Have to say I love the Sigma 17-50mm but recommend buy locally. I've never had any issues with a lens I've bought overseas but after buying this one wont do it again. After about a month the autofocus started hunting, particularly in low light conditions. Sent it back to Sigma under warranty, got it back supposedly fixed. It wasnt. Had to send it back a second time. Complete autofocus mechanism was replaced and now works a charm.

am I missing something here, this lens is more expensive than the Nikon 105, what's the value added? And what's more, I returned my nikon and am very very happy with the Tokina 100 which cost about $400?

I thought that the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 would have been included as it's meant to be an excellent alternative to the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.
That said it's a pretty good round up I reckon. :)

SAMYANG / ROKINON / BOWER questions:

Manual focus is fine by me. I admit that I like focus confirmation though.

Are there any users of the 35mm f1.4 who would like to share their experience with the lens? I am particularly interested in Canon or other non-Nikon users - I understand that Nikon mounts are now chipped so that the focus confirmation info and EXIF gets back to the camera body.

Are there any users of the 8mm f3.5 fish-eye lens on a crop sensor body? Comments? At under $300.00, this lens could move up in the savings queue relative to its specialized use. (I also want a "normal" (for APS-C) fast prime lens 1.4 to 1.8, 28mm to 35mm range).

Im lost, I thought the DX system was made for APS-C and that it would actually be 11-16mm on those system?

I like these subject, but I wish that Dpreview could make DX format studio tests with these lenses to be able to compare, like, for example, with Sigma 10-20mm F3.5 EX DC HSM and Nikon 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED.
Because in my opinion the quality of third-party lenses have to be better than they are know. The price is important but as the quality of the pixels is improved more demanding will be the quality of the lens.
But of course if you want to buy good lenses you have to spent at least $1000 and in my case, I just don't want to that... So which of these (on top) two lenses is the best?

One of my many buying mistakes was the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4. My copy suffers from distortion, incredibly soft corners wide open (on a full-frame, admittedly) and short-focusing. Perhaps I was just unlucky with the copy and the 5DII is a harsh task master on below-par lenses. What _is_ certain, however, is that the lens is huge and bulky. It looks outsize on a 5DII and a 7D. I can't imagine how ungainly it must be on a smaller body.

I think you really need to test this lens before spending money on it. You really must need its optical qualities, such as they are, if you're ready to tout this monster around.

Perhaps it's worth noting that the Sigma 18-250mm is also optically stabilized (in-lens) in the Sony mount version.

I was floored by the price of the latest version of the Sigma 105/2.8 macro; I bought the older version last year for half as much and I'm very happy with it. Even though my A850 has image stabilization built in, I almost never use it, so I cannot imagine that added feature or any of the others justifying a $480 premium.

BTW, the old version is very good, and CA (presumably improved on the newer version) has not been a problem. My one peeve with the Sigma 105 has been its bokeh, which is not great, I'm not sure if that's improved with the newer version, but it's still a hard sell and the weight undermines one of the reasons I have made the switch to primes and bought the Sigma 105/2.8 in the first place.

Overall, I think the cons of this newer lens heavily outweigh its pros. I think DPR should have recommended the 90mm Tamron instead of this overpriced behemoth. Heck, for a little more weight and substantially less cash you could get the Tamron 180/3.5 macro.

Where's the article? This is just a list.

Also, "Samyang is one of the lesser known (and certainly less prolific)" is very wrong about the second part. Samyang makes *a lot* of lenses, but only over the past few years have they become visible selling some of the more impressive ones under their own name.

This is such a stooped article! No love for Rokinon/Samyang 85mm f/1.4?! BIAS ALERT! At $280 (seen as low as $240 in last few months) that lens is a bargain compared to the ones listed above. Also, the 35mm f/1.4 ain't bad for $500-600.

Sigma is a very good manufacturer of even high end lenses (such as the 85/1,4 or the 70/2,8 macro and the 150/2,8 macro), but they seemingly have a problem with their quality level and the quality control.

Before changing to my Zeiss 24-70 I tended to save half the money by using the EX 24-70 from Sigma. I swapped three times due to decentering problems, and even with the correct working lens I was annoyed with the AF capability in difficult environments. Nothing of those problems I had with the Zeiss right from the start.

The same light and shadow in the wide range of Tamron lenses seems to apply. With the aim to save 400 Bucks by using the Tamron 70-300 USD instead of the Sony G I agreed to myself to reduce the haptic expectations to the tamron, but after testing it a whole day I almost went mad with this unreliable AF pumping around and around in low light environments.
This happened on my APSC as well as on my FF. So it seems that it's the lens not the camera.

Enthusiasts means to me looking for great lenses to use mostly not for business

i miss in this list some Zeiss lenes eg 50/1.4

I'd love something like the Tokina, though. I'm currently using the Tamron 10-24mm on my Pentax K20D, but the constant f/2.8 aperture would help on a number of shots. Unfortunately, Tokina thinks Pentax owners won't buy, I guess. Or they were afraid of being incestuous before Pentax because part of Ricoh.

Key Features/Specifications - Available in Canon EF, Pentax KAF3, Sony Alpha, Sigma SA, Nikon F (DX) mounts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tamron 18-270mm F3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD for Pentax ???

For enthusiasts, the Zeiss 21mm should be on here.

Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm F2.8 DX for Pentax ????

I am using the sigma 8-16 on my canon 7D (replaces an earlier sigma 10-20 which I traded in some years ago). The more I use this lens the more I am impressed with the results it can give. With careful handling to keep the sensor in plane with the subject there is little parallax correction needed even at 8mm (but it is VERY sensitive to out of plane distortion). Images are sharp, colour is good and I'm happy shooting New Forest images that will be printed at 30" x 20" for sale via galleries and craft fairs. My copy is a first class tool and worth every penny

I have the Sigma 17-50 and Tamron 70-300 and I am very happy with both. I cannot compare them to the comparable Canon lenses but both of these lenses are quite happy on my 7D. From the Sigma; constant F2.8, fast and accurate hypersonic focusing, Optical Stabilization, lens hood and a lens case for under $700. From the Tamron; fast and accurate Ultrasonic focusing, very effective Vibration Control, lens hood for a final, after rebate cost of $350. Both of these lenses are in my bag for less that the Canon 17-55. At this time (a single income family), these were the best options for me and I am very satisfied with my lenses. So much so with the Sigma, that their 70-200 f2.8 may be next, unless Tamron updates theirs, and then I'll have a tough debate.

These Third Party lenses are great options and have made it possible for me to get some high quality glass without totally breaking the bank. I would probably not have a constant f2.8 if not for the Sigma--a great option.

I have used the Tokina and love its results :-)