Compatible lenses for XTi

<p>Will all Canon EF lens work on the XTi digital camera? I have older Rebel G film camera with small Canon lens, a promaster 70-210 lens, and Quantaray for Canon 70-300mm LDO macro and the tird party lens do not seem to work on the XTi. Does the XTi only accept EF S lens? Or will any genuine Canon EF lens work on the digital XTi? I need help, I am new to this.</p>

<p>All Canon brand EF lenses will work. Most 3rd party lenses will work, some will not, esp older Sigmas (which your Quantaray is).</p>

<p>Thanks for the info. I just purchased the used Canon XTi and thought I could use my lens, but when I tried the quantaray I kept getting an error code 99. So I stopped and only used the the small from the kit. I really like to take pictures of butterflies on flowers, caterpillars that emerge as butterflies. I also like to look for birds, I have a lot of wetlands and swamps near me, and the river, so I want a zoom lens for birds and other wildlife that I can't get but so close to. Do you have any suggestions for what Canon lens would be versatile? Thanks Elaine :-)</p>

<p>All EF and EFS lenses will work on the XTi,</p>

<p>"Do you have any suggestions for what Canon lens would be versatile?"</p>

<p>That depends on your budget! I have the Canon EF 70-300 f4-5.6 IS lens and would recommend it. Its plenty sharp enough and focuses reasonably quickly. The IS (images stabilisation) helps with handholding. Being an EF lens it will work on your film body or any Canon digital SLR camera. There is also an EF-S 55-250 IS made by Canon which is cheaper but not quite as long. An EF-S lens will not work on a film body or a "full frame" digital Canon SLR. Canon also make some non-stabilised lenses in the 90-300 and 100-300 range.</p>

<p>Remember that because your XTi has a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film, it will effectively magnify your lenses by a factor of 1.6. That means a 70-300 lens on your XTi will seem like a 112-480 on your film body. This extra "reach" is very useful for wildlife and that is why IS is an advantage.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p>If you're not into ultra big prints you just might be very happy using a superzoom. Yes, they do distort a picture but as long as your not into shooting walls or newspaperpages but real life the effect isn't that bad.</p>

<p>Canon and <a href="../photo/8627851">Sigma </a> have an 18-200 with image stabilisation (called respectively IS or OS) and Tamron even has a very decent 18-270 that's stabilized. (Called VC for Vibration Control.) Another <a href="../photo/7450702">Sigma sample</a> . By the way both my samples were shot with the older non-OS version.</p>

<p>Another form of versatility is a very small fast prime. (I like a <a href="../photo/7510471">50/1.8</a> but others think that has too narrow a field of view. There's also a small 35/2 or a 28/2.8.) (All Canon but other brands might have similar lenses.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Remember that because your XTi has a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film, it will effectively magnify your lenses by a factor of 1.6. That means a 70-300 lens on your XTi will seem like a 112-480 on your film body. This extra "reach" is very useful for wildlife and that is why IS is an advantage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't undestand how the smaller sensor is an advantage for wildlife photography. A 300mm lens on XTi gives the same image size as a 300mm lens on a 'full-frame' sensor (such as 5D). A 300mm lens on a XTi does not give the same 'reach' as a 480m lens on a 5D. It is misleading and totally irrelevant to the OP question.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would also recommend the Canon 70-300mm IS. What is good about this lens is that it focuses really close and you can get macro shots which are really sharp. I used it to shoot anything from birds to dragonflies with this lens. The only reason I sold it was because I eventually got a dedicated macro lens, and a 100-400mm L lens, and I did not find myself using it that much anymore.</p>

<p>For really good macro you can get a Canon diopter (e.g. 250D or 500D) and mount it on top of this lens, and get even more macro "reach".<br>

<br /> I think this lens is the best bang for the buck in your case.</p>

<p>Mike: Even through the 300 mm focal length does project the same image size on the 5D as with the XTi, the XTi has a smaller image sensor. So in the case of the XTi, some of the projected image falls outside of the sensor. This gives the cropped sensor a narrower field of view. So, although the XTi is not zoomed in closer, its cropped image sensor will produce the same image (with a 300 mm focal length) that the 5D would have produced if was using a 480 mm focal length.</p>

<p>For digital, the "reach" of a lens is, at least in part, a function of the format of the camera. A 100mm lens on the 10mp Canon SX1 will produce an image with the approximate view of a 560mm lens on a 35mm film camera. Yes, you could certainly take a 12mp 5D, slap a 100mm lens on it and do a massive crop that would result in the same view, but it would be cropping away most all of the pixels of the 5D to do that. If you wanted to know which camera, when used with a 100mm lens, could produce a 550mm angle of view picture that could be enlarged the most before becoming pixelated, the answer would be the SX1, not the 5D. This is the reach advantage of smaller sensors. <br>

Of course, the photographer using the 5D has the advantage of interchangeable lenses. He might just get a big ole 600mm lens to stick on that camera. At that point, the 5D will have a regained the reach advantage . . . and a huge weight advantage too.</p>

<p>John - I agree completely. You are taking about field of view; but Bob quite specifically mentioned 'extra reach' in the context of crop sensor vs film. The reason you would use a 480mm lens instead of a 300mm lens is so you can 'get closer to' a far-off leopard (or not so far off sparrow) and see the extra detail in the eyes and the fur. So in that respect, the 480mm lens give you more 'reach' than the 300mm lens irrespective of sensor size, and the 300mm lens on a crop sensor is not a substitute for a 480mm lens on a full frame sensor (or a film camera) as Bob's words suggested.<br>

The more experienced photographers will understand what Bob may have intended to say, but to use these words to a self-confessed newbie will (as I said) be misleading. To my mind, if your preference is for 'wildlife in the environment' then crop sensor may actually be less useful precisely because of the reduce field of view.</p>

 

<p>G'day Mike - I agree with you but I was trying not to be too pedantic for the OP. We could all debate till the cows come home about pixel densities, film resolution, DOF issues with regard to format size, cropping and so on, none of which will help the OP in her decision. Sometimes the KISS principle is appropriate. BTW I did put the word "reach" in quotes.</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>