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

[Invertalon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[pj1974]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[dr croubie]

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

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

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?)