EF-S lens

Freddie59

I currently have a 17-55 f/2.8 lens on my 40D most of the time. Great quality and sharpness. But I'd like a little extra reach in some situations. But it seems to be impossible to get, say, an 18-200 or 70-300 with f/2.8. I hope I'm explaining this OK.:o Any suggestions?

zerohamster

you could look at the 70-200mm f/2.8L if you are looking for an f/2.8 telephoto but I would suggest having a look at some of the cheaper 70-200mm lenses or perhaps the 70-300mm IS .

Ricky91t

Are you deliberately overlooking the 70-200 f/2.8 for any reason?

It's an L, so not cheap, But if you're looking for a 70-300 f/2.8 you must have a decent budget...

5uspect

You aren't limited to EF-S lenses. The 40D can also use all EF lenses.
The contrary is true with non APS-C cameras like the 5D which cannot use EF-S.

pete4130

Something like an 18-200 lens is a compromise. It's got "everything" in regards to focal lengths but what it trades in for that is speed (3.5-6.3 or something?) and image quality (sharpness, barrel distortion etc....)

For an 18-200 f/2.8 the cost would be ridiculous in reality. Fast lenses use larger pieces of glass, which cost more to produce, polish etc... and keeping the focal lengths shorter (17-55 as opposed to 18-200) means the optics are more simple. Another thing to think of is the weight of an 18-200 2.8. While its possible it would be massive and so heavy it would be impractical as a walkaround lens. The elements would be huge. Just think how heavy the 70-200 2.8 comes in at, now imagine that as an 18-200 with good image quality?

I know Nikon do an 18-105 crop sensor lens. I think someone was asking about these sort of lenses a few weeks back actually. I'm not sure if they decided on something like a 24-105 f/4 L (if that exists, I use Nikon so not up to speed on Canon stuff).

Germag

By the by, I have a " accura " supertel-300 a preset f5.5 telephoto lens for most single lens reflex cameras with a " Tamron adaptall for nicon "
Is this any good and as I have no use for it ,is it saleable? ( this is not an ad )

challengemaster

You won't get 70-300 f/2.8

Your options are:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L + 300mm f/2.8 L
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

Or something like a 70-300 f/5.6

Squidgy Black

there's also the sigma alternative 70-200 f2.8 for in and around 750.

zerohamster

challengemaster wrote: »

You won't get 70-300 f/2.8

Your options are:
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L + 300mm f/2.8 L
Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L
Sigma 120-300 f/2.8

Or something like a 70-300 f/5.6

Dont forget the 70-300 DO IS f/4.5-5.6. its a nice compact lens with good optics although not L quality.

Ricky91t

zerohamster wrote: »

you could look at the 70-200mm f/2.8L if you are looking for an f/2.8 telephoto but I would suggest having a look at some of the cheaper 70-200mm lenses or perhaps the 70-300mm IS .

Beat me to it! :pac:

pete4130

stetyrrell wrote: »

there's also the sigma alternative 70-200 f2.8 for in and around 750.

I had one and I thought it would be more effective as a paper weight. Replaced it with a Nikon 70-300 4.5-6.3 VR which kicked the sigma's a$$ all the way. Maybe I had a bad copy, but there shouldn't be bad copies when you pay that amount of money.
Got the Nikon 80-200 2.8 now and its just miles and miles beyond anything the Sigma ever did even though it was 2nd hand and years older.

Ricky91t

pete4130 wrote: »

I had one and I thought it would be more effective as a paper weight. Replaced it with a Nikon 70-300 4.5-6.3 VR which kicked the sigma's a$$ all the way. Maybe I had a bad copy, but there shouldn't be bad copies when you pay that amount of money.
Got the Nikon 80-200 2.8 now and its just miles and miles beyond anything the Sigma ever did even though it was 2nd hand and years older.

We all know simga BQ differs, Mine is a great lens, I actually don't see a reason to upgrade it to a Canon L...

pete4130

Ricky91t wrote: »

We all know simga BQ differs, Mine is a great lens, I actually don't see a reason to upgrade it to a Canon L...

Oh totally!!!! I had the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 and the Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 on my D200 and they were brilliant.

When I went full frame I got the Sigma 24-70 and Sigma 70-200 and got rid of them asap. They just didn't cut it. When paying €750+ for a lens it shouldnt be luck of the draw, thats all I'm saying. I've had some great Sigma lenses and some really really bad ones. I've just been burnt by Sigma and bitter!!!

Freddie59

Thanks for all the help everyone. Decisions, decisions, decisions!!:)

kelly1

Freddie59 wrote: »

I currently have a 17-55 f/2.8 lens on my 40D most of the time. Great quality and sharpness. But I'd like a little extra reach in some situations. But it seems to be impossible to get, say, an 18-200 or 70-300 with f/2.8. I hope I'm explaining this OK.:o Any suggestions?

Does it have to be a 2.8? Why not the 70-200 f/4?

kensutz

If you want to see the 70-200 give me a shout and I can meet up with you at some stage to go through it.

Freddie59

kensutz wrote: »

If you want to see the 70-200 give me a shout and I can meet up with you at some stage to go through it.

Might take you up on that Ken. Thanks for the offer.:)

Freddie.