I'm new to DSLR and have a 60d, and would like to get a 100-400L IS, will it fit, focus,ect?
What about extension tubes and converters? Or even a 24-70L IS?
I'm new to DSLR and have a 60d, and would like to get a 100-400L IS, will it fit, focus,ect? What about extension tubes and converters? Or even a 24-70L IS?
GWMT wrote:
I'm new to DSLR and have a 60d, and would like to get a 100-400L IS, will it fit, focus,ect?
What about extension tubes and converters? Or even a 24-70L IS?
Thanx
No offense, but as a Newbie, you should take a photo course and/or do some reading about Canon gear.
Any canon EF or EF-S lens will mount/fit and autofocus/work with the 60d.
The 100-400 wont autofocus with a teleconvertor on the 60d.
An extension tube will reduce minimum focus distance so help you shoot smaller subjects closer, the 100-400 isnt a macro lens but with this can be used to shoot butterflies etc.
The 100-400 though isnt an easy lens to use, 400mm on a crop sensor will show poor technique up badly, it takes time to learn.
GWMT wrote:
I'm new to DSLR and have a 60d, and would like to get a 100-400L IS, will it fit, focus,ect?
What about extension tubes and converters? Or even a 24-70L IS?
Thanx
A 100-400 and a 24-70 f4L IS will work both on the 60D.
However, because the 60D has a crop factor of 1.6x the focal length of the 100-400 would become a 160-640mm lens, and a 24-70 would become a 38-112mm lens.
100mm x 1.6 = 160mm
400mm x 1.6 = 640mm
24mm x 1.6 = 38mm
70mm x 1.6 = 112mm
Just be aware that by using those lenses on a 60D you are increasing their focal lengths by 1.6x.
What are you interested in shooting? What lenses do you have already. As people said, the 100-400 will work fine as will the 24-70. You should also look at the canon 17-55 2.8IS (or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or non VC), the 55-250 (don't pay full price new, they are really cheap used), the sigma 30 1.4 and the Tokina 11-16. Without knowing what you shoot it is hard to help. Just because a lens has a red ring on it does not mean it is the best lens for you.
Paul Mo wrote:
A 100-400 and a 24-70 f4L IS will work both on the 60D.
However, because the 60D has a crop factor of 1.6x the focal length of the 100-400 would become a 160-640mm lens, and a 24-70 would become a 38-112mm lens.
100mm x 1.6 = 160mm
400mm x 1.6 = 640mm
24mm x 1.6 = 38mm
70mm x 1.6 = 112mm
Just be aware that by using those lenses on a 60D you are increasing their focal lengths by 1.6x.
Not trying to jack this thread, but I was always told that the focal length of any lens will never "change", a 100mm-400mm on a 1.6x crop sensor is STILL a 100mm-400mm. However, the frame of the picture will be cropped to the equivalent of a 160mm-640mm....with the focal distance not actually changing
Someone please correct me if I am understanding the crop factor incorrectly?
Paul Mo wrote:
Just be aware that by using those lenses on a 60D you are increasing their focal lengths by 1.6x.
Let's not mis-represent what is actually happening, or else our new member will spread confusion down the road.
Focal length never changes. It is a property of the lens. It doesn't matter if you have a medium format sensor, "full frame", APS-C sensor, or tiny camera phone sensor.
Due to the sensor crop size in the 60D, the field of view decreases. On a full frame camera, a lens with the same field of view would require a lens 1.6x longer in focal length to present the same image to the photographer. It's just easier for some to visualize having a longer focal length (I do it too), rather than speak in terms we uses less frequently.
I think that's garbage - a poor way to explain it to new photogs. You are not just cropping a FF image you are gaining reach - or are all the world's birders incorrect in using 7D's to gain said reach and turn their superteles into something 'longer'?
You are saying my 100 macro on my 5D3 is exactly as my 100 macro on my 1D3 - just cropped? That the 100 macro on the 1D3 is not 130mm?
Paul Mo wrote:
I think that's garbage - a poor way to explain it to new photogs.
Im a pretty new photog, and I sure wouldnt want to be misled into thinking something thats entirely not true! Going off your explanation, I may run out and buy a 70-200mm thinking I am actually going to have a 112-320mm effective focal range. THATS garbage! I realize I am brand new here, and I definitely do not want to create enemies, but from a newbie perspective, your explanation is VERY confusing because it is just not true. Sorry, just my observation.
Paul Mo wrote:
I think that's garbage - a poor way to explain it to new photogs. You are not just cropping a FF image you are gaining reach - or are all the world's birders incorrect in using 7D's to gain said reach and turn their superteles into something 'longer'?
The 7D's "reach" is due to pixel density. More pixels per unit area, thus more magnification when viewed at the pixel level.
Talk about confusing the OP You're ahead in that battle
cmartin72 wrote:
Im a pretty new photog, and I sure wouldnt want to be misled into thinking something thats entirely not true! Going off your explanation, I may run out and buy a 70-200mm thinking I am actually going to have a 112-320mm efective focal range. THATS garbage! I realize I am brand new here, and I definitely do not want to create enemies, but from a newbie perspective, your explanation is VERY confusing because it is just not true. Sorry, just my observation.
So why use a 7D with a 600mm for birding? Why not use a 5DC?
Paul Mo wrote:
So why use a 7D with a 600mm for birding? Why not use a 5DC?
Well....for me, it would be the price!
I do not know enough about any of this to make a valid argument on this matter....nor do I want to thread jack from the OP. I just KNOW for a fact, that the senor does NOT change the true focal range of any lens.
