Sayeret18 wrote:
I am not a pro, and do not need the robust build quality of Canon's best. That said, my third party lenses owned are: Tamron 28-75 (awesome), Sigma 50 1.4 (also awesome when it focused) and Tokina 12-24 (great in all respects). I still have the Tokina for landscapes and wideangle - it is sharp, focuses precisely and I love the colors and I've never missed the Canon equivalent. Likewise, I would have kept the 28-75 but for me the IS and zoom range of the Canon 24-105 mean more than the 2.8 and semi-macro capabilities of the Tammie. To be fair, the 24-105 also focuses faster, as well. To my mind, there is no third party alternative to the 24-105. The Sigma 50 1.4 is a truly great lens, when it works. I had it twice, needed to have Sigma calibrate both copies, and usually loved the results. I found it generally superior in pretty much all respects (except focus speed) to the Canon equivalent. But for me, it was a specialized tool that, in the end, I could not justify keeping around.
Over 100mm, however, third party offerings simply do not come close (e.g. Canon 135, 200, 300, 400 primes, 70-200 2.8, 100-400 zoom etc.)
Bottom line: So long as you stay below about 100mm, third party lenses can be great, less expensive alternatives to Canon OEM. ...Show more →
I will have to disagree, there are some very competitive and outstanding 3rd party lenses past 100mm, in many cases serving as great alternatives too.
I've had the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 for two days now and I'm thrilled! Very very sharp and well built.
I have about six Canon lenses and the Tokina was my first non-Canon other than a Hartblei Super Rotator which is definitely an oddball.
I'm having a blast with the Tokina. I walked around with it for over an hour downtown after dark and it was so much fun relearning to see super-wide and making handheld photos at 1/15 to 1/40 depending on focal length. Really liking the results viewed big!
sigma 50 and sigma 150 macro. the 150 is just awesome, dead on focus, very sharp at 2.8, good color and contrast, excellent macro. the sigma 50 is ok. better than my canon 50 (in every way, including focus).
I have a Tokina 11-16 wich I love and a Tamron 70-300 VC that I like a lot.
Bought them after careful consideration and reading a lot of reviews but would recommend them to anyone who wants quality lenses.
I shoot more third party then I do Canon.
The only Canon I currently have is the 70-200 MkII (what a sweet lens), and the
nifty-fifty.
Tamron, Tokina and Sigma make up the bulk of my gear. Mainly due to price, but that does not mean that I am not particulat about what I get. But I do not make money on my pics, they are simply for me and my family/friends.
I have a 7D and wanted to eventually upgrade to full frame, so I have just recently decided to purchase my first fast good glass. I was interested in the Canon 2.8 24-70Ii. I was waiting and waiting and in the mean time, Tamron came out with their 2.8 24-70VC. I did so much research on that lens it wasn't even funny. The reviews overall from EVERYWHERE were pretty great. The report from LensRentals about the sharpness being better than version 1 of Canon's 24-70 really got me interested. Then I decided that (for me) an extra $1,000 for the new Canon without IS was simply not worth it. I bought the Tamron. I have been using it for almost 2 months, and am completely happy with my purchase. It's an amazing lens. I do plan to buy Canon L glass in different focal lengths, but will continue to consider other 3rd party lenses based on reviews from people or companies that have actually tested or had experience actually using the lens.
