Newbie to Canon dSLRs, Question Regarding 3rd Party Lenses

I know Canon L series lenses are top notch, but they also come with a heavy price tag. What are the main reasons that people would prefer a Canon L lens over a 3rd party equivalent. After researching the Sigma lens, it's hard to find a bad thing about it.

Lens in question. Sigma 35mm 1.4

Review comparing both lenses.
http://www.certainpoin​tofview.com …4-vs-canon-35mm-1-4l.html

Sigma price at B&H. $899
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …01_35mm_f_1_4_D​G_HSM.html

Canon price at B&H. $1,479
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2_Wide_Angle_EF​_35mm.html

There are already more than 1 billion threads about this...

Let me start this by stating that I just do photography for fun. I do enter some contests, but I don't do any paid work. I spent a fair amount of money on some L-lenses. In my opinion, they are not worth the price, UNLESS, and this is huge, they are the only option for doing what you want to do.

I had a 135L and 200 2.8L and let both of them go for a Sigma 70-200 zoom. I am happy with the lens, the photos I get from it, and the $800 I put back in my pocket. My mid-range zooms are the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 15-85. I could cover that range, more or less with the 24-70 II, which costs more than twice what I paid for them both.

I kept my 100-400L because there are few other options that don't cost as much. There is the Sigma 120-400, but I went with the Canon. I tried non-L primes for awhile. I don't do anything that requires an f/1.n aperture. I don't care for the razor thin DOF. Therefore, I have little need for L-primes. Heck, the only prime I have left is the EFS 60mm f/2.8, for obvious reasons.

As mentioned, if you need something only an L-lens can do, and you can afford it, buy it. I really want an EF 24mm f/1.4L II. There are NO alternatives. I have bought the 24 2.8 IS twice, and returned it twice. It just isn't fast enough. In this case I need an "L", so I will have to pay for it. Later.

With all of that out of the way, if I could afford it my kit would be: 5DIII, 24L II, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 500 f/4L II. I think that would be most shooter's kit, if money weren't an object. Short of my dog pooping a sack-full of Bennies (that meant something entirely different 40 years ago) I don't see it happening.

LostArk wrote in post #16466850
There are already more than 1 billion threads about this...

I counted them. There are 1,283,732,225,946 related threads. So yes, you are correct. Feel free to NOT believe this.

AF is the main reason, and this is relevant for fast F1.4 lenses. I have the Sigma 50 F2.8 macro and the Tokina 35F2.8 macro. There are no comparable lenses on the Canon line. I have never read of problems with macro lenses by Sigma or other brands working properly on Canon bodies.
I would hesitate to go for a Sigma zoom or F1.4 lens, given earlier reports of AF difficulties. The jury is still out on the new Art series, but the lenses in this line seem to be doing better.

Some people just don't like 3rd party lenses.

The AF on 3rd party lenses might not be as fast as Canon lenses, but on a normal copy (we aren't talking about lemons, which grow on both sides of the fence) it will be just as accurate, and as, or very nearly as consistent.
I have the Sigma 35, and have zero complaints about AF, and am very happy with its IQ. It is one of my favourite lenses (the rest of my lenses are Canon, and 3 are L's).
3rd party lenses do tend to have a slightly higher rate of problems than Canon's own lenses in the AF area, but the Sigma 35 is doing better in this regard than its predecessors, and Sigma has released a USB dock which allows you to mitigate most issues if you are so unlucky as to have them.

just wait till the 35L mark II comes out

if you are a pro and rely heavily on Canon's pro services for repairs, you might be strongly inclined to stick with Canon lens to go with your Canon bodies.

Another measurement: take a good long look at the resale values of lens on Craigslist and keh.com. That'll tell you what most people perceive as relative worth. It'll be very important to you if you get into the practice of buying and selling lens a lot.

If you don't know for sure why you need a Canon L lens, you probably don't need a Canon L lens.

And I'm not just being smug. For a pro using a lens daily where there is little room for minor mistakes, you just want the best of the best. Sometimes you are paying 2-3 times a 3rd party lens price for something marginal like AF that locks 1/4 second faster, or locks faster in lower light, or makes 1/4 fewer AF lock errors. Others may want the weather sealing that comes with most of them. Or they may lean on CPS to maintain them. Or they may work in environments that may be bad for other lenses. Other times, it can be just a personal preference. A bit sharper than another lens at a certain aperture, a bit closer focusing, etc.

It really just comes down to what you want. Canon makes some great lenses. They also make some not-so-great lenses. Some 3rd party companies make terrific lenses as well. And some not-so-terrific. It really comes down to the individual lens and what it is that you want that lens to do. Sometimes there is no 3rd party equivalent. Sometimes there is no Canon equivalent to a 3rd party (Sigma 120-300 f2.8 and 16-35 f1.8 for example). The entire art of photography revolves around managing trade-offs. Each lens choice is just such a choice. Do I spend $x on one canon lens or 2 different sigma lenses?

Just starting out, you are probably best to go with the 3rd parties. Stick with Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. Don't worry if you think you may want something else instead. I assure you that you will likely change no matter what you get. There is a good and healthy used lens market and buying lenses is not as scary as you might assume. I advise you to buy used lenses so that you eat the least amount of depreciation possible since you are likely to go to something else no matter what you get.

One other thing. Some people like to bash Sigma for "AF problems". The problems are seriously exaggerated, largely because of one particular lens - the 30mm f1.4. All lenses have a certain percentage that come out of the box with problems. The SIgma 30mm f1.4 has a higher number than most. Dealing with it is usually just a matter of returning it for another copy. But that lens causes many to assume that all Sigma lenses have AF problems. I've had plenty of Sigma lenses over the years and all have been fantastic.

3rd party lenses are junk. Buy Canon.

(can't beat em join em)

LostArk wrote in post #16466850
There are already more than 1 billion threads about this...

+infinity. search is your friend

Heya,

Biggest issues in my experience so far, is the amount of problems with autofocus with Sigmas, on Canon systems.

But at the end of the day, I don't need `L' glass. You will find a lot of non-L glass that is considered as optically good as L glass. You don't always need L glass to have excellent optics. For me, I look more to the red ring for it's weather seal properties than I do optics, because frankly, they're not night & day different in my book (for my needs and level).

Very best,

Thanks everyone for their insight. It's has helped me understand the reasons why people would prefer Canon lenses over a 3rd party equivalent. I totally understand why people would pay top dollar for the absolute best quality and performance.

I also did not know that L lenses are weather sealed, I'm still new to this.

The statement about how some people just don't like 3rd party accessories makes perfect sense as well. I am that way when it comes to some Apple products.

Even some of the Canon non-L lenses are pretty nice.

Plenty of happy users of third party lenses...half of my lenses are not Canon brand!

One thing I have noticed is, for whatever reason, there seems to be considerably larger volume of folks expressing front/back focus issues with their Sigma lenses, vs. virtually no complaints about same from Tokina and Tamron users. Some folks have even said they had to send their Sigmas in 2-3 times before finally getting it back in proper focus.

Of course, this will elicit a ton of comments about "I have never had a problem..."

I will not venture to know if the issue is statistics..."Maybe 97% of Sigma owners have no problem, but 3% do."
Or if the issue is relative business volume..."Everyone has 1% failure rate, but Sigma sells 3x as many lenses as Brand X and Y combined"
Or maybe a bit of both. But the fact that so much is focus related is not a statistical issue, merely a problem area.