# Non L sharp telephoto lenses



## Nate (Sep 30, 2012)

HI,

When I travel I usually shoot on wide lenses, architecture and landscapes 65% of the time on my 17-40, 20% of the time I shot on 50 1.4 street photography, and in my bag I always have my 70-200 2.8 IS II for just in case, and when I walk all day long, after a while the weight of it starts to annoy me, so can you guys recommend me a tele lens with is pretty sharp over f8.

(Not necessary Canon lens)

Thanks


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 30, 2012)

You can try primes. Canon 20mm F2.8 USM. It does have some vignetting and chromatic aberrations problem but with 5D3 or taking RAW then post processing with DPP-DLO/LAC with older bodies, this lens is quite comparable with 17-40. As for the 70-200, you can get a 135mm or 100mm prime lenses also. For me, I take 28mm 1.8 USM + 50mm 1.8 + 100mm macro. 28 and 50 are small lenses and the 100mm is the only big lens I'm taking. I can't find a better lens for macro to replace this.


----------



## CanNotYet (Sep 30, 2012)

Try the f/4 version? It is famous for its sharpness, and weigh half of the 2.8.


----------



## Menace (Sep 30, 2012)

Agreed with 70-200 f4 non IS - very sharp and easy to carry all day long. Use to stay on my camera all the time until I got the 2.8 version.

Cheers


----------



## cpsico (Sep 30, 2012)

I have the 70-200 f4 is also and it is fantastic and very light.


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 30, 2012)

+1 on the non IS f/4. I'll be shooting portraits outside with it today! So sharp I may have to dumb it down a bit for skin.


----------



## AprilForever (Sep 30, 2012)

The OP said non-L. All the lenses mentioned so far have been L: 200 2.8 L, 70-200 f4 L...

Non L sharp tele? Look to sigma. Canon makes none. Canon non L tele is all zooms and is all non sharp compared to L lenses, at least at normal apertures...

Look to sigma!


----------



## nda (Sep 30, 2012)

+1 on the 70-200 f4 with is or without, another good option is the 70-300 f4-5.6(non L) its a great underrated lens and its cheap and light great for traveling


----------



## Nate (Sep 30, 2012)

I found the Tamron in test to be pretty sharp compared to the Canon 70-200 mentioned above.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3

Any experience with this lens?


----------



## SpareImp (Sep 30, 2012)

Nate said:


> I found the Tamron in test to be pretty sharp compared to the Canon 70-200 mentioned above.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3
> 
> Any experience with this lens?



I have the Tamron 70-300mm, but rarely use it due to its size. It’s not a lens I walk around with because I don’t use the focal length enough to bother, but when I do have it with me, it does deliver great results. I’m not comparing the size to other telezooms though, I’m comparing it to primes like the Sigma 50mm and 85mm which is unfair (and I’m probably going to be bashed for it). If the size is right for you, then I think you will like it. The VC is amazing.
Here’s a handheld shot at 300mm, 1/125, f/5.6 (wide open), ISO 100, VC ON, with the 5D Mark II: 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spareimp/8039082510/#sizes/k/in/photostream/


----------



## CanonFanBoy (Sep 30, 2012)

Nate said:


> I found the Tamron in test to be pretty sharp compared to the Canon 70-200 mentioned above.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=104&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=3&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=3
> 
> Any experience with this lens?



If you are not shooting Sports, Wild Life or any very fast moving subjects ... This len to me is an absolute "God Send"!!!
The *Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 Di VC USD* has one of the best "Price vs Performance" ratio!
In terms of usability, it will beat any non IS, VR or VC lens of the same optical range any time! The reason why I say this is because I get about 40% keeper rate with hand held shooting at 300mm with 1/8 sec ... try that with a non-IS len and you will know the result (unless you got a "gyro-assisted" hand)!!!
In terms of optical performance, at 300mm, you might not get the sharper of the sharpest compare to those "Red-Band" demons out there like the *Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM* which you probably need to mortgage your house for it ... but heck ... these days there are so many len correction software out there for you to choose from ... if you spend a bit of time in the Post! Also, in the magic world of Post Production ... even the Boken can be further software assisted to create the look and feel one need! With this len, I travel and work fast & light in all my assignments without having to carry a "Bazooka" around, which will wear me off very fast and posting limits to my shooting stamina!
I am sure not many will agreed with me, but to me, this Len is a pure winner ... I have created so many previously impossible good images out of it and have given me so much fun and "life" back in the process! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 30, 2012)

The 70-200 f/4 L is so cheap, especially on the Canon USA refurb site that it doesn't have the L price that prohibits mnay from using it.


----------



## SwissBear (Sep 30, 2012)

Not that much tele, but tack sharp: EF 85 f/1.8 - also rather small and lightweight


----------



## unfocused (Sep 30, 2012)

The Tamron 70-300 is definitely the best value for the dollar. Sharper than any of the Canon non-L 70-300 lenses. Decent build. Good IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 30, 2012)

The Canon 70-300mm IS is reasonable for a low cost Non L lens. Obviously, the "L" versions are better, but you wanted light and non-L.
The primes are usually pretty good, but you are replacing a zoom.


----------



## robbymack (Sep 30, 2012)

85 1.8 is a good choice. It suffers from purple fringing wide open in high contrast areas but by 2.2 it's pretty much gone and/or easily correctable in post.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Sep 30, 2012)

Nate said:


> HI,
> 
> When I travel I usually shoot on wide lenses, architecture and landscapes 65% of the time on my 17-40, 20% of the time I shot on 50 1.4 street photography, and in my bag I always have my 70-200 2.8 IS II for just in case, and when I walk all day long, after a while the weight of it starts to annoy me, so can you guys recommend me a tele lens with is pretty sharp over f8.
> 
> ...



If you want a non-L Tele zoom then Tamron 70-300 is best for you. But if you want even more light weight (remember the Tamron is heavier than Canon non-L 70-300) then you need to check at what focal length you use the 70-200 while walking around. 

1. If it is around the 70 mm side then you can get the Canon 85 1.8 (or may be even Sigma's 70mm macro) or Sigma 85mm. The canon 85 1.8 is extremely sharp from f/4 (you can get good pics even at f/2.8). Only in extreme backlighting conditions you get purple fringing. Most of the time that will not be an issue. The sigma 85mm is costlier (but not much more in comparison to what I am going to recommend below).

2. If you use the 70-200 around the middle range most of the time then the situation is difficult as I do not see anything other than the Canon L 135mm for your need.

3. If you use the 70-200 around 200mm most of the time then again there is the Canon L 200mm f/2.8. But none of these primes have IS if that is important for you.

4. If you want the same versatility with almost equal IQ of 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, then 70-200 L f/4 IS is your best bet.

See there are two problems with your situation, first, you are looking for a substitute for 70-200 IS II. I do not think you will be happy with the IQ of any lens (save the 70-200 f/4) which is LIGHTER and yet covers the same range (the light weight and price rules out the tele primes) and is non-L. Second problem is as far as I know none of the third party manufacturers make light weight medium tele primes (emphasis on the medium and light weight, which rules out anything below 100mm and the macro primes above 100mm).

I would suggest the Tamron if you are not averse to Tamron, or else get any of the three primes depending on your focal length need.


----------



## Zv (Sep 30, 2012)

I had the tamron 70-300 with all the VC Xyz etc. it was bulky, heavy pictures were ok but the lens was useless past 200mm. And its slow at f5.6 on the 200-300 end. I ended up selling it, at a loss. Went for an L one instead. Save yourself the headache of cheap glass. If moneys tight get the 70-200L f4 non IS and a solid tripod. 

If primes are an option, and you need somethin light - 85 f/1.8 meets your criteria and fits in your pocket.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 30, 2012)

Nate said:


> HI,
> 
> When I travel I usually shoot on wide lenses, architecture and landscapes 65% of the time on my 17-40, 20% of the time I shot on 50 1.4 street photography, and in my bag I always have my 70-200 2.8 IS II for just in case, and when I walk all day long, after a while the weight of it starts to annoy me, so can you guys recommend me a tele lens with is pretty sharp over f8.
> 
> ...



Not sure what focal length you need or want for that purpose. I love love love my 135L and 200 2.8LII. They're both light and extremely good value.

A bit of an outlier and not suited for all applications but I'm also occasionally using my FD 500 f/8 reflex lens with the Ed Mika EF adapter. Given its design it is very sharp but has some inherent issues that need to be considered, e.g the typical "doughnut bokeh" and the fixed aperture.

Other than that I would look at something like the 100-400 or 70-300 DO but have no experiences with either. Not much gain probably over your 70-200 as far as weight is concerned. Maybe one of the f/4 versions without IS? 

But for anything that resembles "street photography" I started bringing a 50 and the 135 and don't really miss anything.


----------

