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

[willrobb]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[unfocused]

Tokina 11-16 f2.8 – 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 – 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]

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

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

[Takuma]

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]

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]

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.

[dilbert]

Tamron 28-75/2.8

Significantly less than half the price of Canon's 24-70 and yet the IQ and speed are all there and what more could you want in a lens?

[Hesbehindyou]

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]

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]

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

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]

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