of glass you really need.  Neither social media, nor the prints up to 8x11 should test the cropping ability of the 70-300 I suggested.

However, like John, also on my mind was the thought of a superzoom camera.   These units have an amazing reach - I have an SX60HS which has an equivalent FoV of 21-1365mm!   The only drawback is that it has a small sensor, which makes it unsuitable for making large prints from its images.  However in the range you are looking at the pull factor of the lens should mean you don't need to crop much at all and you could probably pick up one of those refurbished within your budget. - I just saw listings for these units for just over $300.

I know that that SX70HS has superceded my model, but frankly I prefer the SX60 for my own purposes because it has a hotshoe and it has not gone to an even greater MP count.  I personally think pushing too many Pixels onto a small sensor makes them noisier in less than optimum conditions.  The SX70 has boosted from 16 to 20 MP and  takes 4K video, if that is of interest, but that is heading towards the $500 mark

You will find the controls of these powershots very similar to your current camera and the feel is just like a small DSLR.

One good thing is that the camera is all one unit, so dust, sand and salt are much less likely to find their way into your camera body.  That would leave your SL1 to work on other scenes.

I would suggest taking a look at the specs of a couple of Canon's superzooms.  Here is a link for you assistance

Canon Superzooms 

I have posted on the performance of the SX60HS a couple of times:

Comparison of SX60 to Canon 7DII, 100-400 with 1.4 MkII extender 

Set of SX 60 HS Images showing the lens range and performance 

[Waddizzle]

"One good thing is that the camera is all one unit, so dust, sand and salt are much less likely to find their way into your camera body.  That would leave your SL1 to work on other scene."

I would think that an all-in-one would be more vulnerable to dust and mist getting into the lens mechanisms than a DSLR.

[Tronhard]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"One good thing is that the camera is all one unit, so dust, sand and salt are much less likely to find their way into your camera body.  That would leave your SL1 to work on other scene."

I would think that an all-in-one would be more vulnerable to dust and mist getting into the lens mechanisms than a DSLR.

---

With the wide range of the super zoom bridge camera there is no need to swap lenses (even if one could).  However a DSLR with a limited range is likely to be opened to the elements to swap lenses - that was really my point.

Certainly the SL1 is not likely to be any more environmentally resistant that the Superzoom.  If I was on a beach with an onshore breeze I would protect any camera with a plastic bag to reduce sand and salt being deposited on the zoom extension.

[Stocktsi]

What great info, and quick responses!

My initial thought when the suggestion came up about the SX60/70 was I don’t want another camera, but now that I’m looking at them it might be an option.  It looks like Best Buy has then so I’ll try to swing by there and look at it.  They also carry an SX540 which is a couple years older.  Half the price, but 6 vs 10 shots per second and give up a little bit of zoom on the long end.  Will that difference be noticeable?

there was a mention of the Tamron 100-400.  I used to have a Tamron lens that I really liked for my Canon AE-1 (back in the day). Is this lens worth considering?  Or a Sigma?

I often use a monopod for my daughters soccer game, but didn’t think about taking it to the beach for some reason.  Will take it next time...

@wq9nsc - my daughter is a goalie as well, and that’s a great picture.  $1,000 is out of the budget, plus I like the zoom vs. a fixed length.

[ebiggs1]

I didn't read all of this thread but I suspect it has the same BS most of these queries have in replies. You mentioned the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens. In truth all these lenses in this level or price point have nearly identical IQ and AF ability.  However, I would prefer to stay Canon if at all possible so I would certainly consider Canon lenses first.

The Tamron lenses of today are not anywhere near comparable to the old film lenses.  Tamron has made strides in lens design and improved a horrendous CS department. Same is true of Sigma, much better today and much better CS.  Tokina is to be avoided in lenses and CS, IMHO of course, unless much has changed recently.

Remember most kit lenses are better than most people want. They like'em.  There are a few duds for sure but as a rule they are pretty good. Even though the Tamron 100-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di VC USD Lens is not made by Canon, it is still a "kit" lens.

[Tronhard]

You might want to check the prices on any 100-400 lens before you lust after one! 😳

[Tronhard]

If you were happy with the field of view of a 100-400 on a SLR film camera it is worth realizing that the FoV of the 70-300 lens on your APS-C camera is equivalent to 112-420mm.

[Tronhard]

Correction the equivalent FoV is 112-480mm