Good telephoto lens that is not an IS variety.

[ClickClick]

Ok, I simply can't afford an IS type lens. *crying*

I would like to get something in the 200mm or 300mm end range. I have from 10mm to 75mm covered by Sigma and Tamron lens now.

I will be using it as a travel lens (shooting from cruise ships), general use, etc... I won't be doing sports photography or anything of fast moving subjects. It is going on a XT and XTi body.

Any input or advice?

[LightRules]

Name your max budget.

[calicokat]

400 F/5.6L is a great lens without IS

[liza]

Canon 70-200 f/4L
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8

[Kamik636]

200mm f2.8L, cheapest of the L's, great optics

[liza]

200mm f2.8L, cheapest of the L's, great optics

I have that one, too, and agree wholeheartedly. It has the best quality of any of the lenses I own.

[calicokat]

200mm f2.8L, cheapest of the L's, great optics

I second that, its an overlooked lens that is a great value

[DC9]

70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS $550

70-200mm f/4.0L $580

200mm f/2.8L $660

[YosemiteJunkie]

Canon 70-200 f/4L

Light weight and sharp as a tack

[ClickClick]

So the 70-200 by Canon looks to be a winner.

Do they make a 100-400 L that is not IS?

My max budget is about $700 tops.

[Lester Wareham]

Ok, I simply can't afford an IS type lens. *crying*

I would like to get something in the 200mm or 300mm end range. I have from 10mm to 75mm covered by Sigma and Tamron lens now.

I will be using it as a travel lens (shooting from cruise ships), general use, etc... I won't be doing sports photography or anything of fast moving subjects. It is going on a XT and XTi body.

Any input or advice?

Take a look at the 200 f2.8L II, very nice lens. Has the speed without the weight and cost, excellent quality. Excelent performer with the 1.4X and 2X.

[rklepper]

200 f/2.8L. It is the best lens that I have short of the 135 f/2.0L. Really quite inexpensive also.

[ClickClick]

I was really hoping to get something that covered the 100mm to 200mm (or up to 300mm) range. As I have from 10mm to 75mm covered. I hate to jump from 75mm to 200mm with nothing in between.

[Cadwell]

Canon 70-200mm f/4L. Add a 1.4x TC to get you a still very good 98-280mm f/5.6 lens when you need a bit of extra reach.

[Lightstream]

Also, you may be pleasantly surprised - on your budget you can afford the Canon 70-300 IS. Unlike its earlier 75-300 (note the 75, not the 70) counterparts, this lens is nice and SHARP, plus it has a stabilizer. I credit it for nailing me one of my best shots ever.. and I blew that one up to 16x20" in print and pixel peeped it with my nose inches from the print. Big and beautiful - now 16x20" can be pretty unforgiving of not-so-sharp lenses too.

The only downside to that lens is build quality is a little bit lacking. It's plasticky to say the least, and this is coming from someone who usually doesn't object to plastic lenses at all. However, optical quality is beyond reproach. I know a good tele when I see one - I owned the 300 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, 100-400 f/4L IS, and Sigma 70-200/2.8, all of which have attracted a well-earned following for optical performance, and I can see why. And the 70-300 IS optical quality holds its own. We are talking about the difference between 'excellent' and 'awesome' here.

If you would still prefer an L-series lens and MAXIMUM IQ at the cost of image stabilization, then buy the 70-200 f/4L (with or without IS as your budget dictates) and never look back. :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

200mm f2.8L, cheapest of the L's, great optics

If price is the concern, and 200mm is long enough, and you still want the best crystal clear optics,. than this is your lens.
It also works well with a 1.4x T-con

And of course there is the f/4 version of the 70-200mmL

Look also for used 300mm f/4L (non IS)

[ClickClick]

Also, you may be pleasantly surprised - on your budget you can afford the Canon 70-300 IS. Unlike its earlier 75-300 (note the 75, not the 70) counterparts, this lens is nice and SHARP, plus it has a stabilizer. I credit it for nailing me one of my best shots ever.. and I blew that one up to 16x20" in print and pixel peeped it with my nose inches from the print. Big and beautiful - now 16x20" can be pretty unforgiving of not-so-sharp lenses too.

The only downside to that lens is build quality is a little bit lacking. It's plasticky to say the least, and this is coming from someone who usually doesn't object to plastic lenses at all. However, optical quality is beyond reproach. I know a good tele when I see one - I owned the 300 f/4L IS, 70-200 f/4L IS, 100-400 f/4L IS, and Sigma 70-200/2.8, all of which have attracted a well-earned following for optical performance, and I can see why. And the 70-300 IS optical quality holds its own. We are talking about the difference between 'excellent' and 'awesome' here.

If you would still prefer an L-series lens and MAXIMUM IQ at the cost of image stabilization, then buy the 70-200 f/4L (with or without IS as your budget dictates) and never look back. :)


So this lens IQ is comparable to "L" lens IQ? I will have to check this out and consider it as well. Many thanks for your input. Is there any threads with pics taken with this lens?

[Dorman]

IFor max $700 I'd go with the following:

1)70-200 F/4 L + 1.4x TC

2)70-300 IS USM

3)Used Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 EX

[Lightstream]

So this lens IQ is comparable to "L" lens IQ? I will have to check this out and consider it as well. Many thanks for your input. Is there any threads with pics taken with this lens?

Close.. not 100% on par with an L but decently close. Do a search for the thread started by me, 70-300 IS and 1.5X teleconverter. I forget where I put that thread, but it has sample pics.

In fact I came home after that shoot.. and while downloading the pics and reviewing them, I thought "This 300 f/4L is a mighty fine lens"

... completely forgetting that I never used the 300/4 that day.. :D

[ClickClick]

I will look for the thread now.

Another quick question..

On the Canon 70-200 F/4 and the Sigma 70-200 2.8, what is IQ like if I were to use a 2x tc on them? (would it still be able to autofocus?)

[upsracingfan]

another vote for the 70-200 f4

[LightRules]

On the Canon 70-200 F/4 and the Sigma 70-200 2.8, what is IQ like if I were to use a 2x tc on them? (would it still be able to autofocus?)

Take a looky at the TC sticky at the top of this forum page. But quickly, for your 1.6x body, generally-speaking, you can use a 1.4x with the Canon and a 2x with the Sigma and still get AF. But read through the sticky for more detailed info. I'd recommend, at day's end, that you stick with a 1.4x for either lens for IQ reasons.

[CountryBoy]

Sigma Ex 100-300 f/4 !