non Canon 70-200 lens for a canon 6d

[markjass]

I have a Canon 6d. I have a Canon 24-70mm f4, a Samyang f2.4 14mm, a Samyang 24mm f1.4. Yes my main interests are astro and landscape photography. I am thinking of buying a 70-200mm lens. Apart from the canon (if I went Canon I would go for one of the the f4) range does anyone have any suggestions as to a non Canon lens that I should think about.

[DanK]

Hi. Welcome to CiC. Can you please to to your profile and add your name and location? We use real names here.

I haven't used any non-Canon 70-200 lenses, but if you search, you will find a lot of reviews of the Tamron. I'll just throw in a response to your comment that if you buy a Canon, you will go for one of the f/4 versions. I have had the Canon f/4 IS for years, and it is a fabulous lens: sharp as a tack, quick-focusing, and about half the cost and half the weight of the f/2.8. Since one would rarely need the extra stop in landscape work, it seems to me that this could be an excellent choice for you.

[rpcrowe]

Welcome to CiC...

This to echo Dan's comment above. I have used the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens for many years and cannot say enough good things about it. I use it for all my shooting, including but not limited to portraits, landscape and travel.

It is sharp as a tack, fast focusing, lightweight and inexpensive (the last two in comparison to the f/2.8 models).

I would definitely opt for the IS version. I owned the non-IS version for several years and never used it as frequently as I use the IS model. I was a slave to fast shutter speeds or needed the lens to be tripod or monopod mounted. The great IS frees me from those concerns.

AND YES... you CAN use selective focus even at f/5.6 using a longer focal length. Here is a shot that shows how the background can be rendered out of focus at 165mm on a crop camera...

And did I say that the bokeh is darn nice due to the curved aperture blades...

I mentioned that I often us this lens for landscape work...


For people portraits...


And for my rescue dog portraits...


BTW: The 70-200mm f/4L IS lens works great both on crop and full frame cameras (I use it on my 7D2 and my 5D2). It also accepts a 1.4x TC with little if any loss of I.Q. and focus speed...

I will be shooting an El Dia De Los Muertos (Day of the Dead - Mexican celebration) in Old Town San Diego on Saturday and a Renaissance Faire on Sunday. I plan on using the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens on my 5D2, with a flash bracket and small softbox, for each shoot!

[Tronhard]

So Mark (?)
First of all, welcome to Cambridge in Colour! Although it would appear you have been with us for some time.

Out of sheer curiosity, why are you looking for a non-Canon lens in particular? I ask because Canon optics are usually why people go for that brand and their 70-200 units are considered amongst their best.


cheers: Trev

I have a Canon 6d. I have a Canon 24-70mm f4, a Samyang f2.4 14mm, a Samyang 24mm f1.4. Yes my main interests are astro and landscape photography. I am thinking of buying a 70-200mm lens. Apart from the canon (if I went Canon I would go for one of the the f4) range does anyone have any suggestions as to a non Canon lens that I should think about.

[Merlin52]

Mark, Because you mainly do Astro and Landscape an f4 lens will be OK. The IS adds extra weight and bulk and your areas of interest would mean you would have to turn off the IS anyway . . . then there is the hioher cost of IS lenses.
The Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS is a really sharp lens and much lighter than the IS version ( I owned both) and can be bought at a reasonable second-hand price. What I found was that with the IS mechanics, the extra weight worked against hand holding but the non-IS being much lighter produced just as good results for the subjects I shot.
So, if you need a 2.8 IS lens then get the Tamron, much cheaper than Canon and just (almost) as good, but look at the f4 first.

[Tronhard]

Just hot off the press, if you are interested, Tamron just released a new 100-400mm lens. Losing 30mm at the short end might well be worth it if you gain 300mm at the long end, depending on your full range of needs. Here is the link:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/871084...-6-3-di-vc-usd

[William W]

Although one could read as implied, you don't state that the new lens (70 to 200) will be used manly and specifically for "astro and landscape photography" Could you clarify this point please,?

BTW - I understood the new lens was an additional lens to your kit and will be used for "general purpose".

In any case IF you intend to use the new lens for "astro" photography, then, I do not agree that either of the two Canon F/4 lenses will be OK for this purpose, rather in this case it would be better to consider an F/2.8 version.

*

I have a Canon 6d. . . I am thinking of buying a 70-200mm lens. Apart from the canon (if I went Canon I would go for one of the the f4) range does anyone have any suggestions as to a non Canon lens that I should think about.

My experience is that the Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD is the standout 3rd Party contender across combined aspects of Image Quality. Quite a few reviews tend to ere toward this lens also when compared with other 3rd party options. However, note that I have not used the Tokina and the Sigma lenses which are in this category.

*

I have used all five (5) Canon EF 70 to 200 lenses. The standout across combined aspect of Usage and Image Quality is the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L IS USM MKII; followed closely by the EF 70 to 200 F/2.8 L USM, but when comparing these two lenses one has to consider the worth of Image Stabilization for their purpose of use.

Of the two (2) F/4 Canon lenses, the IS version is the better of the two across combined aspects of Image Quality - and I echo Dan's and Richard's comments concerning this particular lens.

If you think that you might want more reach, do not dismiss the use of either the x1.4 or the x2.0 CANON Extenders EF with either of the two aforementioned F/2.8 zooms: the MkIII Version extenders are better suited to the F/2.8L IS MkII, yet excellent results are attained with the MkII versions on the F/2.8L version lens. Additionally, although I have not used myself, I have seen excellent results attained with the x1.4 Extender EF MkII on the EF 70 to 200 F/4 IS USM – (again it is worthwhile to mention that this particular F/4 medium telephoto zoom is generally a knockout performer).

Still from the Canon stable, the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM would be worth a look if the one stop slower maximum aperture did not concern you and you were also content with a Varying Maximum Aperture Zoom Lens. I quite like many aspects of this lens and it seems quite popular among generalist outdoor and landscape photographers.

WW

[Tronhard]

To echo Bill's comments:

I must admit I use only Canon Lenses, but that said I tested the 70-200 Canon stable before settling on the 2.8L IS USM Mk II, yes, it cost more, yes it's heavier, but I felt I got what I paid for. I have used this lens with the 1.4 Mk III and 2.0 Mk III extenders (tele-converters if you will) and it has produced brilliant results, giving you an equivalent FoV of 98-280 and 140-400mm respectively.

I have the Canon 70-300L IS USM f/4-5.6 to which Bill referred, it is one of my favourite lenses, being smaller, lighter and very much of a carry around unit. You can get some of these units in excellent condition second hand for a reasonable price, and they are of true professional quality. The only drawback is you cannot put an extender on this unit.

Go down one notch and you can try the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM MK I. It is designed for a full-frame unit, is well built but does not take an extender. You can get a bargain right now because there is a new version out that according to several tests I have read is no better in image quality, but it has had the positive effect of driving down the new price of the Mk I and releasing onto the market a lot of Mk 1 lenses from those who like to buy the latest. I enclose a photo take with that exact lens with MINIMAL PP.

[rpcrowe]

However, although the price is often tempting, try to stay away from the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens. The IQ of that lens is not all that great!

[Tronhard]

Absolutely agree Richard, that 75-300 kit lens is (excuse the allusion) a dog!

[William W]

. . . I have the Canon 70-300L IS USM f/4-5.6 to which Bill referred, it is one of my favourite lenses, being smaller, lighter and very much of a carry around unit. You can get some of these units in excellent condition second hand for a reasonable price, and they are of true professional quality. The only drawback is you cannot put an extender on this unit. . .

Hiya,

There are various points of incorrect data contained in Canon's Data Tech. Sheets and User Manuals: no doubt oft these inaccuracies are to protect their product. Examples of inaccuracies are especially prevalent in Canon's data / compatibility lists for their Extenders EF.

I think you'll find that both your Extenders EF MkIII will mount and will 'work' with your 70 to 300L lens, BUT there is a (big) caveat: you must set the lens at 300mm to mount the Extender and you must use the lens at 300mm (actually the rear of the guts of the lens hits both the Extenders when the lens is zoomed wider and that impact occurs at around FL = 260mm).

The above applies to both Extenders EF MkII and those are what I've used: the physicality at the Lens' Mount end of the MkII and MkIII extenders is the same, that's why I think that your MkIII should mount and should work as described.

I have not used the Extenders EF (original) - (not many of those around now I think), but again the physicality at the Lens' Mount end is the same (if my memory is still OK)

So whilst Canon data prescribes incompatibility and non-mounting, literally that is not correct: the fact that it can be done might be useful information.

WW

Addendum:

"Go down one notch and you can try the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM MK I"

Yes, concur good value for money lens. Yes price drop inevitable, if not already happened.

Also concur with Richard's assessment to avoid the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens.

[Tronhard]

Hi Bill:

That's interesting! I'm sure you right but as you say I certainly didn't notice anything in the Canon documents to suggest it would work, although frankly I haven't tried myself and never thought to really - since I have enough lenses that will work. Primarily I use the 2x MkIII extender with the 70-200 2.8MkII when I want the option of longer reach but not an extra lens, and the 1.4x Mk III extender with my 100-400MkII (on a 7dII or 80D) when I want as much reach as I can get, but also keep as much functionality as possible.

Still, I think if price is an issue, and I assume it is, and if the interest in 3rd party lenses is not exclusive of Canon offerings (asked but got no response as to why), then the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens seems like a good contender. It is really solid.

Hiya,

There are various points of incorrect data contained in Canon's Data Tech. Sheets and User Manuals: no doubt oft these inaccuracies are to protect their product. Examples of inaccuracies are especially prevalent in Canon's data / compatibility lists for their Extenders EF.

I think you'll find that both your Extenders EF MkIII will mount and will 'work' with your 70 to 300L lens, BUT there is a (big) caveat: you must set the lens at 300mm to mount the Extender and you must use the lens at 300mm (actually the rear of the guts of the lens hits both the Extenders when the lens is zoomed wider and that impact occurs at around FL = 260mm).

The above applies to both Extenders EF MkII and those are what I've used: the physicality at the Lens' Mount end of the MkII and MkIII extenders is the same, that's why I think that your MkIII should mount and should work as described.

I have not used the Extenders EF (original) - (not many of those around now I think), but again the physicality at the Lens' Mount end is the same (if my memory is still OK)

So whilst Canon data prescribes incompatibility and non-mounting, literally that is not correct: the fact that it can be done might be useful information.

WW

Addendum:




Yes, concur good value for money lens. Yes price drop inevitable, if not already happened.

Also concur with Richard's assessment to avoid the Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 lens.

[markjass]

Sorry that I have not replied sooner. Had to zip back to UK
Lost my phone etc. All sorted now. I can now concentrate on the lens. I am really keen on the Canon lens but before I make a big buy I always see what options I have. Later today I will read through the posts and look at the pictures. Once again thank you. Mark Jass

[William W]

Glad that you got it sorted.

. . . Later today I will read through the posts and look at the pictures. Once again thank you. Mark Jass

And answer the questions.

WW

[rpcrowe]

BTW: I use a Mark 3 teleconverter with both my 70-200mm f/4L IS and my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Mark 2 lenses on my Canon 7D2 camera and very occasionally use the 1.4x on my 5D Mark 2. The 5D2 will not AF at f/8 so I won't use the TC with my 100-400 Mark 2 on that camera, and the same is true for your 6D.

In reality, since I have a crop format 7D2, there is no need for me to use the TC with the full frame camera.

However, I previously used a Mark 1, 1.4x TC on my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens and IMO there was not a terrible amount of IQ or even AF difference in the two models of TC but there is a perceivable difference in AF with the 100-400 Mark 2 lens when adding the Mark 1 TC.

The Mark 1, 1.4x TC can be found dirt cheap on the used market.