Sleeper Lenses?

[preppyak]

But my ultimate favorite, though it does get pretty good reviews, is the 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 Macro from Sigma. Only way it could be better is if it was constant f/2.8, but, you get nearly 1:2 macro and good sharpness from f/5.6 on. And, when I need it, 17mm f/2.8 is good for environmental sports stuff, where I am capturing the scene around a person but still need fast shutter speeds.

The newer version only goes to 1:3.3, is pricier, but it does add OS.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Well.. I have a Macro Tokina 100 f2.8 This Baby ROCKS! I got it for 250 bucks on ebay and it was pretty much new.Few months back I had some money trouble and I had to sell canon 70-200L and many other lenses and cameras but I kept this one until I got a couple of new cameras.

As a Macro is wonderful! as portrait is is a dream. Every time I mention this lens everyone goes like HUH! what is that?

I suspect it's essentially the same lens as the Tamron 90mm despite the extra 10mm extra FL. The rotating focus limiter switch is a dead give-away.

 

[AJ]

Canon 85/1.8
Tamron 90/2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC
Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 70-200/4 non-IS
Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.
Canon 15/2.8 fisheye

 

[Jay Khaos]

• EF 35mm f/2 -- very sharp in center (in corners not so much), short minimum focusing distance, very accurate AF -- this is a viable alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II in many situations, it's way lighter, it's way smaller. I often use it for video (manual focus is very OK, fairly accurate and barely audible). It's excellent for closeup portraits, with face details, like eyes.

I wanted this lens pretty bad since it came out. It did kind of immediately get thrown into the equally-priced, faster-aperture Sigma's shadow. But depending on the person (like one who shoots video), it might be the obvious choice over sigmas 35 1.4. Thats what it seems like to me anyway. This lens is one of them I had in mind when I created this thread. Whenever it ends up on sale I'm probably going to snatch it up... maybe earlier..lol

 

[Knut Skywalker]

Definitely the 100mm f/2. Totally overshadowed by the 85mm 1.8 but the majority of the reviews state that it's better corrected and focuses faster than its smaller brother. I use it for portrait stuff on the 5D Mk II and its awesome. Autofocus is the fastest i have ever seen and the bokeh is nice and creamy.

 

[wsmith96]

The most underrated, overlooked lens I have is the EF-S 60mm macro. It does everything from macro to landscapes and usually gives a unique look. I can usually tell a picture taken with this lens.

I agree with this, the EF-S 60 is probably my sharpest lens, and that's including the 70-200 f4 IS. Get the focus right and it's corner to corner sharp (macro obviously excepted-unless photographing a brick wall!), even at 100% on the 7D. Compact as well, and great value!

+1 - I love this lens on my t1i - produces beautiful results every time.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

When I had it, I would say the 85 1.8. I feel it often gets overlooked by CR folks (and folks on other serious photo forums) for the far more expensive, heavier, slower 1.2 version. While the 1.2 version produces some amazing results (and I may end up with one eventually) the 1.8 offers one of the best price/performance ratios in the Canon system IMO. Compact, inconspicuous and has decent reach and speed for close-range sports on 1.6x (bonus points here - the 1.2 is too slow for sports on a non-pro body). Really doesn't get much better than that...that and the "sister lens" 100 f2.

Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS

Excellent little lens! I just sold mine because of disuse (but the 400D I used it on has been replaced with a Sony NEX).

• EF 35mm f/2 -- very sharp in center (in corners not so much), short minimum focusing distance, very accurate AF -- this is a viable alternative to my 24-70 f/2.8 Mk II in many situations, it's way lighter, it's way smaller. I often use it for video (manual focus is very OK, fairly accurate and barely audible). It's excellent for closeup portraits, with face details, like eyes.

I wanted this lens pretty bad since it came out. It did kind of immediately get thrown into the equally-priced, faster-aperture Sigma's shadow. But depending on the person (like one who shoots video), it might be the obvious choice over sigmas 35 1.4. Thats what it seems like to me anyway. This lens is one of them I had in mind when I created this thread. Whenever it ends up on sale I'm probably going to snatch it up... maybe earlier..lol

I suppose you're talking about the IS version. I love the older f/2 (non-IS) for its tinyness as mentioned earlier.

 

[insanitybeard]

Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

 

[AJ]

Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS

Excellent little lens! I just sold mine because of disuse (but the 400D I used it on has been replaced with a Sony NEX).

Yes it's a good lens. I have messed around with quite a few starter telephoto lenses over the years, and this is the only one that does not disappoint. It's no L lens, but it's decently sharp optically. Just stop down a little when at the long end. The 5x zoom and low weight make it a great choice for lightweight travel, hiking, and other uses in strong light. I have a 2'x3' canvas wrap printed from a photo taken with this lens, and it looks like it was taken with far more expensive and bulky gear.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Canon 55-250/4-5.6 IS

Excellent little lens! I just sold mine because of disuse (but the 400D I used it on has been replaced with a Sony NEX).

Yes it's a good lens. I have messed around with quite a few starter telephoto lenses over the years, and this is the only one that does not disappoint. It's no L lens, but it's decently sharp optically. Just stop down a little when at the long end. The 5x zoom and low weight make it a great choice for lightweight travel, hiking, and other uses in strong light. I have a 2'x3' canvas wrap printed from a photo taken with this lens, and it looks like it was taken with far more expensive and bulky gear.

I took this with a 55-250 IS II and a 400D:

 

[mrsfotografie]

Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.

 

[insanitybeard]

The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.

Don't get me wrong, I own and like the 17-40, but I don't think owners of the 16-35 II would agree with you that the 17-40 is the better lens. Reviews I have seen suggest they perform similarly at the same apertures with the exception that the 16-35 is a bit better at the wide end around f4-5.6. My main reason for opting for the 17-40 was it's compact size and low weight, weather sealing, decent optical performance and (compared to most L lenses) reasonable price!

 

[mrsfotografie]

The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.

Don't get me wrong, I own and like the 17-40, but I don't think owners of the 16-35 II would agree with you that the 17-40 is the better lens. Reviews I have seen suggest they perform similarly at the same apertures with the exception that the 16-35 is a bit better at the wide end around f4-5.6. My main reason for opting for the 17-40 was it's compact size and low weight, weather sealing, decent optical performance and (compared to most L lenses) reasonable price!

From many reviews I've been led to believe the 17-40 generally outperforms its wider aperture sisters. In any case I got it for the exact same reasons you mentioned

 

[AdamJ]

Sigma 12-24mm II.

Perhaps I have a golden sample but I marvel at how sharp it is away from the extreme corners. Anyway, its outright sharpness obviously isn't the big attraction of this remarkable lens.

 

[crasher8]

I think the 40 pancake is a sleeper as well.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon 17-40/L, when used as an UWA on FF gear, not as a standard lens on crop.

Why do you say this? I use the 17-40 as a standard lens on crop and it performs very well for the most part IMO, as I understand it it's biggest weakness is used at the wide end without stopping down on FF. Using it on crop negates most of this issue.

The 17-40 is Canon's best full frame WA zoom.

I'm using a 17-40L on crop as a standard zoom because I plan (for CR regulars yes, really ) to upgrade to ff sometime and most of all the L is sturdy and sealed which makes a great difference because I regularly shoot in snow and dusty/dirty outdoor conditions. Just be sure to replace the lens hood with a 83J...

... however @f4 the 17-40L is clearly lacking in sharpness and except for the above reasons I really wouldn't recommend it on crop, even though it has a very good price nowadays esp. with Canon cashback rebates.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=100&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=100&Sample=0&CameraComp=736&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[jd7]

Only reason I gave up the 85 was to help fund an upgrade from the 70-200 f4 to the 70-200 2.8 (don't regret at all...would do again)...still though, that was a tough lens to part with. There has been many a time where I either wished I had it or contemplated re-purchasing it...probably would go for the 100 f2 if I did it all over again.

Hi Act444,
Just curious - what would make you go for the 100 f2 over the 85 1.8? I haven't used either, but am contemplating getting one of them (or possibly sigma 85 1.4) for use on a 6D, and I'm intrigued that even though you liked the 85 you'd choose the 100 now.
Cheers

 

[SithTracy]

Fan of my EF 85 F1.8. Sharp and a solid performer for me. It's lightweight and small and gives me decent reach when I need to go light.

My wife and kids got me a Rokinon 14mm for fathers day and I am having a blast with that lens right now.

 

[J.R.]

There was a time when I used to shoot with the 400L f/5.6 ... The most comments I used to get were ... Can you still buy these new? and the old faithful ... why this lens, this dodo doesn't even ZOOM!