Regardless of cost, what lenses do you like better than Canon's

I understand that many brands have improved and in some cases perform better than Canon's.
I would rule out manual focus, and I understand for many the price and difference in image quality is a priority. I get why many will be happy with 90% performance at a 60% price.

So overall what lenses have better IQ, focus speed, or other advantages over Canon lenses?

BTW my only non Canon lens is a Lensbaby.

I think Canon glass is what keeps a lot of people shooting Canon.

Sigma is really the only big glass contender that comes close, and surpasses Canon in a few areas, outside of Nikon equivalents that are also good. But the big whites are hard to beat.

But it's not a fair comparison (like AF) when comparing non-Canon or something not on a Canon body, as there are contributions there that do matter.

If we're talking glass and ignoring a lot of other aspects of a system, I think Fuji is really doing a great job outside of what Sigma is rolling out. Awesome lenses coming out that are affordable that really mean you don't need a Canon to enjoy, great competition.

Very best,

I really liked my Sigma 70-200 OS. The Sigma 15mm FE is better than Canon because it focuses closer. That matters in the XWA world. I also have a Sigma 12-24 II, that I really like. I could get 5 of them for the price of the Canon 11-24. There can't POSSIBLY be that much difference. There is no comparable Canon lens to the Rokinon 12mm f/2.8 FE. Extremely wide lens, with superb optics, for $249. Canon doesn't even try to compete. I sold a Tokina 19-35 to upgrade to a 17-40. The Tokina was as good, with the exception of flare.

Just for fun, I'll list the 3rd party lenses I've had that I wish I'd passed on.
Tamron 28-75. Good enough, for the money. Much better is available.
Tamron 17-50 non-VC. Slow, hit-or-miss focus. Unimpressive IQ-wise.
Tamron 24-70 VC. Inconsistent AF, f/2.8 was soft from one end to the other. MFA didn't help.

If you do not rule out manual focus lenses, you will find out that most old Zeiss glass in C/Y mount will cost much less than equivalent Canon lenses and perform much better.

There are a lot of nice lenses in the world. Zeiss and Leica come immediately to mind. Some of the Pentax limiteds like the 31mm are gorgeous. There's also a discontinued voightlander that comes to mind. I guess 3 of 4 of those are manual focus though.

i like my 120-300OS...there really is no canon equivalent

DreDaze wrote in post #18332470
i like my 120-300OS...there really is no canon equivalent

Ya... I'd say this is a much better lens than anything Canon can offer.... AND if canon did offer it the darn lens would be $8,000 too.

So count me in for the 120-300 sport or non sport OS version.

Nikon's 58mm/1.4 and 105/1.4 are the only two I can think of since they are far better than their canon counterparts. I would take their 400/2.8FL over the Canon IS II but they reversed the foot placement, eliminating the benefit of the front mount of their previous versions.

What comes close to Canon's 100-400 II and 24-70 f/2.8L II, or for that manor Canon's super tele lenses? Don't forget I said cost is not a factor.

DreDaze wrote in post #18332470
i like my 120-300OS...there really is no canon equivalent

120-300 is a great lens but it has limitations. Especially if you have to crop into the file. If they update this lens into an Art series no one would buy the 300 F2.8 L.....as it currently stands....the 300 is superior to the 120-300 any place you can test it at

except 120-299

they get the 120-300 to 300L prime sharpness they own the market

umphotography wrote in post #18332524
120-300 is a great lens but it has limitations. Especially if you have to crop into the file. If they update this lens into an Art series no one would buy the 300 F2.8 L.....as it currently stands....the 300 is superior to the 120-300 any place you can test it at

except 120-299

they get the 120-300 to 300L prime sharpness they own the market

the art series? it's already a sport series...the name means absolutely nothing...and you can crop in quite a bit with no issues...

I am currently waiting on seeing what the 6D2 brings and will probably go FF then, but if I wasn't, I would buy the 10-24 VC, 18-35/1.8 and 50-100/1.8 now. Canon doesn't have anything here to compete. The 10-22 is not stabilized and they don't have any 1.8 zooms.

The 24art beats the 24L from what I have seen and they don't make a 14/1.8 or 20/1.4 in canon. The 35L II being new tops the 35 art if money were no issue. The 50art is really no worse than the 50L when you figure the focus shift problem in the L. The 85 art is better than the 85L in sharpness and focusing speed but lacks in blur quality. The 135art looks like it beats the 135L across the plane.

24-70/2.8 OS has stabilization and looks to be a great one. The 70-200/2.8 VC G2 looks like it's sharper than the II until greater than 150mm. Canon doesn't make any 2.8 zoom for UWA for crop so even the crap focus motor clutch design of the Tokinas wins there.

Now there is no way that I would buy the 100-400 from Sigma over the Canon 100-400 II if they were priced the same but that's not reality where the Canon costs 2.5 times more. If reviews look good there, I am picking the Sigma up.

I have been shooting Canon for about 10 years now and the only lens that I have bought since then that didn't exist when I first bought into the canon system is my 100L. I would like to own the 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II but they really too expensive for me as a hobby shooter to justify. Quite frankly I think Canon needs to get their crap together and step it up a few notches.

And me.

Tapeman wrote in post #18332489
What comes close to Canon's 100-400 II and 24-70 f/2.8L II, or for that manor Canon's super tele lenses? Don't forget I said cost is not a factor.

Nikon's 24-70VR at least matches (and in some areas beats) the Canon mk2 in the centre of the frame but at the rule of thirds and further out, beats it handily and has VR. For Canon shooters though it's F and not EF mount.

The 100-400 II from what I've seen doesn't have an equal for the combination of portability, AF, IS/VR/VC/OS/whatever you want to call it, focal length range and IQ regardless of price.

Sigma has some out-of-the-box-thinking lenses such as the 18-35, 24-35, 50-100, the already mentioned 120-300, 300-800 and 200-500/2.8 just off the top of my head. They also had the 50-150 (and Tokina the 50-135) f/2.8 zooms for crop before discontinuing them

Tamron has the recent 35, 45 and 85 f/1.8 lenses all with VC. Nothing from Canon in those focal length ranges have apertures that large (for their focal length) with IS (though Canon's 35/2IS comes close). Tamron also has a wider f/2.8 ultra wide zoom than Canon.

Canon though as we all know has some spectacular lenses that no one matches (to my knowledge). The 11-24 is a wider rectilinear zoom than anything else out there for "full frame", and from what I've seen it's brilliant. There's also the 8-15 FE. Then there's the 50 and 85mm f/1.2 pair. Then the 200-400 with built in TC. I believe they were also first with DO (400 DO, 70-300DO and 400 DO II) and their 17mm TSE has only just met with competition from Nikon in the form of a 19mm. I can't talk for Sony, Pentax, Olympus and co but Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and Nikon do not make a small, light 200/2.8 prime - actually, none of those make a 200/2.8 prime

My favourite lens though that Canon does not make is the Sigma 150 macro. Yes, there's the Canon 180 macro but there's also the Sigma 180... (another on the list I'd like to get) The Sigma 150 also adds excellent all round handling that the old Canon doesn't have. I've had a few in EF and F mount and they've done everything from 1:1 macro, extension tube macro, general walkaround, portraits, landscape and motorsport. My F mount 150's over the past 3 or 4 years have also spent a lot of hours on the front of Omega and FinishLynx photo finish cameras delivering excellent IQ, bright aperture and (on the Omega's) fine remote focus control.

Tapeman wrote in post #18332321
I understand that many brands have improved and in some cases perform better than Canon's.

So overall what lenses have better IQ, focus speed, or other advantages over Canon lenses?
.

I will speak to the "other advantages":

I have a Sigma 300-800mm DG. What it offers over Canon is the focal length range - Canon doesn't offer anything even close. I think that is the real advantage of 3rd party lenses - to get something that is not available via Canon.

Unfortunately, the 300-800mm Sigma doesn't perform better, or give better image quality, than the Canon super telephotos. In fact, the autofocus speed isn't even as good as that of Canon's super telephotos.

I would gladly fork over the money for a Canon 300-800mm f5.6, if it were available.........but sadly there is no such lens in Canon's lineup, so I am "stuck" using a third party lens that has slightly poorer autofocus speed, and no Image Stabilization.
.