Best sharpness budget midrange zoom for fullframe

[felipe_silva]

<p>I photograph portraits and i would like a lens that is sharp and give me reasonable bokeh at 70mm or more. </p>

<p>I did a long search and found this lenses to be the best among the old EF:</p>

<p>Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5<br>

Tokina AF 70-210 f4-5.6<br>

Canon 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM<br>

Canon 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM</p>

<p>Thank you very much!</p>

<p> </p>

[asharpe1]

<p>Generally speaking, you'd want a faster lens to get the background more out of focus. With the lenses you mention (I don't have any experience with any of them, so I can't speak in particulars), unless the background was at quite a distance, it wouldn't be terribly out of focus. An 85/1.8 or similar would give you much more subject separation, though at the expense of the flexibility of a zoom. There are a couple 50-150 f/2.8 zooms available that might suit your needs, though they're more expensive.</p>

[felipe_silva]

<p>Yes, i would like a 100mm 2.8 or 85mm 1.8, but here in brazil they are very expensive, even used they are something like 450-500 dollars... At the moment i have a 50 1.8 ii, but it bothers me when i need to get close, because of the distortion... So i would like to buy one of this zoom lenses just to have something for "close" portraits. I thought about 150-300mm because of the FOV, so i would not need something like f1.8 or even f4... </p>

[dcstep]

<p>At those longer focal lengths, the apertures on your list are plenty wide enough to produce pleasing bokeh, when needed.</p>

<p>Be careful with bokeh. Lots of noob photographers seem to think it and blurred water falls are the end-all be-all of photography. Those are just a couple of elements in allowing variety and interest in photos. Everyone should learn to take sharp images before venturing into this territory.</p>

<p>Here's bokeh on a 70-200mm at f/5.6:</p>

<p><a title="Merry Christmas From Animal Kingdom" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7035/6572162877_5de6d649f1_z.jpg" alt="Merry Christmas From Animal Kingdom" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>What about the 28-135mm? $379.00 at Amazon.</p>

<p>I think people liked this one with film</p>

[Ken Katz]

I have owned the 28-105 and 100-300 usm

lenses. The 100-300 is sharper at 100mm but

image quality erodes after 200mm. The

canon 70-210usm is a good option if you can

find one. The canon 70-300is or tamron 70-

300 are very good and not expensive in the

US. As suggested above the 28-135is is a

decent substitute for the 24-105L.

[bobatkins]

<p>None of the above. Get an 85/1.8 and zoom with your feet! If you can't afford the 85/1.8, get the 50/1.8, though the 85 is usually preferred for portrait work.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Bob he has already explained that the 85 is too much and he already has a 50/1.8. He wants a zoom.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>The old Canon 100-300 f/5.6 L lens is reported to be very sharp and is available for less than $300.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>Victor, I believe the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 zoom is by far the best bang for the buck in midrange zooms. Excellent color fidelity and sharpness at a very reasonable price. To get better you need to pay a whole lot more. Good luck!</p>

[felipe_silva]

<p><strong>David Stephens</strong>, thanks for the sample and advice! <br>

<strong>Robin Smith, </strong>there's a lot of 28-135 used in Brazil for something like 150-200 dollars, but all reviews say the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is better...<em> Thank you!</em><br>

<strong>Kenneth Katz </strong>my problem with the 100-300 is the weight, but if it is sharp at 100-200 range in f5.6-f.8 it's ok to me... <em>Thank you!</em><br>

<strong>Bob Atkins </strong>The 85 1.8 is expensive here in Brazil, even used. <em>Thank you!</em><br>

<strong>Alan Bryant </strong><em>Thank you! </em>Unfortunately couldn't find any :/<br>

<strong>Gil Pruitt </strong>Couldn't find it ... But i'll search in some groups... <em>Thank you!</em></p>

<p> </p>

 

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>How about a used 70-200/4L non-IS</p>

[stefan_deisz]

<p>I would recommend the 70-200 4.0L non-IS. Excellent lens for portraits and can be bought reasonable cheap second hand.<br>

@Bob Atkins: I don't think "zoom with your feet" is a good advice for portraits because by moving closer or further away, you change perspective and that has great influence on a portrait. Zooming is more comparable to cropping.</p>

[ruben leal]

<p>"All reviews say the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 is better" didn't sound right to me (I used for many years a 28-135 IS with my film cameras), so I went to Photozone and found what I suspected: They claim the 28-135 to be slightly better than the 28-105 (although tested almost 10 years ago on an APS-C camera). Based on this limited test, I would say the difference is negligible in real life, which means either one should provide almost the same result for you (something you may find interesting is that the 28-105 has an aperture of f/4.5 at some focal lengths where the 28-135 already closed to f/5.6).<br>

<br>

A recommendation I would add is to compare prices under the same conditions, meaning you shouldn't compare prices for a new 85mm or 100mm lens to prices for used zoom lenses. A used prime may be cheaper and in much better condition than a zoom. For example, my 28-135mm had a decentered element, requiring to replace it (it was the IS element, which mechanism was also failing); and the repair cost was almost the value I sold the lens for. Prime lenses are less prone to this kind of problems. Primes in these days tend to be used by pros and advanced amateurs, who may care for their lenses a lot more than most beginners using a zoom.</p>