If I like my 300mm lens on my 35mm film SLR...

[cigrainger]

Will a 200mm lens on a Canon Rebel XT end up being about the same zoom, if not just a bit more, because of the 1.6x focal length of digital cameras? If my wits aren't escaping me, that would make it 320mm right?

 

[Digital Matt]

200 * 1.6 is indeed 320. Get yourself the 1.4x TC as well for 448mm equivalent.

You are not actually getting a 320mm focal lenght though. The sensor is cropping the image to the same field of view. You won't get more magnifcation.

 

[cigrainger]

Thanks Matt! I'm using a £30 Sirius 60-300mm f/4-5.6 right now with my Canon AE-1 Program, and my film is getting scanned with a crappy scanner at like 3mp, so I think the 320 equivalent will look much better with the Rebel XT anyway.

What 200mm lens would recommend for a Rebel XT? I'd be okay with a set focal length, and I'd really like IS, but it's not necessary. Economics are an issue.

I'm just trying to get better shots than these at a similar zoom (these are at 300mm with my £80 setup):

 

[Digital Matt]

You have several options. You can look at the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. It doesn't have IS, but is a great lens.

From Canon, you have several options. Starting with the best, and of course most expensive:

70-200 f/2.8 IS
70-200/f.2.8
70-200 f/4 IS
70-200 f/4

Canon also makes some cheaper 70-300 lenses with IS. The are no where near the quality of L lenses, but do cost a bit less.

You can browse around Adorama.com and look at prices.

 

[Orgnoi1]

Yeah Sigma has a good lens there... the 70-200 Siggy is probably one of the best values for the image quality you can get in a 2.8 lens...

Just remember with the crop factor... it is what it is... you are cropping the sides of the image off... not adding to magnification... so while it *looks* longer the lens focal length really doesnt change... its really just the effective field of view...

 

[cigrainger]

Thanks for the responses guys!

How is the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM?

This would be for a relative noob to shoot animals in the zoo, maybe some occasional wildlife, and stuff like that. Just getting in some practice and whatnot, as my real interests lie in photojournalism and travel photography.

I'm investing in a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM as my main lens, then probably a Canon 50mm f/1.8 for low-light indoor stuff, and then a relatively cheap telephoto. I'll eventually get a fisheye/wide-angle lens too, but I'm going to wait until I can drop some money and get a relatively nice one (thinking Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM but that's much later down the line).

Do you recommend going with Canon or third party?

 

[Orgnoi1]

For the price range I would say that 75-300mm should do you just fine with what you are trying to get out of it... no problem at all...

I always try and tell people that if they can afford to go with the main manufacturer to try and do so unless the 3rd party lens is a stellar one...

 

[oCyrus55]

I have the Canon 70-300mm IS, and it is a great lens. But, like Matt said, it is not L quality; however, for taking pics at the zoo and other places, I think it will work very well for you.

 

[Big Mike]

How is the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM?

I have this lens. It's a decent telephoto zoom for it's price. The major drawback is the max aperture...it's rather small (slow). This makes it hard to get good shutter speeds when in less than perfect light. The image quality is OK but not great...it suffers from Chromatic Aberration. The focus motor is USM, but it's not the better 'ring USM'.

If you can afford it...the 70-200 lenses have a much better image quality. The 70-200 f/4 is actually one of the sharpest zoom lenses that Canon make.

As with most things, you get what you pay for...the 75-300 isn't as good but it's more affordable. You said that you are 'a relative noob to shoot animals in the zoo'...so the 75-300 may be all the lens you will ever need.

I've heard good things about the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. IS really is a great feature.

 

[oCyrus55]

Yeh^, IS is a really great feature

 

[SaSi]

If you can live without the zoom and budget is an issue, then the EF 200/2.8 is a great lens. Compared to the EF300/2.8IS, the 200mm is a bargain at 1/6 the price.

If you really need zoom, then the EF 70-200/4 is similarly priced and almost as good at 200mm.

And if you can climb the price a bit, go for the EF 70-200/4IS. Seems to be one of the best affordable lenses.

 

[usayit]

My opinion... and a bit of generalization on Canon's lenses.

Although Canon has managed to create a nice selection of high end L zooms, I've been less than happy with all but a few of their consumer level zooms. I tend to point people to other manufacturers for alternatives (Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) if their budget doesn't allow for a Canon L lens. As always, each manufacturer will have bad and good lenses (do your homework) but I've found you get more for yor buck than from equivalent Canon consumer lenses.

As Sasi mentioned, non-L PRIMES from Canon are wonderful. The 50mm f1.8 or f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm Macro, 200mm f2.8 are all examples of how working with primes can get you farther with less $$$.

 

[Groupcaptainbonzo]

The 75 - 300 is always being knocked as a rubbish cheapo lens. I used it with an old EOS 300 V and it was not bad. In fact Very good for the price... I have now kept it to use with my new 400D (Rebel XTi) and the best bit is that in effect I now have a 480mm f4.5 to f5.6 lens. and because of the "Crop" I only use the middle bit (The BEST bit) of the lens. and it is now a very good lens... Not quite L series obviously. But still a belter.

 

[SaSi]

As Sasi mentioned, non-L PRIMES from Canon are wonderful. The 50mm f1.8 or f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 100mm Macro, 200mm f2.8 are all examples of how working with primes can get you farther with less $$$.

Just a quick comment. The EF 200/2.8 is actually an L lens. However, your comment about the high quality of several non-L primes stands. Many of them compete head to head with L zooms.