telephoto lens for rebel xt

[TheBlueMonster]

How much should I be looking to spend on a telephoto lens for the Canon Rebel XT? I know it can take 50 different EF lenses, but which has the best quality/price.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
How much should I be looking to spend on a telephoto lens for the Canon Rebel XT? I know it can take 50 different EF lenses, but which has the best quality/price.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you've decided what you want to photograph (birds? sporting events? portraits? . . .), you'll be a lot closer to answering this question. Then budget kicks in, as well as other factors such as size, etc. At a fairly low price point, Sigma's 70-300mm DG APO is supposed to be quite good yet still small and light, and much less expensive than faster lenses. I'm in the Nikon camp, but from what I read while deciding, the Canon 70-200mm F4L seemed to be a (relatively) low cost way to get Canon's L series of pro glass. Sigma's 70-200mm f2.8 is quite well regarded if you want an even faster lens - almost bought that one myself.

The Sigma 70-200mm will run somewhere around $700-750, the Canon around $600, and the Sigma 70-300mm can be found for $200. There are much more expensive options as well if you're looking for longer reach in a fast lens, or optical stabilization.

A shorter zoom might work for you, but again it all depends on what you're trying to shoot.

[codewarrior]

You can get a Quantarray 100-300mm for under $300 at a Ritz or comparable camera shop. Or online. For constrast, the Cannon L-series 100-400mm is $1500, with ultrasonic motor and image stabilization. I have both, they are both very nice. The ultrasonic motor lenses eat batteries.

Quantaray lenses are pretty good quality at a reasonable price. Get the extended warranty.

[Jonny]

I have the rebel xt, and I did a lot of research before finally getting the 70-200 f4/L. By far in terms of price to proformance. Then you can pick up the 1.4x teleconverter, and with the 1.6x crop factor coupled with that, the 70-200 becomes a 100-450 35mm equivalent.

Another plus is that the 70-200 f4 is way lighter and smaller than the 2.8 version (which costs about a grand).

So, the 70-200 f4/L is my choice.

[TheBlueMonster]

what's the approximate cost?

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
what's the approximate cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you clearly didn't read my post, I wonder why I bothered to respond.

[touchfaith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
what's the approximate cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you clearly didn't read my post, I wonder why I bothered to respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's why i didn't respond...well...that and the fact that I couldn't give a [censored].



At least answer the first sentence of the first reply. No meaningful recommendation can be given without it.