will a Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM Lens fit a rebel xti?

wheresdavid

dumb question it is but i am not able to download canons "lens charts" because the internet cafe that i am using doesnt have adobe to open the pdf file

ziggy53

wheresdavid wrote:

dumb question it is but i am not able to download canons "lens charts" because the internet cafe that i am using doesnt have adobe to open the pdf file

Yes, it certainly does. Almost all Canon EF lenses will fit the Canon dRebel series cameras. All EF-S lenses will fit by definition.

The 24-70mm yields approximately 38-112mm equivalent FOV on a 1.6x crop camera. This is a great lens and one I also desire.

cmason

It is a great lens, but make sure you get a good idea of the size. On a Rebel that thing looks HUGE. I passed on it due to this, it was just uncomfortable for me personally...others don't mind.

I chose the Tamron over it, due to size...plus the cost difference was nice too, but not really the primary factor. I prefer the 24-105L, which is considerably smaller. But it is just f4, which is why it is smaller.

CGrindahl

Many possibilities
I'll second cmason's suggestion that there are other lenses that might prove a better fit on you Rebel. I used the Tamron 28-75 for years on both the original Rebel and a 20D with outstanding success. I sold it only after buying a 5D, a full frame camera that is happier with the predecessor of the 24-70L, the classic 28-70L. Were I in your circumstances I'd likely be looking at either the Tamron 17-50 or possibly the much more expensive Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. With a cropped sensor you'll likely wish a wider lens. I bought the Canon 17-40L which is a lovely lens but a bit slow. The Tamron is definitely good value for money.

Have fun as you build your kit. It has taken me years, but I've enjoyed the journey immensely.

pathfinder

The EOS 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens, but on a crop camera it just seems too large, unbalanced, as the lens is heavier than the camera body, or at least seems that way in my hands.

On my 20D, I favor the Tamron 28-756 f2.8 Di because it is very close to the Canon lens optically, and much smaller, lighter, and cheaper too boot.

I do not use my own EOS 24-70f2.8 on my 20D precisely for this reason. I use the Tamron lens, and keep the 24-70 on a 1 series body if needed.

wheresdavid

let me ask you this, i am not concerned too much on the size as i am on the quality of the photo (i amy upgrade to a d30). i have a tamaron 18-200 and it just doesnt take a crisp enough photo for me. does the tamaron you mention take a sharp phot?

thanks Dave

cmason wrote:

It is a great lens, but make sure you get a good idea of the size. On a Rebel that thing looks HUGE. I passed on it due to this, it was just uncomfortable for me personally...others don't mind.

I chose the Tamron over it, due to size...plus the cost difference was nice too, but not really the primary factor. I prefer the 24-105L, which is considerably smaller. But it is just f4, which is why it is smaller.

wheresdavid

I gues i should have posted a different question. that being i am on a around the world trip and will be back to the states in may for a short time. i currently have a tamaron 18-200 that i am not happy with and a 50mm 1.8 that i am happy with other than the foot zoom. so the tamaron takes a sharp photo? Dave

pathfinder wrote:

The EOS 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens, but on a crop camera it just seems too large, unbalanced, as the lens is heavier than the camera body, or at least seems that way in my hands.

On my 20D, I favor the Tamron 28-756 f2.8 Di because it is very close to the Canon lens optically, and much smaller, ltighter, and cheaper too boot.

I do not use my own EOS 24-70f2.8 on my 20D precisely for this reason. I use the Tamron lens, and keep the 24-70 on a 1 seires body if needed.

pathfinder

10 to 1 zooms are notorious for less than superb image quality.

The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di on a crop camera is excellent.

You can see some resoution images I shot here of newsprint with a 5D - eg: full frame camera. A crop camera will do significantly better in the corners. Draw your own conclusions

The Canon 24-105 L IS is also a great lens, but only f4.

claudermilk

ziggy53 wrote:

Almost all Canon EF lenses will fit the Canon dRebel series cameras.

Huh? What's with the "almost"? AFAIK all EOS EF mount lenses will mount on any EOS EF mount body, it's just the EF-S lenses that are limited to the 1.6 crop bodies.

Anyway, yes it will fit. If the lens is what you need, then it's a fantastic lens. Though, as you have seen there are a whole bunch of people with some kind of anti-24-70 bias on crop bodies; I don't know why and this is a recent thing from what I'm seeing. I completely disagree, since if the 24-70 is considered too big & heavy, well don't even bother with longer lenses then--by that logic even the 70-200/4 non-IS is simply too massive for the poor little dinky Rebel body. Seriously, my 24-70 lives on my 20D almost all the time and it's just fine; admittedly I also have the grip which helps, but the grip came long before the lens. The focal range depends on you needs--for many it's not right ona crop body which is fine. But this is all completely subjective. Now, off my 24-70 defense soapbox, it sounds like you are looking for a general vacation walkaround, which the 24-105/4L is really more suited for and seems to me to be aimed at that use. Both of these lenses should far outperform the 18-200 ultra zoom.

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

Huh? What's with the "almost"? AFAIK all EOS EF mount lenses will mount on any EOS EF mount body, it's just the EF-S lenses that are limited to the 1.6 crop bodies.

...

There are a couple of "EF" designated lenses that will not fit EF-S bodies, but I can't remember the lenses or the exact problems. Both are out of production, so you would only find them as older and used (and pretty rare). If I can dig up the information, I'll post it somewhere on the Digital Grin.

pathfinder

I guess I'm just a wimp, Chris.

I know there are folks who like the 24-70 on a 20D.

I just find it unbalanced in my hands and I like that lens a lot. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.:D

Have you ever shot with the Tammy on a crop body?

cmason

claudermilk wrote:

I completely disagree, since if the 24-70 is considered too big & heavy, well don't even bother with longer lenses then--by that logic even the 70-200/4 non-IS is simply too massive for the poor little dinky Rebel body.

I can only go by how if felt to me when I used the 24-70, YMMV of course. But looking at the specs:

24-70 2.8L

Length: 123mm
Weight: 2.1 lbs 950g
Diameter: 77mm

70-200 f4L

Length: 172mm
Weight: 19.2 oz, 720g
Diameter: 67mm

So comparing, the 24-70 is 1 3/4 in (50mm) shorter than the 70-200, but it is 25% heavier, and much wider (13%), which I think it what visually looks different on the XT.

I like the XT for its travel weight, and while I lust after the 24-70 like most, decided I needed a body upgrade before it became the right lens for me.

dogwood

The 24-70 is L-glass so the image is great (assuming you shoot it properly )

But... if you think the 50 1.8 is crisp, well, you shouldn't have any issues with a Tamron! Seriously, I find the 50 1.8 just a little soft, but for the price, I'm not complaining.

Before I had a 24-70, I used a Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Little short on the telephoto end of things, but wider on the wide end of things. Anyway, the Sigma's consistently score well in photo magazine performance tests, so that could be another consideration. The Sigma 18-50 is a wonderful walk around lens. I only sold mine because I picked up a 5D and the 24-70-- which basically replaced my 20D and 18-50 sigma.

wheresdavid

I guess what i meant to say was that the 50mm is crisper than the 18-200 tamaron. it is frustrating being out of the country and not being able to replace or buy a new lens. the good thing is i only have 5 weeks left on this trip and then i will return to the states for a little while before taking off for one year. i want to make sure before i leave the states for my next trip that i have the right camera lens setup.

dogwood wrote:

The 24-70 is L-glass so the image is great (assuming you shoot it properly )

But... if you think the 50 1.8 is crisp, well, you shouldn't have any issues with a Tamron! Seriously, I find the 50 1.8 just a little soft, but for the price, I'm not complaining.

Before I had a 24-70, I used a Sigma 18-50 f2.8. Little short on the telephoto end of things, but wider on the wide end of things. Anyway, the Sigma's consistently score well in photo magazine performance tests, so that could be another consideration. The Sigma 18-50 is a wonderful walk around lens. I only sold mine because I picked up a 5D and the 24-70-- which basically replaced my 20D and 18-50 sigma.

digismile

For the last year, I have been mostly using a 70-200 f/2.8 IS on my 20D. I love the lens, but it's built like a tank (I nolonger need to do any free weights!). I have no real issues with balance, and the way I figure it, a series 1 body would make it just that much heavier!

I now have the 24-70L f/2.8, and comparatively speaking, it's very light and extremely sharp. So big is a relative thing ...

Just my 2.32 cents,

claudermilk

Kind of my point, I just made it in a grumpier fashion. Obviously the 70-200/4 comparison was bad & made off the top of my head, the f2.8 would have been a better choice for my smart-aleck comment. :smack

I've had the 70-200/2.8IS on my 20D, and carried it all day. That certainly put short stints with the 24-70 in perspective. At least I was wise enough to tripod-mount when I got the opportunity to use a 300/2.8 on it.

It's gotten to the point I am starting to prefer slightly heavier lenses over the ultra-lightweight ones, which has me backwards from everyone else apparently; I like the weight in that it damps the whole system & the way I handhold (elbows tucked & pistol-shooting stance) it helps stabilize everything.

ANyway, like I said the 24-70 is a more specific tool than many other lenses & often is the wrong one. For my use, it happens to perfectly mesh with my requirements & I then press it into walkaround service. For most people the 24-105 will work better. I just get tired of people bashing, or starting to bash, some very good tools just because they aren't the right ones for hte task being performed. Kind of like saying that wrench sucks when what you really need is a screwdriver.

XHawkeye

24-70 on a XTi

Weight is weight you'll either get used to it or it bug you to no end. Have gotten used to it and when I pick up a kit lens or my 28-135 I think this feels too light.

cmason

you clean your lens with diaper wipes?!

dogwood

wheresdavid wrote:

it is frustrating being out of the country and not being able to replace or buy a new lens.

Guess you need to schedule a stop in Hong Kong on your journey

I hear you can get lots of camera gear there... who knows what kind of quality/warranty it carries...