Don't understand the 1.6 factor (10-22mm EF-S or 17-40mm EF L) I have a Canon 30D and I am comparing two lenses: the 10-22mm EF-S to the 17-40mm EF L lens. I understand the 10-22 may have a 1.6 x factor when placed on the 30D, which makes both lenses about the same focal length. If so the glass quality of the "L" should suggest the 17-40mm. Price-wise they are about the same. Am I understanding the 1.6 factor (on my camera) correctly? Don't understand the 1.6 factor (10-22mm EF-S or 17-40mm EF L) I have a Canon 30D and I am comparing two lenses: the 10-22mm EF-S to the 17-40mm EF L lens. I understand the 10-22 may have a... » Read More Don't understand the 1.6 factor (10-22mm EF-S or 17-40mm EF L) I have a Canon 30D and I am comparing two lenses: the 10-22mm EF-S to the 17-40mm EF L lens. I understand the 10-22 may have a 1.6 x factor when placed on the 30D, which makes both lenses about the same focal length. If so the glass quality of the "L" should suggest the 17-40mm. Price-wise they are about the same. Am I understanding the 1.6 factor (on my camera) correctly? « Show Less
1564565
On your camera (a 1.6 crop frame camera) you have to multiply ALL lens focal lengths by 1.6 to get the 35mm full frame equivalent. The 10-22mm will behave like a 16-35mm and the 17049mm will behave like a 27-64mm
1564566
Multiplying the 17-40mm EF L by 1.6x = 27-65mm equivalent focal length. ALL lenses will be multiplied by 1.6x on your camera, regardless of whether they are L glass or not, because you are not using a full frame (1x) camera. But if you EVER plan on getting a full frame camera, keep in mind the EF-S lenses will not work. Though they're pretty easy to unload on ebay.If you don't plan on getting a full frame, this is the way to go: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
1564567
Take an 8x10 picture. Cut out a mat so the center opening becomes 5x7. The difference between what you see with the mat on or off is the difference between a crop sensor (on) and a full frame (off). Note especially that the stuff in the middle is NOT BIGGER. When you see a 100mm lens advertised as 160mm equivalent keep in mind that it is the same as a 100mm lens on a full frame body where you scissored off a third of the print.The sensor is smaller. The lens doesn't have to cover as many cubic millimeters of flat sensor with it all in focus. That lens is thus cheaper to make. You'll feel the difference more on the wide side, as with this lens than on the long. Take an 8x10 picture. Cut out a mat so the center opening becomes 5x7. The difference between what you see with the mat on or off is the difference between a crop sensor (on) and a full frame (off). Note especially that the stuff in the middle is NOT BIGGER. When you see a 100mm lens advertised as 160mm equivalent keep in mind that it is the same as a 100mm lens on a full frame body where you scissored off a third of the print.The sensor is smaller. The lens doesn't have to cover as many cubic millimeters of flat sensor with it all in focus. That lens is thus cheaper to make.... » Read More Take an 8x10 picture. Cut out a mat so the center opening becomes 5x7. The difference between what you see with the mat on or off is the difference between a crop sensor (on) and a full frame (off). Note especially that the stuff in the middle is NOT BIGGER. When you see a 100mm lens advertised as 160mm equivalent keep in mind that it is the same as a 100mm lens on a full frame body where you scissored off a third of the print.The sensor is smaller. The lens doesn't have to cover as many cubic millimeters of flat sensor with it all in focus. That lens is thus cheaper to make. You'll feel the difference more on the wide side, as with this lens than on the long. « Show Less
1848140
I know M= Mirrorless, however is there some sort of "Adapter or a Converter" to use this particular lens for Canon EF -EF-S Format EOS 70D or 6D , or 5D Mark lll ?, I saw this lens sold in a "Bundle Kit with 70D ! Thanks
1644826
The difference is the lens. You will have a gap of 20mm that you can't make up unless you buy the 55-250. That is why I bought this package. But keep in mind that even though the other one is cheaper, you eventually find that you will need the 55-250mm lens.
1293200
Cannon makes 3+ levels of lenses. EFS, EF and L. The EFS is the entry level, the EF the avid photographer and the L the pro level lens. The difference is mostly the optics and build quality. The L series is built for more rigorous every day use and have ultra low dispersion elements that the entry and mid level do not have. Personal opinion, unless you are going to pound with this lens day in and day out, or you have a lot of spare cash, go with the EF. I bought the EF and have been very happy with it so far.
1176975
Barry, I have a Cannon 6d and a Cannon 75-300, 1:4-5.6 and the converter works just fine. The manufacturer states that the converter is not compatible with EF-S lenses. I've not used the converter extensively, but I am happy with the few pictures that I have taken. Hope this helps.
1515689
EF 28-80mm I use for Canon 10D & EOS M and try my friend's EOS T3i, it work,so SL1 should be fine, but what you pay and what you get, don't expect it will have very sharp image.
1941236
Because a 10mm focal length lens is different from an 18mm focal length lens. Aperture, while important, is simply how much light the lens can let in (it affects depth of field as well); it has nothing to do with the angle and field of view of the lens. This lens and your lens should look very similar when they are both zoomed to the same focal lengths (18-24mm, the only focal lengths where they overlap). If you buy this lens and only use it from 18-24mm you are wasting your money. The reason people buy this lens for its extremely wide focal lengths (10-14mm). They give a perspective that cannot be gained in any other way, especially on DX. Few lenses get this wide and even less get this wide on DX. This is the only lens from Nikon that gets this wide on DX. That's why it's so expensive. Despite what someone else said, this is not a pro lens. I'm not sure any of the DX lenses are pro lenses. It is very much consumer grade quality; it has cheaper construction and more distortion. The Nikon 12-24mm is semi-pro (better, more durable construction) and is accordingly more expensive. But this one has a wider angle of view (shorter focal length), and that's what will be key to most folks. Just be careful with it and the distortion can be corrected with software.
185445
Short answer - physically it won't fit because the back end sticks out and will hit the mirror resulting in a broken lens. Long answer - The reason the focal length is given as such is because this lens is ACTUALLY 17-55mm. The fact is that part of the image gets chopped off by the smaller sensor. Imagine a rectangle with a large circle on top of it. The circle represents the projected image and the rectangle is the sensor. Some of the projected image gets chopped or "cropped" by 1.6x. So now that 17mm angle becomes narrower by exactly 1.6 = 27mm. So it started off as 17mm but by the time you get to see the final image it is more like 27mm. Quite simply if you could glue this lens onto a full frame camera somehow (which I DO NOT RECOMMEND) then it would actually be a 17-55mm lens. If Canon were to write the cropped value it might confuse people when they mount a non EF-S lens. You would have 2 naming conventions and things could get messy fast. It's easier just to remember that you are using a crop sensor and multiply everything by 1.6.
2184845
I do not know which other lens you are talking about. My guess is it has the same specs as this one also by Canon. They are versions of the same lens. The one whose page you are on is newer. The old one has a 67 mm diameter the new one 72 mm. New one has updated focal elements but it's roughly the same.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
96399
I have both this 15-85mm lens, and the wonderful EF-S 10-22mm. Since getting the 15-85, I almost never use the 10-22, even though most of my photography is on the wide-angle side of normal. I recommend both lenses, but get the 15-85 first, and you may find, as I did, that it is very adequate all by itself. If you do need extreme wide-angle, however, by all means get the EF-S 10-22mm, which is excellent. Best, get both!
1463487
That's maybe a little more confusing and involved question than you know. I believe that TECHNICALLY one could say that an 11-16 is an 11-16 is an 11-16, no matter what camera it is on. However, that is not what you really want to know. You want to know how it ACTS on your camera. It acts like an 18-26 on your 1.6x camera. Know that lens makers never do any calculation for you - they put the 35mm or full-frame numbers. So any lens you see, you should multiply by 1.6 to see how that lens would act on your camera. Even if the lens is designed for crop sensor cameras like this one is, they never do the multiplication for you. For instance, the 18-55 that probably came with your camera really acts like a 29-88, so this lens is considerably wider than the kit lens. One last analogy: If you had this lens set to the widest on your camera, and your buddy had a 17-40 set to its widest on a full-frame camera, you would have approximately the same field of view.
1577239
If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense... » Read More If you are referring to the F2.8 versions of both lenses they are about the same size and weight and such the lower the f stop number it shows the larger the lense typically. (So wider it can open the larger the lense ). Small lenses will be ones that can't open less then 4.0 f stop any mid to high grade lense will be larger than the base lenses in size and weight that being said the lense I bought is notHeavy and is not bad the larger 70-300 f2.8 is very large and heavy enough I mount the tripod to the lense not the camer as to Much strain to the mounts between the camera and lense would cause damage over time. « Show Less
1199563
Before I had this lens I had the 18 to 270. I use the lens with a Canon Rebel. It is a great lens with great flexibility, either at a distance or a bee on a flower
648861
The answer really depends on your budget. I have the 18-135STM-which is also an amazing lens , but because of it's size and weight-I have the 40mm on my t5i all the time. I don't find the focal length to be a problem at all. The only thing shorter that I would consider is the new 35mm f2.0 IS which is a lot of money. The older none IS 35mm isn't as amazing as the 40mm. I tried them all out at the local camera shop. The combination of optical quality, construction, price, and size make this lens hard to walk away from. BTW, on the t5i, the f2.8 is plenty for doing hand held-no flash is terrible lighting.Hope this helps. The answer really depends on your budget. I have the 18-135STM-which is also an amazing lens , but because of it's size and weight-I have the 40mm on my t5i all the time. I don't find the focal length to be a problem at all. The only thing shorter that I would consider is the new 35mm f2.0 IS which is a lot of money. The older none IS 35mm isn't as amazing as the 40mm. I tried them all out at the local camera shop. The combination of optical quality, construction, price, and size make this lens hard to walk away from. BTW, on the t5i, the f2.8 is plenty for doing hand held-no flash is... » Read More The answer really depends on your budget. I have the 18-135STM-which is also an amazing lens , but because of it's size and weight-I have the 40mm on my t5i all the time. I don't find the focal length to be a problem at all. The only thing shorter that I would consider is the new 35mm f2.0 IS which is a lot of money. The older none IS 35mm isn't as amazing as the 40mm. I tried them all out at the local camera shop. The combination of optical quality, construction, price, and size make this lens hard to walk away from. BTW, on the t5i, the f2.8 is plenty for doing hand held-no flash is terrible lighting.Hope this helps. « Show Less
1875683
The following comes from a site reviewing the lens. Along with many of Canon's other L-Zooms, the 28-300 L has a 77mm filter size. Like many of the newer L-Zooms, the 28-300 IS is weather sealed. Unfortunately, and unlike most of Canon's other white L-Zooms, the 28-300 IS is not compatible with the Canon EF 1.4x Extender or the Canon EF 2x Extender. Well, not compatible according to Canon - and not fully compatible, but extenders can indeed be used with this lens as proven by the 420mm and 600mm ISO 12233 chart results for this lens. If the 28-300 L is zoomed out to 50mm or longer, the rear element retracts into the lens far enough for the Canon 1.4x and 2x extenders to physically mount onto the lens. Once installed, zooming in to 50mm will result in physical contact between the front of the extender (likely the rubber ring surrounding the glass lens element) and the rear element of the lens. You obviously want to avoid this. I hope this helps. Personally, I would not reccomend.
1922083
The 50 is probably more often referred to as a "standard" lens and works great. The 35 is slightly wider and often used for portraits of more than just one person (when you need to fit more people in the frame). Keep in mind that if you have a camera with an ASP-C sensor (or a "crop sensor"-- this is the Rebel line of Canon canons as well as the 7D, etc), the 50mm is closer to a (1.6 x 50 =) 80mm due to the smaller sensor and a 35 looks closer to a (35 x 1.6=) 56mm lens. What I would suggest before dropping a lot of money on the 35L or 50L is to see what range you use more or what looks better on your camera. Most Canon cameras come with an 18-55 or 24-105 lens. Zoom that lens to the 35mm mark and use that for a day and see how it works. Then do the same thing with the lens at the 50mm mark. If you find that 50 is too narrow or 35 is too wide, there is no sense in dropping $1000+ on a focal length you aren't likely to use.