# best NON L long lens



## jimjamesjimmy (Mar 12, 2013)

im looking for a cheapish bird/garden lens but cannot afford a nice L lens.

prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.

does any body know a good model from any manufacturer , of course its not gonna be the best optically, probably noisy, slow autofocus, bearing all that in mind, whats the best of the worst out there?

thanks for any recommendations


----------



## robbymack (Mar 12, 2013)

Are you shooting crop or ff? I assume crop, so the 55-250 gets knocked by gear heads but for the price it's pretty good. If you can stretch the 70-200 f4L is very good and can be picked up used for not too much cash if you can live without IS.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 12, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> im looking for a cheapish bird/garden lens but cannot afford a nice L lens.
> 
> prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.
> 
> ...



It's a bit shorter.... And is L glass... But at $650 the 70-200 f4 non-is lens has to be one of the better lenses out there and will out resolve some of the cheaper 75-300 lenses.... And you might find a REALLY good deal on a used one.

Henrys (Canada) has the canon 70-300 f4-5.6 is for sale for $400.

And by the way... The grey owls are back on March Valley Road


----------



## Positron (Mar 12, 2013)

I have the Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 VC on FF Nikon and it's quite nice... especially for less than $300. I agree with robbymack though that if you don't need IS the 70-200 f/4L is the way to go. I don't think any of the non-L tele zooms are very good past 200mm, anyway.


----------



## well_dunno (Mar 13, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.



Sigma 120-400, 150-500 or Tamron 200-500? Not sure about the USD price but I dont think they are significantly cheaper than the 10-400 L...

Cheers!


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 13, 2013)

look around for a second hand 300 f4L IS i got mine off ebay for $800
it's worth the extra over a crappy non-L zoom


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 13, 2013)

You mentioned full frame, so for a low cost 300mm lens, try the refurbished 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. For $364, its pretty good.


Nothing else from Canon that is 300mm and low cost with IS.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_259107_-1


I've owned many of the third party lenses, most of them were marginal, and not worth the price.




One of the few good + low cost lens I have owned is a old Tokina 400mm f/5.6. Its a fine lens, but no IS, so it requires a fast shutter speed, and that's tough with a f/5.6 lens. I only paid $125 for it, but that was a deal.


----------



## pj1974 (Mar 13, 2013)

The OP wrote "Probably 300mm+ on a full frame.

So the 70-200mm f/4 L (non IS) - while a great lens, doesn't meet his stated criterion.

Some time ago I was looking for a new telezoom to replace my Canon 100-300mm USM (which didn't have the IQ at 300mm, and also lacked IS).

I considered the Sigma 120-400, Sigma 150-500 and Tamron 200-500, as well as the Canon 70-300mm nonL and Tamron 70-300 VC. I would've gone for the Tamron, except I tried the Canon 70-300mm L, fell in love with it: was blown away with the IQ and usability (while still being portable) as well as getting a good deal on a new one.

When I tried the Sigma's, I found they had both a lack of contrast / sharpness wide open, not as sharp AF as I wanted, and the Canon 70-300mm nonL wasn't too bad, but not great in build quality, AF a bit dodgy and IQ generally quite good except wide open at tele-end. The Tamron 200-500 didn't meet my focal length requirements (but might the OP's) - but the IQ isn't the best

So in the end I thought the Tamon 70-300mm was the best pick of the bunch, decent IQ (lacking sharpness wide open at teleend, but not bad)... maybe the OP can obtain a good deal on a new one, or a decent 2nd hand copy. I'd steer clear of the variation incarnations of the older / cheaper Canon 75-300 ... they are plain poor. I'd much rather have the newer Canon 55-250mm (vI or vII)... There is nothing like an L tele lens though (either the good zooms or primes). I'm very happy with my Canon 70-300mm L... it really shines, but I realise it's probably out of the OP's planned budget!

Regards

Paul


----------



## brattymesler (Mar 15, 2013)

two lenses for you by sigma. I can't testify to either one of them, but they may meet your criteria. They may not be as good as Canon's, but the cost is significantly less. 

Additionally, what about the Canon 75-300 IS?

120-400 f/4.5-5.6 w/ OS $949 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549247-REG/Sigma_728101_120_400mm_f_4_5_5_6_DG_OS.html 

150-500 f/5-6.3 w/ OS $1019 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/549255-REG/Sigma_737101_150_500mm_f_5_6_3_DG_OS.html


----------



## dstppy (Mar 15, 2013)

We can't tell you without your price range.

Example:
EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM is under $800, long-ish, and worth every single cent . . . if you want something under $500, under $300, there are other 'decent' lenses.

Honestly, how the lens focuses matters just as much . . . everyone says the non-L 70-300 is fine, but I hate the one I have. I paid way too much for it because I wanted something in that range and everything comes out 'just okay'.

Let us know what you're talking about price wise and we can tell you better.


----------



## sdsr (Mar 15, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> im looking for a cheapish bird/garden lens but cannot afford a nice L lens.
> 
> prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.
> 
> ...



There are fairly inexpensive lenses that don't go beyond 300mm, esp. the 70-300 non-L IS. It's not quite as good as the 70-300L, but if you get a good copy you might be pleasantly surprised. I'm not sure what you mean by "cheapish", but the Sigma 50-500 OS does a very good job - not exactly prime lens sharp at 500mm, but better than I expected (heavy, though...).

If you want to zoom as far as 600mm fairly inexpensively you might want to consider taking advantage of the crop factor on a micro 4/3 camera; last weekend I rented such a camera, along with a few lenses, including a Panasonic 100-300 (200-600 equiv.) lens with IS. I was very pleasantly surprised by the results and compared to my Canon L zooms and Sigma 50-500 it seems to weigh nothing at all.... If that seems at all interesting, take a look here:

http://lindsaydobsonphotography.com/pets/panasonic-35-100-f2-8-and-100-300-f4-5-6-olympus-omd/


----------



## Policar (Mar 15, 2013)

I sold my 55-250mm IS for $100 on eBay. I sort of wish I hadn't! For the money it is a decent lens, but you say you want FF, so....

I am also extremely fond of the 70-300mm VC Tamron, which is a better lens in every way. The VC is awesome, it focuses reasonably fast (not that fast, though) and the size and weight balance well with a 5D. But it's super strong at 70mm and weaker at 300mm, so if you want fast AF and sharpness at 300mm I can't recommend it as heartily. In general I sort of prefer it to my 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS, but since I mostly shoot video (for which speed matters most) I will probably ditch the Tamron when push comes to shove. That said, I like it a lot!


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 15, 2013)

I think the review at www.photozone.de would say Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 is a champ in its division. They don't make it any more :-( You can find some used ($500-$600) or overpriced new ones.

The numbers stack-up nicely against the L lenses in this class. Also performs well with 1.4x TC to get 116-480mm

"The Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM is the most impressive Sigma zoom lens tested to date. It is capable to deliver a near flawless performance with great resolution figures, low vignetting, low distortions, low CAs and as a nice whipped cream on top the build quality feels just right. It also mates pretty well with the Canon EF 1.4x II converter at costs of relatively high CAs and a somewhat lower but still high resolution. All in all ... highly recommended!"

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/328-sigma-af-100-300mm-f4-ex-hsm-apo-lab-test-report--review


----------



## Casey (Mar 15, 2013)

I can advise to avoid the Tamron 70-300. It costs less than $300.00, but very few photos were usable. It seems that the autofocus does not work consistantly. I could not afford a more expensive lens at the time so I rented a 100-400 and later a 70-300L. This delayed my need, as well as making sure that I new what I wanted. I saved up and when I found a refurbished 70-300L at 20% off the refurbished cost ($1039.00) I jumped on it. 

Avoid the cheap lenses, rent a good one for the short term. When you can afford it then buy what you need.

Good Luck


----------



## bwfishing (Mar 15, 2013)

+1 for Casey thoughts on renting before buying! I'm testing/renting the EF 300mm f/4L IS USM next. I tried the 100-400 as well, but not yet got my hands on the 70-300L, but I will. 

The only thing bad about renting is when you rent something too good that is out of your price range to buy.
I'm still trying to recover from the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM that lens is amazing!


----------



## AprilForever (Mar 15, 2013)

jimjamesjimmy said:


> im looking for a cheapish bird/garden lens but cannot afford a nice L lens.
> 
> prime or zoom, doesnt bother me, probably 300mm+ on a full frame.
> 
> ...



Consider maybe an old manual focus FD adapted, or and old Nikon, pre AI?

Otherwise, 300 f4. Save your money up, and don't wait 400-500 on a piece of garbage, only to later spend the full price. Or ring up your credit card! Beg friends and family... but the 300 f4 is a dream lens... For the price and money, anyway... you could alternatively get the old 300 f4 non IS used somewhere....


----------



## KyleSTL (Mar 15, 2013)

I bought a Tamron 200-400mm f/5.6 lens (I believe it was the 75DE model) locally on Craigslist for $100 (which I found out was a steal - normally goes for $200-250 on eBay). Image quality was quite good, but the focusing was too slow for my needs (I'm not a sports photographer, but the gearing for the AFD motor is pretty low). Ended up selling it for well over double what I paid on eBay about a month later.

I had the Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM lens for about a year and a half and can echo the sentiment that between 200mm and 300mm the image quality is quite mediocre. Focusing is fairly fast and quiet with the FTM Ring USM motor.

The Canon 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is optically not much better than the 100-300mm, and it has a more limited range, but it is 2/3 stop faster and has the same good focusing that I liked in the 100-300mm.

Ghosting of highlights, at the long end especially, is a problem for both Canon lenses mentioned above. I used a friend's 70-200 f4L non-IS for Game 7 of the World series in 2011 and loved it, but haven't been able to justify the expense yet. I've also tried to find good condition used copies of the 50-200mm f/3.5-4.5L (1988) and 100-300mm f/5.6L (1987) on the market; unfortunately, however, they retain their value pretty well despite lacking USM or IS and typically sell for prices close to that of a used 70-200mm f/4L.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 15, 2013)

For under $1000, you can get Sigma 120-400 OS or 15-500 OS ... I use the Sigma 150-500 OS, it may not be as great as an L lens but it sure is a decent performer for the price.


----------



## Policar (Mar 15, 2013)

Casey said:


> I can advise to avoid the Tamron 70-300. It costs less than $300.00, but very few photos were usable. It seems that the autofocus does not work consistantly. I could not afford a more expensive lens at the time so I rented a 100-400 and later a 70-300L. This delayed my need, as well as making sure that I new what I wanted. I saved up and when I found a refurbished 70-300L at 20% off the refurbished cost ($1039.00) I jumped on it.
> 
> Avoid the cheap lenses, rent a good one for the short term. When you can afford it then buy what you need.
> 
> Good Luck



Autofocus is spot on with the Tamron. It is significantly slower than the L zooms, however. Are you sure you're referoing to the VC model (which is $350) and not the non-VC one, which is not highly regarded? I'm not normally a Tamron fan, but this lens is a gem.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Mar 15, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> look around for a second hand 300 f4L IS i got mine off ebay for $800
> it's worth the extra over a crappy non-L zoom



+1 on the 300L used... cheap, bought mine for less than 600$ (almost new) and sold for 850$ 2 years later. Still wish I had it, sooo wickedly sharp with IS. 




Steamer Lane Surfers - Santa Cruz, California by David KM, on Flickr



Monarch Butterflies... Lighthouse Field - Santa Cruz, Ca. by David KM, on Flickr


----------



## bradfordswood (Mar 15, 2013)

so much for the "non L" part of this thread...


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Mar 15, 2013)

Sigma 400mm f5.6 HSM APO MACRO (needs to be that exact model, the last generation, to work on an D-EOS) optically the peer of the Canon EF 400 5.6L, better in fact according to photozone.de, but cheap.

As I say, any other model has the potential to brick on your camera, but this one is a goody if you can find it.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/306-sigma-af-400mm-f56-hsm-apo-macro-test-report--review?start=2


----------



## unfocused (Mar 15, 2013)

Okay I own or have owned the 55-250 EF-S (not relevant since you want full frame) the Tamron 70-300 VC, the 70-300 L and the 100-400 L. I have also rented the 300 L f4 and the 400 L f5.6.

My opinion:

The 55-250 EF-S, the 100-400 L and the Tamron 70-300 VC are all very good lenses and generally quite sharp.

The 70-300 L is sharper, weather sealed and generally a better lens overall, but we are talking margins here. Is it worth the price? Probably not. But I wanted it badly and bought it anyway. I don't regret it. I use it along with my 15-85 as a two-lens kit that covers almost every situation. 

The 300 L was sharp, nice and a stop faster so it took a 1.4x converter. But, it was shorter than I wanted and not as flexible without the zoom.

The 400 5.6 L is light and sharp but doesn't have IS and since it isn't a zoom it also isn't as flexible and it takes up a lot of space due to its length. 

While the 100-400 L is not quite as sharp as the 70-300 L, it is sharp enough and the extra 100mm is pretty critical for shooting critters.

The 70-300 Tamron is as sharp as the 100-400 and the 55-250, which means it is sharp. It does have a tendency to hunt a little on autofocus sometimes. Not sure what the problem was and it may have just been an anomaly. A minor nuisance, not a deal breaker. 

Since the 55-250 doesn't work for your needs (full frame) I would say the lowest cost solution is the Tamron VC. Is it as good as the Canon L? Obviously not, but it's almost $1,000 cheaper. If you don't need a zoom, then maybe the 300 f4 or the 400 f5.6 would work for you, but for the marginal difference in price, I went with the zooms. 

I got my 100-400 L as a refurbished. They haven't had it in stock for awhile, but there have been some good prices lately, still, it is also about $1,000 more than the Tamron. 

All in all, I'd say the Tamron is the best value 70-300 lens out there next to the 55-250 (which you can't use.) If you need longer length, you are going to pay for it. 

I thought the opinion of someone who actually has owned or rented these lenses might help.


----------



## jthomson (Mar 15, 2013)

+1 for the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD. I used it on a Rebel and the focus and VC were really good.

Probably kind of short for birds on a full frame, but all the 400mm lenses are at L price levels.


----------



## Dantana (Mar 15, 2013)

Does anyone that has used it have an opinion on the Canon 200mm 2.8 L, paired with a 1.4x?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 15, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> Sigma 400mm f5.6 HSM APO MACRO (needs to be that exact model, the last generation, to work on an D-EOS) optically the peer of the Canon EF 400 5.6L, better in fact according to photozone.de, but cheap.
> 
> As I say, any other model has the potential to brick on your camera, but this one is a goody if you can find it.
> http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/306-sigma-af-400mm-f56-hsm-apo-macro-test-report--review?start=2



I agree nearly 100%. The 400mm Tele macro is a better lens than the Canon L. It won't brick your Camera if it is an older model, it will give an error message if you stop down but works perfectly well at f/5.6 where it is still very sharp. My non-HSM Tele Macro works at all apertures. So go for any Sigma 400mm f/5.6 Tele Macro - the words Tele Macro are the key ones.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 15, 2013)

Honestly $400 on the tamron 70-300? it's a waste if you look around i'm sure you will find a decent priced canon 300f4L or 300 f4L IS

try KEH or craigslist in the US or gumtree in australia


----------



## applecider (Mar 16, 2013)

While there are many lenses that reach 300mm + and are non-L most of those are not going to make even back yard photographers happy. 

Granted the thread premise is a non-L lens with 300+ tele power, the reality is that the best bet is probably to get a used L lens and be happy with the result, as opposed to getting a sub-par lens and giving up on getting a good picture. While this doesn't address the ops question, it is what it is.

A budget based criterion (how much do you want to spend) as opposed to a model based plan would probably be better. By the time you spend enough for a poor lens you could probably get a point and shoot with better optics and response. Case in point a PowerShot SX500 IS Digital Camera with 720mm equivalent can be had for $300 at bhphotovideo, and there are others with more reach that should compete in the "not gonna be the best optically, probably noisy, slow autofocus" category. Really I am trying to be helpful.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 16, 2013)

If you can swing a used 300mm f4 IS, i highly recommend it.

One combination I recommend to many photographers is a 70-200 f2.8 (Canon Sigma etc,), and 2X converter. Thats because i think the 70-2002.8 belongs in you bag long before a birding lens does, and with the 2X converter, your have a 400mm f5.6. A friend of mine has this combo as a Sigma, and does quite well.


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 16, 2013)

Dantana said:


> Does anyone that has used it have an opinion on the Canon 200mm 2.8 L, paired with a 1.4x?



Loved the combo on the 7D and T1i, the 200/2.8L is the one lens I have wanted back ever since I sold it.

Long lenses to also consider, Sigma 50-500 and Tamron 200-500mm, but they may not be ideal for the situation.



bwfishing said:


> The only thing bad about renting is when you rent something too good that is out of your price range to buy.
> I'm still trying to recover from the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM that lens is amazing!



Give up, there isn't any recovery from the 300/2.8, especially once you've handled the mk II version.


----------

