0
\$\begingroup\$

For a starter DSLR, I got the Canon Rebel T7. It came with a 75-300 Zoom lens, but I quickly realized that it does not bring subjects close enough. What do you recommend for a cost-effective and not-too-heavy next step lens?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ What are you photographing that 300mm doesn't get you close enough? Also, "cost-effective" is subjective. Some people wouldn't dream of spending USD 1000 (or equivalent) on a lens - that's fair enough - but if you want a good quality lens, and especially at such long focal lengths, you can't get this kind of equipment for cheap. \$\endgroup\$
    – osullic
    Commented Apr 9 at 18:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Is it possible you meant that it doesn't work with close subjects? Then your answer is a basic base-range zoom from 18-55mm or similar. Everyone is assuming you want to make a subject fill the frame too far out for 300mm (with a 1.6 crop factor!) to do it and that's expensive. \$\endgroup\$
    – davolfman
    Commented Apr 9 at 22:16

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
2
\$\begingroup\$

Sorry, this is not going to be cheap or lightweight.

Some zooms up to 300mm are reasonably priced, but anything longer than that, zooms or prime, is going to be very expensive.

If you don't need image stabilization or zoom, 400mm f/5.6 could be one option, but it doesn't bring far away subjects much closer than 300mm. From 300mm to 400mm the jump is not that big (but on the other hand, your 75-300 has very low image quality which doesn't allow much cropping unlike with Canon's 400mm that's perfectly croppable). Also, Canon's 400mm f/5.6 costs nearly 1000 EUR used. However, the 400mm f/5.6 has very high image quality, so with your T7 that has 24 megapixels, you can simply crop your images if 400mm isn't enough. In daylight, your shutter speeds can be set to be so fast that most 400mm image aren't shaken. However, near sunrise or sunset a 400mm f/5.6 without image stabilization won't work.

Another option is 150-600mm zoom from Sigma or Tamron, at about 1000 EUR new, slightly cheaper if used. However, third-party lenses with the Canon system often have slight autofocus issues. Also I doubt it that 600mm zoom from these third-party manufacturers would be much better than cropping a 24 megapixel image taken with Canon 400mm f/5.6. Furthermore, these 150-600 zooms weigh a whole 2 kilograms!

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

Your only cost-effective lens which is longer than 300mm is a teleconverter for your 75-300. 1.4x TC will probably still allow autofocus with your lens and body but I am not entirely sure (the combo will have F8 speed and T7 can be limited by how slow the lens can be for AF to function). This will also make viewfinder darker because speed is lower with TC.

Second best option is cropping your images. There is no reason why you should not do it except some quality loss.

There are a lot of older used AF lenses without stabilizer which are not terribly expensive but they can only be heavier. Another option is a 500mm F8 reflex lens which won't have AF.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
1
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ That 75-300mm is such a weak lens optically, especially on the 300mm end, that I'd never dream of putting an extender on it. All one would be doing is magnifying the blur. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Apr 10 at 6:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.