Non L sharp telephoto lenses

[robbymack]

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]

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

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.. 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]

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]

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

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.