crop equivelant for 70-300?

[jeff_wright2]

Hi everyone - I had loaned my 70-300 canon lens to a friend because I had not

upgraded to a DSLR. I finally broke down and bought a XT and after some

nagging got my lens back. This focal length was always one of my fovorites,

very usable. But now I find that the 70mm because of the crop factor (really a

112 now) is just a little too far and the 300 is now almost a 500, probably

more tele than I really need. Is there a good sharp alternative? maybe

something like a 50-200 or so?

[beauh44]

Hi Jeff, You might want to consider the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. With "crop factor" figured in, that's about a 38-166mm FOV if you used it with a film or a FF sensor camera. There are some people who are absolutely thrilled with this lens's sharpness and a few who may have gotten a copy that needed some adjustments, but overall I think the consensus is two thumbs up. It's not the most expensive "L" lens in the world and has IS to boot. I own one and like mine - it's a great "walk around" lens and mine's very sharp, even wide open. Good luck!

[m_barbu1]

How about adding the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM?

[gdanmitchell]

Divide by 1.6 to determine what focal lenths would provide comparable field of view: A

44-187mm lens would be about right.

 

Of course, there is no such critte.

 

I agree with the commetns about the 24-105mm. With the exception of the fact that it

doesn' provide enough "wide" for many of us on a crop sensor body, otherwise it is a fine

lens and it was the lens I used most on my crop sensor camera. Unless you really don't "do

wide" you might want to augment it with something like a 17-40, 16-35, 17-55 or even

10-22. (The latter are EFS lenses.)

 

Dan

[anthony_hicks]

Hi Jeff, I recently bought a copy of the 24-105L recommended above, and it is indeed a great lens. However, you will find it a bit short if you were really wanting something in the 50-200 range. Canon and Sigma both make a bargain basement 55-200, but I would avoid those and consider a Canon 28-135 or a Sigma 50-150. If you have kept your 35mm camera you wont be able to use the Sigma on it though.

[robin_sibson1]

As Dan has pointed out, there's no one decent-quality (Canon) lens that gives the same coverage on 1.6-factor thet you were getting with a 70~300 on film. You can roughly match the long end with the 70~200/4IS (at a price), and they don't come any better than that, but there are no Canon zooms, and none that I'm aware of from other manufacturers, that start at about 45mm (or not yet, at least; an EF-S 45~135/2.8IS would be a pretty nice companion for the 17~55). There was in the distant past the 50~200L, but you probably wouldn't want one of those even if you could find one. You could consider the 28~135IS, which is a bit slow but not actually a bad lens on a 1.6-factor camera provided you've got the wide end covered somehow, or, as suggested, the 24~105 which is an excellent lens and pairs well with the 10~22 if you don't mind the somewhat less-than-ideal changeover (and, again, the price).

[awindsor]

Actually there is an old Canon 55-200. It was a kit lens introduced with the IX APS film SLR. There are an even older 50-200 and 50-200L (which appear to be identical in construction) about which I know nothing. Build quality on the 55-200 is terrible but the lens is optically decent. It seems to be better than the Sigma 55-200 though that has better build quality.

 

What 70-300 lens did you have? Some of the suggestions here are expensive lenses. If your 70-300 is the new Canon IS lens then keep it. It is a fine lens in terms of optical quality and a compact package for traveling and you won't find a better lens with a wide starting point that goes up to 200mm.

 

Maybe simply adding a 50/1.8 will get you the coverage that you are missing. Much cheaper and lighter than the other suggestions.

[jeff_wright2]

I bought a nice Tamron 17-55 2.8 with the camera, and I am very happy with it. So I have the wide covered. The gap is betweem 55-70.

 

From about 15-20' the Tamron is a little wide and the 70 is only waist up on a person. So, I thought a 50-200 would be great. I looked on the net and came to the same conclusion, I couldn't find one. I wonder why mother canon has not come up with more crop specific lenses? For instance I really wanted a 28-85 equivalent and found the 17-55. But at the wide end, they are all mega zooms or start at 70 or 100mm.

[bobatkins]

There's a Sigma 50-150/2.8. Specs are <a href="http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_data.php?lensID=200"><b>here</b></a>. I've no idea how good it is, but after the crop factor conversion it's equivalent to 80-240mm in 35mm terms, which may be as close as you are likely to get to 70-300 in a new, reasonable quality lens.

[terry_smith2]

Actually, you answered your own question when you said 50-200. This is one of CAnon's first generation zooms and it came in two versions. Either one is miles ahead of the cheap 55-200 that they are selling now. The only problem is to find one. The standard version is a good consumer lens with no glaring faults. The second one was an L version. It has better optics in the same housing. Both are micromotor AF, both are push-pull, both are 3.5-4.5 and both take 58mm filters. They will give you an 80-320mm FOV. As I said, the hard part is to find one, especially the L version. And don't ask; mine isn't for sale. Good luck.

[mark u]

Both Sigma and Canon have 55-200 f/4-5.6 lenses, but these are consumer zooms. Not up to the quality of a 70-300 IS USM, but optically not as bad as you might at first fear, although the lenses have build shortcomings.

 

In addition to the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX DC HSM, there is also the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8. These lenses are rather better both optically and for build quality, and have the advantage of the faster constant aperture. All these lenses are reduced image circle, so not useable on your film body if you still have that, or consider that you might eventually migrate to a full frame DSLR. They are all reviewed here:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

although the Sigma 50-150 is only reviewed on a Nikon body.

[michael_walter1]

Interesting. I am looking at a 350D as my 1st DSLR (I have a rebel Ti now). I have a Tamron 7-300 lens. I like it. I have gotten into bird photography. the 300 is just a bit "short" for me. I have been thinking about a 500 or maybe a 1.4x converter. So, if I undestand this correctly, when I get my 350D I will have a (equivalent) 480 lens?