Just wondering what your takes on thrid party lenses? I was under the impression that since I own a Canon Dslr that Canon optics would be best.
I was also wondering on quality of third party lenses compared to Canon lenses...Thanks...
Printable View
Just wondering what your takes on thrid party lenses? I was under the impression that since I own a Canon Dslr that Canon optics would be best.
I was also wondering on quality of third party lenses compared to Canon lenses...Thanks...
I personally don't resist 3rd party lenses. In general, they are usually cheaper than Canon lenses but they're usually not as good. One of the most distinguishable aspect is that Canon lenses with ring USM motors (on most of their recent mid - high quality lenses) focuses very fast, quiet and accurate - the hit rate is dead high. So far from my experience none of the 3rd party lenses (regardless brand) can match the AF performance of the Canon optics. So if you shoot sport or anything that requires fast and accurate focusing, you will clearly see the advantage of using Canon optics.
Canon lenses are generally better in terms of image quality. You can use the [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=113&Camera=9&Sample=0& FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=373&CameraComp=9& amp;SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=0]ISO12233[/url] on this site to see exactly how. However, some recent 3rd party lenses actually have flawless OPTICAL performance, such as the [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-150mm-f-2.8-EX-DG-HSM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx]Sigma 150/2.8 EX Macro HSM[/url], [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx]Sigma 50/1.4 EX HSM[/url], and [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx]Tamron 17-50/2.8 XR Di II[/url]. My point is, if one of the best regarded 3rd lenses fit your need, buying them is a bargain since Canon does not make identical lenses or even falls behind in image quality department.
But generally speaking, Canon optics will most likely be right choices over identical 3rd party lenses. Here are a list of problems that you may encounter with 3rd party lenses:
[list][*]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]Slow AF with much less hit rate in sport shooting, does not focus well in low light[*]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]Image quality (Sharpness, contrast, color, back ground blur, color fringes, flare, vignette...) <span style="color: #ff0000;"]is generally inferior (with exceptions)[*]<span style="color: #ff0000;"]AF calibration is frequently a problem <span style="color: #000000;"](heavy front or back focus)
[*]Reliability is not as good (but always comes longer warantee than Canon lenses)[*]Almost none is weather sealed like Canon "L" lenses[*]Build quality/ergonomics is generally inferior[*]May have capability issues with new Canon DSLRs[/list]
The top three are always the reasons why I don't buy 3rd party lenses. Those are the things 3rd party lenses do not offer but are big deal for me. As said, if one of the best regarded 3rd party lenses fit you need, buy them. For anything else, if money allow Canon lenses are generally better choices. "L" lenses are always better, and much better![:D]
Ben
It depends on which lenses.
Bryan points out that third party lenses reverse engineer the communication protocol between the lenses and camera, so you're less likely to have issues on that venue with a Canon product, but otherwise....
All of my lenses are made by Canon, in part ouf of laziness and need for conformity. However, if anybody knows a third party 50mm that's canon L quality (without the quirks of the Canon 50mm f/1.2L), better than the 50mm f/1.4, and more durable, etc., please let me know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
Well, considering how much the Sigma 50/1.4 cost, it can go quite good against the Canon 50mms if you don't push on the AF performance. I think the point is not getting the absolute "best" lens regardless the cost; as said, the Sigma 50/1.4 is a good choice. At this moment I don't own any 50mm lens, because none of the 50mm lenses now on the market satisfy me as much as I would like to spend money on. If the Sigma somehow fixes their AF performance, I'll buy.
I personally find Tokina AT-X lenses superior to Sigma and Tamron. They're built like tanks, all metal casings. The af is fast as well. Optics wise, my 12-24 runs on par with th 10-22, where the tokina is better in the long end wide open and the canon is better in the short end wide open. Both are near similar when at f8 or higher.
Tokina is the T of THK, Tokina Hoya Kenko. For many years, Hoya worked with Minolta on their glass and Minolta has always been known for the colors.
Typically lens discussions focus on one issue, the absolute quality of the lens. People point out that a 70-200 2.8 L is better than a Tamron or Sigma with a similar zoom. And that is certainly correct. But not everyone lives in a universe where $1500 lenses are an option.
An equally useful question is value for the money. For instance I can get a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for less than the Canon 28mm 1.8 (at B&H). Most reviewers feel the Sigma is a better lens in terms of IQ and CA -- and it is 2/3 stop faster. Of course there is a Canon f1.4, the Canon 35mm 1.4. And it goes for about 3 times the cost of the Sigma. Is it a better lens with a better build? Sure. But is it worth 3 times the money. That depends totally on the needs of the photographer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin
lol That sums it up for me right there. Conformity. I've almost made the 3rd party plunge twice, but spared no expense and bought the Canon version. The ultra wide 10-22mm specifically. I just know that all around Canon lenses are 99% of the time, going to be better quality (imo) and I'm a sucker for buying the same brand when it comes to things like this.
I know it's usually more money but you know what they say about buy photography equipment....you only want to cry once, when you have to pay for it....not every time you don't get the shot.
Sometimes you just don't have another option but to buy a third party lens. For example, the Canon EF-S 18-200 came out just last year, along with 50D. Sigma and Tamron have been making those for literaly years and in my opinion are ahead of Canon in superzoom category. Current Tamron is 18-270mm, image stabilised, and latest model from Sigma is 18-250, image stabilised, with ultrasonic focusing motor. As far as IQ, all lenses are more or less similar, but both Tamron and Sigma have reach advantage over Canon and Sigma focuses veeeery quietly.
Currently I ownthe latest Sigma model, which I use mostly on my XSI, when I have to go light and cannot change lenses.Being aware of the shortcomings of a superzoom, Iam very satisfied with what the lens offers.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.31/0-IMG_5F00_4170-800x600.jpg[/img]
piiooo Has a good point. Tamron, especially, has been doing super zooms for a long time. My friends fiance has the 18-270 stabalizedTamron and it takes really good shots, and at under $700, it's a bargain.
I've got a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and love it. Apples to apples third party lenses seem descent to me. They're target market is those that can't afford or justify the expense of the equivalent OEM gear. I can't imagine anyone on an unlimited budget getting anything but Canon gear. Me on the other hand my budget is quite limited as of late and I may have to make do with some third party lenses. I'm trying to be very selective in whatI get.
Thanks for all of your coments guys it helped alot....In the end I decided to fork out the cash for a Canon Lseries lens (24-70mm f/2.8) In the end I chose this lens because I wanted to be sure it worked with my gear....I' also looking into buying a 5D Mark II within the next year and thoght it would mate well with the 5D...Thanks again for all the input