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.

[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.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Stocktsi wrote:

Thank you for the info so far.  Yes, I did see the 70-300 at the Canon site for $500, plus $50 off.  I meant to say that I was looking to spend in the hundreds as opposed to $1,000 so wasn’t trying to limit it to $200 just keep it reasonable,

i cant tell how far out he’s surfing - hard for me to judge distance over water.  It’s far enough that with my 55-250 lens at max I still have to crop a fair amount of the image to get a tight shot.  Attached are before and after examples to give you an idea.  Most of the time I expect good lighting, but there will be cloudy days to deal with.  We’re in San Diego so there’s a pretty good marine layer over the beach in the AM so there’s light but not full sunshine.

for my target, yes of course social media is important these days.  If I can get some good ones I’d like to be able to get good 4x6 prints, and outside chance of 8x11 if I was lucky enough to get that magic shot at the right time.

i realize the SL1 isn’t a top of the line camera, but it’s my entry back into SLR and I’d like to be able to upgrade in the future as needed without having to buy all new lenses.

---

Okay, I see that we cross posted.  You posted the exact type of images I was looking for.  

I think your shots would benefit immensely if you used a monopod, or tripod.  For action photography, a monopod seems to work better for most people.  Eliminate camera shake the old-fashioned way, support your gear. 

Long telephoto lenses are not inexpensive.  No half-stepping.  Either take the plunge and by a $1000 lens, or save your money.  I think the suggestion of an all-in-one camera is a good one.  Again, the longer the focal length, the more you need a means of supporting your camera to reduce camera shake.

[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.

[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

[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.