Do You Buy other Than Canon Lenses [Archive] - Canon Digital Photography Forums

MDJAK

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 12:44

If so, why? Is it just the savings? With over 50 Canon lenses available, why is there a market for Sigma, Tamron, etc? Are any of their lenses actually better than their Canon counterpart?

I was about to purchase a Sigma (may have even been a Tamron) one time, but just didn't like the feel of the material it was made of compared to the Canon. I did like what would have been the cost saving though.

CyberDyneSystems

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 12:51

Mostly it is Bang for your buck. A Tamron Macro 90mm may save a few hundred over the Canon 100m Macro and provides nearly identical quality and performance.

Sigma has some lenses that compare very well against Canon counterparts,.. and may be significantly less expensive.. (this was more true about 18 months ago.. since then Sigma has raised the price of there entire lens line.. and the differences in price are now less significant.. though still compelling)

But,. in some cases,. most specifically Sigma telephoto zooms,.. there are indeed lenses that Canon has nothing that directly compares. In this case the Non-Canon lens may be the best choice for a given set of tasks than anything Canon may have to offer.

Jon

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 12:54

Cost, yes. Also there are sometimes specific combinations of speed, size and/or zoom range that Canon's not addressing.

ScottE

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:03

I will use higher end Sigma EX lenses or Tamron SP. The optical quality tends to be better than Canon non-L lenses and almost as good as L. Price is generally better.

These manufacturers also offer some lenses that are not available from Canon. For example, Sigma has 50-500/4-6.3, 100-300/4, 120-300/2.8 and 300-800/5.6.

For example, I compared a Canon 100-400 IS and a Sigma 50-500. Image quality was similar, but Canon has IS while the Sigma had greater focal length. Since I use a telephoto lens on a tripod I chose the Sigma for the greater focal length.

As another example, a Tamron SP AF teleconverter is high quality and will fit any lens you put it on. The Canon telecoverters are slightly higher quality, but do not physically fit on many lenses such as a 28-135 or 100 macro lens. Since I occasionally want to use a teleconverter on those lenses I chose the Tamron telecoverter. (The Sigma teleconverter is a similar design to the Canon and has a projection on the front so I will not fit some lenses as well.)

Persian-Rice

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:22

Yes.
If you are strapped for cash, then they are worthy alternatives. Don't expect any L quality, even if they come close in one department, they fall really short in another.

I own 3 non L lenses(2 x 50 1.8 and a Tamron 28-75) As you probably know, the Tamron is great optically. Focusing is as bad as the $60 Canon, and well, optically they are almost the same except for bokeh. The 28-75 comes pretty close to Canons 24-70 in terms of quality, looking at other aspects it's pretty much mediocre to pretty good at best.

If you can live with that, then you will find it fine. They are definitely better then most of Canons lenses in the same price range.

Kenski

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:31

I have NO problems with Tamron at all Hell I just did a test with my Tamron 28-300 @ 200mm and F/5.6 and my Canon 70-200 @ 200mm and F/5.6 and let me tell you, at first glance, you couldn't tell, but when you start CROPPING and ZOOMING then you really can tell. But you are comparing a $1700 piece of glass to a $400 piece... BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Now, I was just debating on getting the Tamron 17-35 or the Canon 17-40L and what it came down to was the PRICE. The Canon is WWWWAAAAYYYY more money but I found a SWEEEET deal on a piece of L glass for $570 shipped. You damn right I'm going to jump on the L otherwise I would of taken the Tamron.... the Tamron was F/2.8-4 where as the Canon was just a fixed F/4. I like my Tamron 28-75 and it takes some GREAT pictures... Will I consider a Canon 27-70L in the future? If the price is right!!!

DocFrankenstein

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:40

PR: LOL @ your sig :D

If I had the money I would definitely get L or maybe even go switch to Contax, cause I don't crave sports autofocus that much.

I do not care much for the sharpness, but moreso for bokeh, lack of chromatic aberrations and maximum aperture... also total build of the lens is really important.

Unfortunately Canon's price tags on the lenses I like are out of my price range... and they are not as sturdy/well damped as german ones anyway...

So, I'll probably get a split circle in my 300D somehow and from there, build a collection of solid M42 pieces.

*Don't laugh if I get 17-40 next week though :D

Kenski

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:48

Huh, you think CANON'S prices are high???? Look at NIKON'S prices!!!!

Canuck

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 13:54

Kenski,
Wow, Canon has another lens, the 27-70, cool! :lol: :rolleyes: I think you are referring to the 24-70. That is an awesome lens!

Ok, I have a Sigma 120-300mm F2.8EX and Sigma 1.4x Looks good to me so far. I really like the beast lens! I've used it in England, Scotland, Wales, and up here in the great land.

Kenski

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 14:02

No way, didn't you hear about the 27-70 super L glass? yeah, it does flips and prints your pictures for you to!!!

DocFrankenstein

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 14:27

Huh, you think CANON'S prices are high???? Look at NIKON'S prices!!!! Metal mount 50mm prime. f/1.8 with 7 blades... which don't give you bad bokeh like the nifty fifty. 80 bucks.

Nikkor 50/1.4 is 240...

It's all pretty much the same. I just want an DSLR with a split screen and cheap manual focus primes from 20-30 years ago.

Kenski

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 15:13

Thats about the only one that is comparable.. Look at the other lenses... They are CRAZY expensive.

DocFrankenstein

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 15:22

35 f/1.4 is cheaper too

It all seems approximately the same... give or take...

WestFalcon

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 15:35

I have Canon lenses yet I've owned all brands. The photographer using them is much more important than the lens in my opinion. If you shoot at F8 or smaller, it is hard to tell an L from a lens like a 20-35 USM. I've compared them and was surprised that the difference was not greater(compared to a 17-40L). I love L glass but some of my best work is on Non L glass. I think glass is overated (I'm sure some people will get upset with that comment). The photographer is much more important than the glass.

eosster

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 15:42

No, I prefer camera brand if possible. Just me....

Kenski

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 16:07

You can have ALL THE BEST glass in the world and still take crappy pictures!!!

RichardtheSane

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 16:38

I prefer Canon lenses.

Quality is the key here. I have had 3rd party lenses that give excellent image quality, the most recent being the Tamron 28-75 - but I have always felt let down by the other things, mainly AF performance and build. It may only be a minor annoyance but the zoom ring on the 28-75 turns the opposite way to my canon lenses - just a little example.

I like consistency in my lens range which with an all Canon selection I currently have.

Another point, I am currently looking for a 28mm Prime. I considered the Sigma 28mm F1.8 but then checked out the Canon. The price is not significantly higher, but the filter size is 20mm less making the lens a lot smaller. That gets me thinking, what are Sigma doing with all the extra space?

Don't get me wrong, Sigma make good lenses - in fact I plan on owning one later in the year (500mm F4.5) but Canon make better lenses - and you pay for them.

blackviolet

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 17:32

You can have ALL THE BEST glass in the world and still take crappy pictures!!!how did you know? - oh you looked at my portfolio...

fwiw, i have been quite happy with sigma ex glass. sure it's not quite as good as L glass. they're not weather sealed, but they're nice and sharp. i had my 50-500 repaired (a screw holding the mount came loose) and they had it back to me in a few days, fixed and calibrated.

i have not tried tamron glass, although i have a tamron 1.4 sp extender which seems as sharp as my canon one. others here have given a few tamron lenses great marks.

oh, and canon also makes some really crap glass, too... there are a few and i'm sure lots of us have ended up with them :oops:

Kenski

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 19:32

how did you know? - oh you looked at my portfolio...

hehehe....

Nah, haven't looked at your portfolio.... I just got off my high horse when I posted that post with this guy that lives in my neighborhood who thinks he is PHOTOGRAPHER. I was out shooting a swan in our community pond with my 70-200 and 100-400 and here he comes with his NIKON set up... I have ran into him a few times, he gave me business card before and I visited his webpage before he moved in and let me tell you, he spends ALOT of money on his equipment and the pictures turn out like crap and then he does 8th grade photoshop skills to hide his shoddy pictures... REALLY bad... I let him have it today!!!I didn't even get any pictures worth keeping because I was so mad.... I left...

mikesd

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 20:01

As CyberDyneSystems stated some times Canon does not have a lens that meets someones specific purpose. I was looking for a new walkaround lens to use at work with a fairly wide range to replace a Canon 28-200 which wasnt a very good lens. After some research and wanting to stay in the same focal range I went with the Tokina 24-200mm because the reviews were pretty good and Canon did not offer anything else in the price range I wanted to be in. I might add that not a great lens, the Tokina does pretty good for a walkaround and the 24-200 range is quite handy. Forgot, I also bought the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 simply based on economics.

MDJAK

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 20:02

The comments regarding the photographer being more important than the glass is certainly not one I would ever argue with. Someone who knows what they're doing can probably take a better than I can with a Kodak Instamatic. I was merely posing the question to the cognescenti here whom I have the highest regard for.

I saw the wrestling coach tonight and he thanked me for the pictures I had delivered to him of the last match. Personally, I thought they sucked. He loved them. I told him I was very disappointed in the photos; but not to worry, I was sucking in all the knowledge I could on this forum and I was bound to get better.

MDJAK

3rd of January 2005 (Mon), 20:04

PR: LOL @ your sig :D

If I had the money I would definitely get L or maybe even go switch to Contax, cause I don't crave sports autofocus that much.

So, I'll probably get a split circle in my 300D somehow and from there, build a collection of solid M42 pieces.

*Don't laugh if I get 17-40 next week though :D
Hey, Doc, excuse my ignorance as I'm a beginner around here, but you're not talking about Contax and Canon together, are you? Contax glass goes with Contax body, no?