3rd Party Lens

Exactly. More than that - "general" generalizations work pretty bad. Take the specific focal length or a range of them and then see what lenses are out there. For example - there are Canon 24-70mm f2.8L, Sigma 24-70 f2.8, Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and Tokina 28-80 f2.8 - all covering the same range more or less. The best zoom (regardless of price) is probably Canon, but if you take the price into your equation - suddently these 3rd party zoom start to look much better. I can only add that I use the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 almost 4 years and I'm extremely happy with this lens.

The same approach goes for all other kind of lenses.

shutterbug6500 wrote in post #2096396
Glad to hear that you like your Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens because that's the one that I just ordered! It's supposed to come tomorrow. Makes me feel better!

Shutterbug,

The Sigma 30MM f/1.4 is just super I bought it to complement my 17-55MM EF-S IS fpr weddings and other group events. It is a sharp low light specialist and wide enough for groups indoors. I was using my Canon 50MM f/1.4 but found it a little long to suit my needs...so it has been moved to portrait duty

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #2091257
I don't think you can beat the build of Canon lenses, but that's just my personal opinion.

Have you had the chance to hold an AT-X Pro Tokina? I'd say no different than L-quality build. Tokina's consumer lenses are probably the best built consumer lenses on the market. It' just too bad they have such a small selection.

To answer the question, as many already have: Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all have excellent lenses that compare very well or are in their own league against Canon lenses. Some of their lenses aren't so good.

Off the top of my head, some good of each:

Sigma: 30 f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8, 10-20, 100-300 f/4, 120-300 f/2.8, macros
Tamron: 17-50 f/2.8, 28-75 f/2.8, 90mm macro
Tokina: 12-24 f/4, 80-400 (for a consumer lens, it's excellent), 100mm macro.

BTW, I wonder how many that only buy Canon lenses, only buy Canon filters as well.
I'd be interested in knowing why they don't put a Canon filter on a Canon lens, if the logic is to put only Canon lenses on a Canon body.

... or to put a Canon body with a Canon lens in the Canon bag

Jman13 wrote in post #2097238
Have you had the chance to hold an AT-X Pro Tokina? I'd say no different than L-quality build. Tokina's consumer lenses are probably the best built consumer lenses on the market. It' just too bad they have such a small selection.

To answer the question, as many already have: Sigma, Tamron and Tokina all have excellent lenses that compare very well or are in their own league against Canon lenses. Some of their lenses aren't so good.

Off the top of my head, some good of each:

Sigma: 30 f/1.4, 24-70 f/2.8, 10-20, 100-300 f/4, 120-300 f/2.8, macros
Tamron: 17-50 f/2.8, 28-75 f/2.8, 90mm macro
Tokina: 12-24 f/4, 80-400 (for a consumer lens, it's excellent), 100mm macro.

Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is an excellent lens also.

You can also add the Bigma (Sigma 50-500), pretty sharp at all focal lengths.

Olegis wrote in post #2097347
... or to put a Canon body with a Canon lens in the Canon bag

Don't forget the straps as well.

I also painted all my Canon lens caps "L" red, so now my pictures are sharper.

Tee Why wrote in post #2097528
I also painted all my Canon lens caps "L" red, so now my pictures are sharper.

Copycat.

Tee Why wrote in post #2097282
BTW, I wonder how many that only buy Canon lenses, only buy Canon filters as well.
I'd be interested in knowing why they don't put a Canon filter on a Canon lens, if the logic is to put only Canon lenses on a Canon body.

Come on man, surely you don't compare the relationship between a camera and lens with all the info that electronically and digitally transfers between them with a filter? Big, big difference.

jr_senator wrote in post #2097933
Come on man, surely you don't compare the relationship between a camera and lens with all the info that electronically and digitally transfers between them with a filter? Big, big difference.

A crappy filter can have just as big of an impact on picture quality as a cheap lens can.


Having said that, I adore both of my Sigmas

jr_senator wrote in post #2097933
Come on man, surely you don't compare the relationship between a camera and lens with all the info that electronically and digitally transfers between them with a filter? Big, big difference.

Hate to tell you, but AF lens is not that high tech. May the IS is, but the contact basically control AF and aperature and relay information about setting for the EXIF. A filter can make more of a difference than a different lens in some cases such as a polarizer or a warming filter. My point is that buying a Canon accessory simply b/c it's a Canon is a silly idea.

I recommend researching your purchase based on it's merits, taking into consideration of the maker as one of a few factors.

The Canon UV filters are actually crappy, made by other makers if I remember correctly, BTW.

Are we talking strickly IQ?
Because alot of the reason I'm upgrading my Sigma 24-70 2.8 to the L is because of things other than the IQ (AF, {speed & usm} Build, {you can drive a tank over most Ls} and right now Rebates {can't beat $100 off}) and I'm also upgrading my 70-200 f/4 to the 2.8 because of the extra stop of light you NEED at weddings/sporting events.