Which is exactly the same as a 50mm EF-S lens would be. It'll just have more coverage than the crop sensor will use.Not necessarily. EFs will fit on the EF-S mount, but the focal length will be multiplied by 1.6. So a 50mm would be an 80mm on your EF-S DSLR.
No, I doubt there are any fixed 50mm that are strictly for crop. My point is just that a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, regardless of if it is made for full frame or crop. It's what it produces on the different formats that changes, not the focal length.True. Though they don't make 50mm lenses for EF-S mount, do they?
As discussed, Mike, any EF lens will work on a Canon crop sensor body. The reverse is not true -- you cannot use a EF-S lens on a full frame Canon body. The rear element protrudes into the body too much, so the mirror will hit the rear element. Plus, the lens is designed for the smaller sensor size, so it will vignette severely.I was just about to express an interest in one of your lenses, Scott (for when you were ready to list them)...but realized I need EF-S lenses.
Mike, if you already own a EF-S 55-250mm, why the interest in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS? While the 70-200 does have some benefits, unless you have some very specific telephoto needs it addresses you are probably better off with what you have and saving your money.Now you all made me go look.
My 50mm IS a Canon EF 1.8 II. So I should have known EF lenses would work on the 80D.
FYI: my other lenses are a Canon EFS 18-135mm IS USM. That's the one I usually keep on the camera in case I want to grab and shoot.
And a Canon EFS 55-250mm 1:4-5.6 IS
Mike, if you already own a EF-S 55-250mm, why the interest in the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS? While the 70-200 does have some benefits, unless you have some very specific telephoto needs it addresses you are probably better off with what you have and saving your money.
The color is more of an "off white" than gray. The lens is going for around $500 - $550 used. Your EFS 55-250mm is a pretty well regarded lens in that EFS line up, so I'm not sure you would get enough benefit in the upgrade. Now, if you were considering buying a full frame body, then the lens would make a lot of sense, as your 55-250mm will not work on such a camera.Oh...I was just pondering it. I read a lot of good things about that lens (ratings are thru the roof!) And I figured that you had taken extremely good care of it and that it would be a bit of an upgrade for me. And I would never spend the $$$ on anything close to a 400mm zoom. The idea of getting a high quality 320mm zoom intrigued me.
Without knowing your asking price, I probably would end up balking at spending that much money for not enough bang for my buck.
Plus the gray color is kinda cool!
I have owned an EOS R for a couple of years, so that would become my 2nd body.I really enjoy using the R6. It is a culmination of the features I've been wanting in various cameras over the years in a perfect size and weight for my hand. The tech is at the point that if there are performance issues I am confident it's me or my overlooking a setting in the camera, and not some shortcoming in the device or features.
If I could afford and justify a second R6 I would, but for my second body I've gone with the RP that I managed to get 10% off at Best Buy with a coupon that wasn't supposed to work with camera gear.
Maybe down the road I will pick up a used R6 if my opinion of it holds up.
I have never been into "super zoom" lenses, so the 24-240 does not really appeal to me. I have the RF 24-105L f/4 IS L, and it works great for my purposes. If I need something longer, it's usually much longer for wildlife. I will eventually need something wider, so the RF 14-35mm f/4 IS L will replace the EF 16-35mm f/4 IS L I just sold. My landscape style does not trend to the ultra wide angle views too often, though, so this is not an urgent need. I have a EF-M 11-22mm to go with my compact M50 APS-C sensor mirrorless that I can use in a pinch for now.As far as RF lenses, I'd eventually like to side-grade to the RF 70-200 f/4, but that's really only for the benefits of its size in transport alongside the other camera with the RF 24-105. So very low priority.
Higher interest would actually be for the RF 24-240mm for travel purposes.
The 7D2 (which I also used to own) is an APS-C sensor, though, so that is really an apples to oranges comparison. When shooting distant subjects, the crop sensor will get you a lot more "pixels on target" than a comparable resolution full frame sensor. I believe the math works out that if you needed to crop a 5D3 shot with its 22MP FF sensor to get the same field of view as a 7D2, you would end up with around an 8MP image.Yeah the 20MP resolution is a bit lower than I would like in principle but so far in practice I haven't run into any problems with what I tend to do with my photos (i.e. not a lot of large prints being made). My slight hesitation about the pixel count was overcome when I saw that the 7D2 that I'd used for many years was also 20MP, which I never paid that much attention to until it came time to transition to the R6.