Canon or 3rd party?

I was wondering how many members make an effort to buy only Canon brand lenses? For example, I decide what kind of lens (focal length, speed, et) I want and then aim to get the Canon without considering 3rd party lenses. I'm not saying that if the Canon brand lens is well out of my $$$ reach or if they do not make something close to what I want; that I would not look to 3rd party lenses. I would and I have done so in the past. Just wondering who sort of looks at it as I do and who looks at all options but not just because of $$$, in other words, looks for a feature the Canon lens may not have, for example. Who bases their decision mostly on $$$?

I base my decisions mainly on the quality of the lens. And since I use mostly primes, my setup is primarily Canon. None of my lenses were over $700 retail, but I think I still have a decent kit. I try very hard not to make impulse purchases any more, preferring instead to thoroughly research and save for specific lenses such as the Canon 20OL I just acquired. I'd been waiting for that one for about 6 months. My next big purchase is going to take a lot more saving, though, and it's a third party lens, namely the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 zoom. It's nearly 3 times as costly as my most expensive Canon lens. When putting together your kit, research and patience is the key. I've made a couple of impulse buys in the past and still regret it.

I would favour them slightly, all my Canon lenses are great, but so are my non-Canon lenses. If the cost of the Canon was a little more i'd get it, if it were a lot more i'd get another brand. I have Tamron and Tokina lenses which are excellent.

For me, it would depend on the range.

For instance, i'd defintely favor Canons 70-200 IS over any other. And 16-35 over anything else. Other than that, it's up for grabs in anything else.

LIke that Sigma 120-300 2.8(soon, I think).

I don't like to compromise. I try to get the best available even if it means saving for a long time or putting it on a no interest credit card. That's why I only have 5 lenses.

The first non kit lens I bought was the nifty fifty because it was recommended as a cheap sharp lens. I got it when I got my first dSLR back in June '05 - before I knew anything about anything. I probably would have opted for the 50 f/1.4 had I known about USM, sharpness, aperture performance, etc.

My second non-kit lens was Bigma, about a month or so after I was sure that I wanted to stick with dSLRs and not go back to a superzoom. I don't consider it a compromise lens, although it was purchased on a whim. Nothing else gives you that much range at that quality level (it's damn good IMO). It's in a class by itself. Yeah it's a bit slow but I've still shot night-time stadium soccer and football for the newspaper with it.

My 2 most recent lenses are both Ls. Arguably the best of the best in their range. I had a wedding to shoot and it was my first ever. I didn't want to try to use the kit lens as I didn't trust its AF - and stopping down to f/8 is out of the question in a banquet room. I bit the bullet and bought both the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 70-200 f/2.8L to match up with it. I didn't have a fast telephoto at the time, so I this one despite falling inside Bigma's range. The 70-200 is my little firecracker while Bigma is my tank. The 24-70 stays on one body all the time now. I rarely tough the kit lens anymore...only when I need that extra 6mm.

So after all that rambling, I'll finish by saying I usually think about my purchases but I avoid compromise where I can and just go for the best anyway.

yeah, this is how I feel too.

Interesting question, and I've enjoyed reading the responses so far. I don't make an effort to buy only Canon, but I do tend to lean toward Canon. Price is always a factor, and with every purchase, I must consider whether having a Canon lens is worth the extra money. If a third party lens appears to be comparable in performance but a better value, I'll usually go with it.

I'd be more inclined to get 3rd party primes than zooms, because (individual idiosyncracy) I prefer to have all my lenses function the same, and the Sigma and Tamron zooms I've used zoom backwards from Canons. That said, I'm not likely to trade my Sigma 15-30 for the Canon 16-35 solely for that reason. If I do make the jump, the constant f/2.8 and FTM will have more to do with it than the zoom direction. Since I'm usually using AF, the direction of focus isn't as important, and that's about the only thing that would affect primes. OTOH, my lens list is as heavily Canon-biased as it is because of features on the Canon lenses that aren't available from the others, in addition to consistency of operation. IS is a biggie. FTM is a very-nice-to-have. Max. aperture plays a big part in decisions. Combined, these all give Canon an edge in the decision-making process.

I still chuckle when I think about when I made that same statement in this forum and got the reply that Canon has it backwards, not Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. No kidding.

Sometimes, getting the focal length you need at a price you can afford precludes Canon. The results may not be quite as good, so can you live with it? In most cases, the answer is yes. Few people use their lenses at anywhere near their optical limits, other than to play measurement games looking at actual pixels on a computer monitor. For most people, the size print they can make while maintaining a particular quality is more limited by their sensor (or film) and by their technique than by their lens.

For example, my Canon 10D will not take EF-S lenses, and I wouldn't buy them even if it did because I will someday add a camera with a full-frame sensor to my kit. But I still wanted a very strong wide-angle lens of about 40% of normal. Only Sigma's 12-24 zoom lens made that possible at the time that I bought it (and it's still the only one that even attempts to cover the full frame). Given that my preferred compositions need the close camera position and wide field of view provided by a lens that wide, the Sigma is excellent for me whether or not the image is sharper or less sharp in absolute terms compared with any other lens. If it was so bad that the images, despite the coverage, were unusable, then I'd have to forego those sorts of images with the 10D. But the Sigma is actually more than good enough.

Sigma EX lenses fit in the space between Canon L-series lenses and Canon's mid-range lenses. But that means little in practice. Most of Canon's mid-range lenses produce outstanding results on the prints most people make when used carefully within their limits.

If there are two lenses of similar application available, one Canon and one something else, and both are affordable, I'll go with the Canon lens, just to make sure the electronics remain compatible with future cameras without issue. Canon usually sets the standard for lenses in the EF mount, so if money is no object that is usually the safest bet. But Canon doesn't fill every niche, and some of their lenses are unaffordable even by the wealthy.

Rick "who chooses lenses on the basis of needs they satisfy" Denney

Not from me, you didn't. IIRC this all dates back to Canon and Nikon having started out "cloning" different German cameras in the old RF days. Nikons work like Contax while Canons work like Leicas. Aperture, focussing directrion, and they stayed with the trends in choosing zoom directions, too.

I buy the best lens for the money I want to spend and frankly, these days, brand or even mount are irrelevant. If I can get very good results by spending little cash then I will. Of course, best is a loaded term and everyone has a set of specific and personal criteria that, for them at a certain point in time, defines best.

To be honest most of the consumer zooms that Canon make are not worth looking at, full stop, because the competition have better IQ, are cheaper, or, usually, both. However, if a definition of best is increased chance of future compatibility then one would only look at the Canon option: other criteria would be secondary.

Another part of the calculation is ones own criteria as to what makes a good shot. If sharpness and colour saturation are what you mostly want then maybe you'll only be happy with a Canon L. If you're more interested in composition and emotion and whatever defines a 'good eye' then those things are much less important, tho' still very nice to have. Most of the really great shots across the decades have been taken without Canon L's ... tho' that's a guess.

There is no right answer to any of this stuff, but I'm always right for me.

Wondered how long it would take for this thread to drag you put of the woodwork Dave!