Surfing is hard from the shore. Even sitting on the beach the action is a ways away. The surfing shots on this page were all taken with a 500mm lens that I have for my Pentax *ist DS. Even with the very long lens and the 1.5x sensor factor I had to crop a lot, and I was on the beach more or less directly in front of where these folks were surfing.

You basically need a very long lens that will cost a lot of money. Renting one is a good way to go, though carrying it may put you over the carry-on weight allowance on some airlines.

I have 75-300, and I desperately want 100-400. I'm gonna go across the river from PHL tomorrow and see if I can frame some riverscapes along with approaching aircraft.

We are staying on a boat , which also happens to have a smaller 50 ft boat used for surfing, it anchors near the channel where the reef is deep , closer than shooting from the beach. They also have a small dinghy boat that can get even closer.This shot was taken in
2006 from the boat.

oooh, don't forget to post them online.

The 100-400 fits in my Canon Gadget Bag and is about 4 pounds. The 500mm f/4L is almost 9 lbs and would need a case. The camera bag would be a carryon, of course, but he might be able to get away with 100-400 if the shooter is ankle-deep in the water and the breakers aren't too far out. Tangent to this discussion is if rolov's girl would need a monopod. Probably yes given the weight of a DSLR and that lens. Would it do any good to have The Box work up a list of what to get and just send him to a sales guy at B&H?

I'm at the girl's house during the day to shoot tomorrow, and will be back in my house Wed. night before a Thurs. afternoon golf outing. If I get anything worth posting it'll be up over the weekend, because Borgata starts 9am Monday. I might just take myself to USS New Jersey tomorrow too, come to think of it.

Are you looking for circular fisheye or rectilinear? The circular can be fun but it also really messes with perception if you don't get a fully circular view of a space. Walls and columns bend and things get all out of whack.

I like my fisheye (Pentax 10-18mm), but I think I'd switch to the Tamron 11-18mm next time; the curved edges are too strange for me most of the time.

1. The 180/3.5L Macro is very long for a macro lens, especially for crop cameras. You'll be setting your object pretty far away for macro work, which can be good thing (easy to get lighting) and bad (walking back and forth). It's easier to start macro work with something like EF-S 60mm, the 100mm or the Tamron 90mm. On the other hand, that lens can also be used for non-macro work. A little faster than the 200/4; can't go wrong for $200.

2. Walkaround lens. For Canon users, the new 18-55IS is a very good value, if you can find one. I use the 17-55/2.8IS, which is expensive and big, but it's very very sharp, and with f/2.8 plus IS, it is virtually a night vision. I can handheld it in dim churches, light scenes, etc. Another good choice is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 if you want f/2.8 but not IS.

3. Fisheye. It may seems fun, but I think its use is limited. I won't look at a full album of fisheye shots, that's for sure. A ultra-wideangle is much more versatile, and can actually be used a walkaround lens. I used to have the excellent Canon 10-22, but I got "fast lens-titis" and sold it to get the Tokina 11-16 (which happens to be cheaper). Other choices are the Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. If one really really wants a fishy lens, I'll recommend the Tokina 10-17 instead. I think it's more versatile than a prime fish.

4. Tele. The 100-400 is an old design, but it's a very very good lens that's not that big and handheldable. Our own MilesDavis (not that Miles Davis) use it to planespot in Houston, and you'll see it used a lot on a.net. Or if you want even longer on a budget, try the Bigma (Sigma 50-500) - another very popular tele.

We are both going via SQ F thanks to my SQ miles and coupon connection , so we can bring 2 carry ons each .
The 100-400 sounds like a better idea, as far as weight goes.

You would then be stationing your girl out on the boat to shoot at you into the breakers, yes? If she is on a boat, she might need a tripod as opposed to a monopod.

Canon 100-400 - rental suggestion

Canon EOS 40D w/28-135mm lens

40D as linked is well within your budget of $1500 - pick up a good Bogen tripod to put it on. As great as the 40D is, it doesn't need to be tough for your girl to use. Tell your girl to leave it on Sports mode for surfing, and on Landscape for the more nature, non-motion stuff. That's not technically the perfect way to do it, but those presets in the camera will make the shots come out.

Edited: www.lowepro.com for carrying gear.

Thanks, what would be the disadvantage of getting the 30D ?

30D = 5 shots per second in Sports mode
40D = 6.5

30D = 8.2 megapixel
40D = 10.1

30D = old
40D = new...and more than that, the 40D has a new image processor and numerous improvements over 30D. If you're not a serious shooter, 30D is fine. But if you're looking to get into photography, I would go 40D.

It isn't just the camera body though. You have to get good lenses, you can have the greatest camera in the world, but if your lenses are crap so are your photos.

Not to get off of the photo discussion, but it looks like UA/LH has their own version of the Summer BF sale. Fares are <$2000 for west coast to Europe and beyond. Z fares are 200% credit in BD's program, or 425% if you're already over your 55K for the year. :)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=829992

ETA: Recent update to the MR thread says it may already be gone, so maybe not so much. Sorry if anyone got too excited.

Point taken, but if he rents a 100-400 for the surfing trip and buys a good walkaround lens for the Maldives, he should be good to go. The concern is more with the surfing photos anyway, I think.