It doesn't all need to be "L" Glass

[SWPhotoImaging]

I am as enraptured as the next Canon owner with the quality and clarity of the (2) "L" lenses I own. I also own a couple of Sigma lenses that I find quite impressive (for my needs).

The first is a Sigma 14mm f2.8 aspherical EX HSM . . . Great wide lens for a digtital camera with a 1.6x crop factor. I can't imagine how one would keep their feet out of the picture with this lens on a full frame camera. I use it mostly for interior shots so far, but see it being my favorite deeeeeep DOF landscape lens.

I also have a Sigma 15-30 F3.5-4.5 that I think is very good for it's price range. This bridges the gap between the 14mm and my 28-105 mid-range Canon lens. I can't compare this to lenses I don't own, such as a 16-35L, but I can state that it is nearly flawless for my purposes.

I don't have to have "L" glass for all my lenses.

[Ferdinand]

oh oh

/hides

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think we've touched on this before,. but if you'll indulge me,. I'd like to add to your list of ...

GREAT NON-L LENSES I HAVE KNOWN

Two Sigma's I have owned are the equal of some of the L glass out there IMHO, The ever popular 70-200mm f/2.8 EX and my baby,. the 500mm f/4.5EX I also think the 50-500mm Sigma is an unbelivable value and performer with its super fast HSM focus and amazing versitility.

Canon has Non-L that are better than some L

There has been a lot of talk about the 85mm f/1.8 and rightly so.
The 50mm f/1.4 USM is so close to L it must be a "K"

The 100mm Macro of course... (which reminds me,. the Sigma 105mm is a dman fine performer as well)

Anyone else have a few to add?

[iwatkins]

Yep,

I would also add the following:

Sigma 105mm Macro
Canon 50mm f1.4
Sigma 50-500mm (for its value more than anything else)
Sigma 12-24mm (added this because what it can do)

Cheers

Ian

[Canuck]

I'll add (I'm guessing) for the billionth time:
Sigma 120-300F2.8EX (price: $1900 @ B&H)

I too am going to add the 70-200mm F2.8EX lens one of these days. I have a real gap in the 70-120 range now. I'm thinking also the 70-200 could be a lighter weight alternative to the beast (120-300mm), should I get lazy. Not to mention times where a 70-200mm woulda done perfect for what I was after and not being able to zoom out enough w/ the beast.
That said, it is a freaking awesome lens. I am truely impressed with the Sigma EX lines as the original 2 Sigma lenses I had were not cutting it on the 10D. They were cheap as chips and it showed too.

[JZaun]

Let me add the Sigma 50mm EX 1:1 MACRO. At $249 you will be hard put to find a better value 1:1 macro. I love it. My only complaint, if you want to call it that, is the auto focus is not good for macro.. You just need to manual focus.Thats OK! The auto focus is ok for normal 50mm shots but slower than USM. Still at $249 what can I say.

JZaun

[Cadwell]

I'll vote for the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 EX (HSM) - if you can overlook the need for biceps like Arnie's in order to hand hold the thing for any length of time ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

And I overlooked the Sigma 300mm f/2.3 Prime as well..

There are also the 14mm, 20mm wise primes from Sigma,. the 20mm f/1.8 is the fastest lens at this wide angle made! :shock: