# What non-canon lenses do you use and why do you love them?



## willrobb (Dec 3, 2011)

This is kind of continuing on from another post where I asked about the canon 50mm 1.4 versus the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and the opinions really were divided.

Rather than compare canon with other lenses and thrashing out the differences, I'm interested to find out which non-canon lenses (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron etc) people own, what they are using them for and why they love them.


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 3, 2011)

Samyang 35/1.4, because it's only a tiny tiny tiny bit softer in the centre than the canon 35/1.4L, but way way sharper on the edges. It's my walkaround 'normal' on my 7D, it makes great stitches for panorama (the Tripod ring for the 100L macro fits it perfectly for parallax-free stitching), and if/when i go FF, it'll be my standard wide-angle lens. I also prefer the manual-stop-down ring for checking DOF, instead of pressing a very fiddly button which doesn't stay in and bumps the tripod which you have to do on electronic-aperture lenses.
But the best part, it's also less than 1/3rd the price in exchange for weather sealing and AF (which i'd like, but for that price I can do without). 8-bladed straight aperture really doesn't make much difference on wide-angle to normal shots, only on macro (which I don't use it for anyway now).
Basically, it's Zeiss on a budget.

Can't wait for their upcoming 24/1.4 to be released...


----------



## AJ (Dec 3, 2011)

Tamron 17-50/2.8. Small, sharp, under-the-radar.
Tamron 90/2.8. Sharp, superb bokeh, just a great lens.
Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 Sharp, really nice ultrawide.
Tokina 10-17 Zoomable fisheye. Yes it's a cool lens. Really crisp photos but the purple fringing drives me nuts at times.
Tokina 50-135/2.8 Nice portrait lens. I don't use it that much though.


----------



## willrobb (Dec 3, 2011)

Just had a play with a display copy of the Sigma 85mm f1.4 in a store on a 5DmkII and it felt pretty nice actually. It was quick to focus, even wide open, the bokeh looked nice on the back of the camera and the build quality didn't seem that bad at all, fairly solid feeling. About half the price of the canon 85mm 1.2L as well, not bad. Was a display camera so I can't take a card home and examine the images, bit first impression was a good one.


----------



## J. McCabe (Dec 3, 2011)

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM II, because it's mad wide.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 3, 2011)

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 â€“ fast, sharp and well-built. It's got a very short zoom range, but nicely covers ultrawide to wide (about 18mm to 26mm equivalent)

Tamron 70-300 f/4-5/6 IS â€“ Better quality and cheaper than the Canon non-L IS zoom, but at a fraction of the cost of the L zoom. (Not suggesting it's as good at the "L" but it is sharp and solid and a real bargain)

No one should be embarrassed to have these lenses in their kits.


----------



## candyman (Dec 3, 2011)

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 â€“ fast, sharp and well-built. (same as "unfocused")

Sigma 50 f1.4 - sharp, fantastic bokeh and well built


----------



## Takuma (Dec 3, 2011)

The Sigma 50 - 500 (without OS). g
Great range and very fast AF, thou I don't use it anymore since I got the ef 100 - 400 L IS. For indoors and bad light the IS is too good not to have. But I sometimes miss the lower end the Sigma.


----------



## razorite (Dec 3, 2011)

i use the 8-16 sigma ITS AMAZING, its one of the widest lenses out there and is controls distortion well, i mean there has to be some especially 8mm but i love the effect, and now since i got my 5d2 it can be used on that as well but there's obviously a black frame around the image at 8mm but at 16mm its fine. Also its one of sigma's newer lenses so its built pretty well better than the older sigmas atleast.

some links for images i shot with it and a 7d

http://500px.com/photo/2654552

http://500px.com/photo/3238574

http://500px.com/photo/3260720


----------



## lol (Dec 3, 2011)

Samyang 8mm - serious fishy fun on the cheap
Sigma 150mm macro (not OS) - best affordable longer focal length macro, although I am tempted by the new OS version now...
Zeiss 50mm makro - a unique balance between magnification and aperture.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Dec 3, 2011)

Sigma 100-300 f/4 - a compromise between price, speed and focal length. It's okay with the Sigma 1.4x converter. The 2x is noticeably less sharp. It's a beautiful lens to manually focus.
Sigma 10-20 - less expensive than the Canon 10-22
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - much much less expensive than the alternatives, sharp wide open and a longer focal length than the xx-5x f/2.8 alternatives.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 3, 2011)

I've used the following Zeiss Lenses:
21mm f/2.8
35mm f/1.4
50mm f/1.4
100mm Macro f/2

All of them are nothing short of spectacular, and this is coming from someone who has owned almost every L Prime under 200mm at some point. I was really blown away by the 21mm, I think it may be my next purchase. Not to mention the things are built like a brick, all metal construction and even some of the lens hoods were metal. 

Then again I am a video guy so I can live without MF, but I know that turns some people off. The focus ring has much more resistance than Canon glass, and it doesn't keep spinning past infinity (no more worrying about ruining focus marks).

Optically, they are stunning and seem to have much better edge sharpness than their Canon counterparts. Now if I could only bring myself to get rid of some of my L glass I'd buy the whole set. 

I haven't owned an APS-C camera in quite some time, but I know the Tokina 11-16 is a great lens and a lot of fun on those bodies.


----------



## phixional ninja (Dec 3, 2011)

razorite said:


> some links for images i shot with it and a 7d
> 
> http://500px.com/photo/2654552
> 
> ...



Wow, I really like the look of those. An ultrawide is high on my list of gear to buy, right after a macro lens, and those shots make a strong argument for that lens.

As for other non-Canon lenses, I use a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC on my 7D. For the price, I think it's great. Nice and sharp.


----------



## unruled (Dec 3, 2011)

tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non vc)
sharp, solid build, good Af, great price. Awesome for crop cams.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Dec 3, 2011)

A bit off topic, but does anyone here shoot with Zeiss glass on their Canon bodies? Would you recommend Zeiss over Canon or Canon over Zeiss?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 3, 2011)

Leopard Lupus said:


> A bit off topic, but does anyone here shoot with Zeiss glass on their Canon bodies? Would you recommend Zeiss over Canon or Canon over Zeiss?


I do, but Pentacon-six zeiss made in East Germany 30 years ago or so, not the newest ZE stuff.

I'd say your answer depends on what you shoot, sports and kids running around needs AF, sit-down portraits and landscapes need methodical care and IQ, that's more suited to the Zeiss stuff. Also depends what lens exactly, some canons beat the zeiss, some zeiss beat the canons at same mm/f, but zeiss are almost always the more expensive...


----------



## elflord (Dec 3, 2011)

willrobb said:


> This is kind of continuing on from another post where I asked about the canon 50mm 1.4 versus the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and the opinions really were divided.
> 
> Rather than compare canon with other lenses and thrashing out the differences, I'm interested to find out which non-canon lenses (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron etc) people own, what they are using them for and why they love them.



I have the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. I got this because of the excellent reviews -- not just the technical reviews like these: 

http://thedigitalpicture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.lenstip.com/277.1-Lens_review-Sigma_85_mm_f_1.4_EX_DG_HSM.html
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/602-sigma85f14eosff

but also reports from those who've used it in the field: 

http://alanabramsphotography.com/2010/10/sigma-85mm1-4-ex-dg-hsm-lens-review-part-1/
http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

I also liked what I saw in the stream for the flickr group. It looks solid so far, but it's also quite new, so I haven't shot enough with it to say a whole lot.

I'm looking into the Samyang 14mm (manual focus) because at that price, it's a steal and for a wide angle lens, I'm prepared to go with manual focus (much easier to focus with a wide angle lens)


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2011)

I only use one, a Tokina 17mm f/3.5, its a great lens. I've had many other third party lenses and sold them all.

These Sigma or made by Sigma lenses would not AF on a Canon DSLR. 
Quantaray 24mm f/1.8(made by Sigma), 
Sigma 400mm f/5.6, 
Sigma 105mm Macro (I paid $100 to Sigma to upgrade it, nice lens, but not when I have to pay Sigma to correct their design error)
Sigma 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6. 

I kept them around to remind me that Sigma lenses may or may not autofocus in the future, if Canon tweaks their cameras AF system again.

Others:

Sigma 17-35mm (Cheap lens came with a used Canon XTi DSLR)
Tamron 28-80 (Cheap lens came with a used Canon XTi DSLR)
Tamron 75-300 (Cheap lens came with a used Canon XTi DSLR)
Tamron 200-500mm (OK lens, but difficult to use, even on a sturdy tripod, its so long it vibrates and must be used at high shutter speed.
Sigma 600mm mirror lens. (OK but not really useful to me)
Tokina 400mm f/5.6 (Great lens, but my 100-400mm L is better at over 10X the price I paid.)
Sigma 17-70mm (non OS) - (Stiff focus ring, poor IQ near mfd, otherwise excellent)
Samyang 14mm (absolutely the worst lens I've ever owned, a piece of junk. It went right bacl)
Various TC's by Sigma, Tamron, Quantaray, etc.
I'm sure there are more that I've forgotton.

I also have lots of old manual focus lenses by Hasselblad, Nikon, Mamiya, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, and many more, along with adaptors so I can try them on my Canon DSLR. I am always buying old film cameras for the lenses, whenever I find one for too low of a price.


----------



## lol (Dec 4, 2011)

Leopard Lupus said:


> A bit off topic, but does anyone here shoot with Zeiss glass on their Canon bodies? Would you recommend Zeiss over Canon or Canon over Zeiss?


I got one, and the short answer is "it depends". I got the 50mm f/2 makro because I wanted the short focal length, closer focus (but not 1:1: macro) capability and a fast-ish aperture at the same time. The typical 50mm non-macro doesn't quite focus close enough, and I don't want to be messing around with extension tubes or dioptres. It's a small niche admittedly. I had considered the Canon 50mm f/2.8 macro which, although a lot cheaper, isn't as fast.

The biggest plus of the Zeiss lens I think is for manual focus. In that area it is a joy to handle that the regular Canon lenses can't come close to. However for normal shooting I'd prefer having AF, plus the Canon lenses are generally a lot cheaper too.


----------



## branden (Dec 8, 2011)

I have the same Zeiss 2/50 Makro-planar -- it's great at landscapes and product photography and architecture, pretty good at portraits, and I've gotten decent enough at manually focusing that I'm not afraid to use it at events, although I still wouldn't rely on my MF skills entirely

Over the summer I rented both the Zeiss 2.8/21 (for a hot air balloon launch) and the 3.5/18 (for a vacation), and now purchased the 3.5/18 (it arrives tomorrow). They are both very similar, greatly performing lenses (according to my photos, not the lens review sites) and choosing between the two was difficult. I ended up picking the 3.5/18 because of its wider angle and smaller size. (Portability is important to me.)

So, of the 5 lenses I own now, 2 are 3rd party.


----------



## Invertalon (Dec 8, 2011)

My "Bell+Howell" (ala Samyang) 14mm f/2.8 lens for my 5D2...

At only $298, the performance is unreal. It is up there with all my other L's I use... It may be manual everything, but it is so sharp all the way to the edges. And at 14mm on FF, that is not easy!

I love it...


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2011)

I didn't like the corners on my EF16-35mm f/2.8L Canon Lens so I got a Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE.
I use it for Landscapes and Astrophotography.
It has very good edges/corners and inifinity focusing is indeed ... infinity! The latter feature helps alot in Astrophotography.


----------



## photophreek (Dec 8, 2011)

I rented the Zeiss 21/2.8 recently and was blown away. I'm looking for a wide landscape lens and the choices are the Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Canon 24/3.5 TS-E II. Both are manual focus with corner sharpness going to the Canon slightly. The price difference is almost $600 more expensive for the Canon. Given the color, contrast and sharpness of the Zeiss, I'm leaning toward the Zeiss.


----------



## tron (Dec 8, 2011)

photophreek said:


> I rented the Zeiss 21/2.8 recently and was blown away. I'm looking for a wide landscape lens and the choices are the Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Canon 24/3.5 TS-E II. Both are manual focus with corner sharpness going to the Canon slightly. The price difference is almost $600 more expensive for the Canon. Given the color, contrast and sharpness of the Zeiss, I'm leaning toward the Zeiss.



Well I happen to have both. First I got the Zeiss and then the CANON. Had I bought the TS-E first I do not know if I would have got the Zeiss too. Having said that the Zeiss is wider and in many cases it can be used instead of a 16-35 zoom. The TS-E 24mm on the other hand needs company (a TS-E 17mm?  )

Anyway you cannot go wrong with either so don't worry


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2011)

photophreek said:


> I rented the Zeiss 21/2.8 recently and was blown away. I'm looking for a wide landscape lens and the choices are the Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Canon 24/3.5 TS-E II. Both are manual focus with corner sharpness going to the Canon slightly. The price difference is almost $600 more expensive for the Canon. Given the color, contrast and sharpness of the Zeiss, I'm leaning toward the Zeiss.



I haven't used the Zeiss...but the TS-E has tilt to it's advantage for landscapes - the ability to have a deep DoF without a aperture so narrow that you lose sharpness due to diffraction. If you shoot architecture in addition to landscapes, I'd say the TS-E is a better choice.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Dec 8, 2011)

I have a Zeiss ZF 50mm f.14 and the same in 85mm f1.4.

I love the Zeiss color rendition and the manual focus is amazing. I do video, so I prefer good manual focus. Zeiss has a very distinct look in the way it treats colors. It's very interesting looking, at least to me.


----------



## Antti (Dec 8, 2011)

I have the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 DX which has exellent price for the buck. Cheap super-wide.
Then I have the Samyang 8mm fisheye which is the cheapest fisheye that I know, all manual though. Nice when you don't want to spend too much on a lens that is not used everyday.

I just want to point out that there are good and cheap lenses for beginners 8)


----------



## JR (Dec 8, 2011)

I had a Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I sold but now I am very interested in the Zeiss manual focusing lens (especially the wide ones like the 24 or 20mm) for video...


----------



## akiskev (Dec 8, 2011)

Leopard Lupus said:


> A bit off topic, but does anyone here shoot with Zeiss glass on their Canon bodies? Would you recommend Zeiss over Canon or Canon over Zeiss?


I have 3 Zeiss lenses (M42 mount) and absolutely love them!
My order of preference. 
1. 50mm 1.4
2. 35mm 2.4
3. 200mm 2.8


----------



## whatta (Dec 8, 2011)

sigma 30 1.4, really good, fast normal lens for aps-c (I choose it over the canon 28 1.8 ).


----------



## pj1974 (Dec 8, 2011)

My only non-Canon lens is the Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 EX.

When I bought it (over 4 years ago), it was a toss up between that and the Canon 10-22mm. Reviews indicated very similar sharpness, (in general Sigma slightly sharper in centre, slightly less sharp at edges - but that is noticable only while pixel peeping), moderate levels of CA and decent handling of flare. 

The Sigma's build quality is higher (more sturdy, smoother zoom & focus rings) - whereas the Canon focuses a bit quicker (not usually important for ultrawide zoom lenses, and particularly not for how I use them). So I tested the Sigma lens and was very happy with the image quality - and there was only a very minor difference in colour cast between the Sigma and Canon.

My Sigma 10-20mm is particularly sharp at 10mm, corner to corner. It has a slight focus and decentring issue at some focal lengths / focus combinations - again only noticable when pixel peeping. I can overcome both these issues by manual focus (I keep it on manual focus). With manual focus for some reason it seems to over-expose about 1/3 EV, but again, I just turn my 7D's rear wheel to compensate, so basically all is good. 

The main reason I went with the Sigma was that it was about $400 cheaper than the Canon! Also, it came bundled with the lens hood. The Canon lens hood needs to be purchased separately, and it is annoyingly huge. I bought a cheap ($5) 'pinch / snap' lens cap to use when the lens hood is on (I always have the lens hood on).

I'm very happy with the Sigma 10-20mm EX. I use it often. It's very portable - and produces high quality ultra wide images. I use it a lot for landscapes, sunsets and sometimes architectural shots (indoor and outdoors). 8)

Paul


----------



## DrHiluluk (Dec 9, 2011)

photophreek said:


> I rented the Zeiss 21/2.8 recently and was blown away. I'm looking for a wide landscape lens and the choices are the Zeiss 21/2.8 or the Canon 24/3.5 TS-E II. Both are manual focus with corner sharpness going to the Canon slightly. The price difference is almost $600 more expensive for the Canon. Given the color, contrast and sharpness of the Zeiss, I'm leaning toward the Zeiss.



The Canon TS-E 24/3.5 II is $1859 at adorama (directly or via amazon) and B&H. The Zeiss is $1843 so they're about the same price (while the canon rebate is in effect). I'm leaning towards the Zeiss but I'm thinking of getting the TS-E before the prices go back up...

Edit: Adorama dropped the price to $1799. -4% with a cash back site ~$1730. Very tempting! Why doesn't the Zeiss ever go on sale?


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 11, 2011)

I don't currently own a 3rd party lens, though I would like one to save $$$, because I'm afraid it will stuff up my camera. In saying that I'd like to have a go at one of the sigma lenses, as me3ntioned before to save money and it seems like a good alternative to Canon's more expensive L lenses. I'd prefer sigma over tamron.


----------



## NormanBates (Dec 11, 2011)

I mostly use vintage Leica glass

these lenses are cheap and sharp, but the reason I love them is because of the mouth watering bokeh, specially these three:
Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 (1978)
Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 (1976)
Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 (1966)

http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html


----------



## hiker (Dec 14, 2011)

The Tokina 10-17mm is a quite interesting lens. 
It has an amazing minimum focus distance.
I used it for landscape photography as well. If you know how to handle it, you can keep the lens distorsion under control.


----------



## MK5GTI (Dec 14, 2011)

when i had the crop:
Tamron 17-50 F2.8, Sharp, 1/3 of the price of Canon, smaller, shorter, lighter. Just loud.
Sigma 30mm F1.4, i don't see whats better from the 35mm L, just this can't fit FF.

FF:
Sigma 50mm F1.4: Sharp, nice bokeh, good colour, but more $ than Canon.

Always waiting for Tamron & Sigma to come out with some nice lens


----------



## Jedifarce (Dec 18, 2011)

willrobb said:


> This is kind of continuing on from another post where I asked about the canon 50mm 1.4 versus the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and the opinions really were divided.
> 
> Rather than compare canon with other lenses and thrashing out the differences, I'm interested to find out which non-canon lenses (Sigma, Zeiss, Tamron etc) people own, what they are using them for and why they love them.



I own the following Nikkor primes - 

20mm 3.5 AIS 
28mm 2.8 AIS
35mm 2.8 AI
50mm 1.8 AIS
50mm 1.2 AIS

The 20mm I haven't really found a use for because it tends to vignette on a 5D. I love the 28mm 2.8 for landscape photography, it's very sharp and puts out beautiful images. The 35mm and 50mm are great for video. 

The great thing about these old primes is they are cheap and very well built, metal housings, with aperture rings. Although I believe the achilles heel of these older lenses is moisture. The seals may not be up to the standards of todays Canon L series lens. It's not uncommon to see these lenses selling on Adorama specifying 'mold or fungal' damage.


----------



## Jedifarce (Dec 18, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> I mostly use vintage Leica glass
> 
> these lenses are cheap and sharp, but the reason I love them is because of the mouth watering bokeh, specially these three:
> Elmarit-R 35mm f/2.8 (1978)
> ...



I'd love to try out Leica glass sometime, can you only use the 'R' lens with an Leica to EOS adapter?


----------



## dr croubie (Dec 18, 2011)

Jedifarce said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly use vintage Leica glass
> ...



Leica R (I think all types/versions) you can use on a Canon, but not Leica M (except for uber-macro, if you can even get an adapter that doesn't involve bellows). Leica S you can use on your canon in theory, but I don't think there are adapters yet (but then, who can afford Leica S glass that wouldn't just buy a Leica S2?)


----------

