3rd Party Lens

I think between the Sig and the Canon 24-70, they are optically very similar. However, the canon has weather sealings, faster AF, quieter AF, and FTM.

If you need/want those differences and think it's worth the $700 or so price difference, then it's worth it. If not, then it's not. As for L's being actually tougher, I don't know. There is a difference between build feel and actual robustness.

yes those are the things I listed that I was buying the L for...reread my post its exactly what I said...

I was stating that image quality isn't the ONLY reason to buy L lenses, because there are some VERY tough competitiors as far as IQ goes.

Weather proofing is probably the biggest advantage of owning L glass. If I wasn't just a fair weather photographer I might spend the extra $$$. I often get the impression that people who have to have that red ring also have to have Anne Klein or Tommy Pullfinger labels on their clothes. Certainly not all L users, but definitely some.

Broncosaurus wrote in post #2099524
Weather proofing is probably the biggest advantage of owning L glass. If I wasn't just a fair weather photographer I might spend the extra $$$. I often get the impression that people who have to have that red ring also have to have Anne Klein or Tommy Pullfinger labels on their clothes. Certainly not all L users, but definitely some.

...
ok
...
well
...
Because someone has an L lens they have nice clothes?
...
I have L lenses to supply my clients with the best quality images that I can, but I deffiantly don't have enough money to go and blow on fancy clothes.
I'm not sure how buying L's applys to clothes but....it's a long shot.
I work at a photography studio...a fairly popular one and we do alot of weddings which demands me to have the best quality/durable lenses I can afford. I bought cheap at first. MISTAKE! now I'm rebuying my lenses in the L's -- Slowly -- ugh.

Tee Why wrote in post #2098276
Hate to tell you, but AF lens is not that high tech...

I won't spectulate just how "high tech" or not an AF lens is. I'm sure compared to some technologies it is "not that high tech". But, the way you present your opinion gives me the feeling you don't consider Canon's four-bit microprocessor that is part of every EF lens to be an important consideration when selecting a lens. They are not 'reverse engineered' as the third party chips are. All of my lenses are Canon brand because all things considered I think Canon's lenses are the best choice for a Canon camera. None of my filters are Canon brand because I think Heliopan and B+W filters are, all things considered, the best for my Canon lenses.

anglext wrote in post #2099576
...
ok
...
well
...
Because someone has an L lens they have nice clothes?
...
.

My point was that some people feel the label on a product is more important than the product itself.
It was an "Analogy."

You get what you pay for, pretty much. But Sigma and Tamron make good 3rd party(there are others but since these two are the most common).

They cost less than the Canon counterparts more often than not. There are some scafices but its not usually in IQ.

I love my Sigma 120-300mm f'/2.8. Nothing is going to match the price/quality for a 300 2.8 ish lens. I love the Canon 300 2.8, but on my college budget, just can't afford it. But the Sigma doesn't leave me losing a whole lot.

I owned a Sigma 105mm macro and Sigma 10-20mm.. Loved them both.
Sold the 105 for the Sigma 150mm macro, and the 10-20mm for the 17-40L, I thought 10mm was a bit to wide for me. I miss the 10-20 now though, I may just make it my next purchase.

jr_senator wrote in post #2099635
I won't spectulate just how "high tech" or not an AF lens is. I'm sure compared to some technologies it is "not that high tech". But, the way you present your opinion gives me the feeling you don't consider Canon's four-bit microprocessor that is part of every EF lens to be an important consideration when selecting a lens. They are not 'reverse engineered' as the third party chips are. All of my lenses are Canon brand because all things considered I think Canon's lenses are the best choice for a Canon camera. None of my filters are Canon brand because I think Heliopan and B+W filters are, all things considered, the best for my Canon lenses.

As far as I can tell, I can't see any benefits to the "four bit microprocessor" vs "reversed engineering" in the shots/prints. I press AF and the lens focuses (some faster than others), I select aperature, and I capture an image. I'm not interested in techology for tech sake. I'm interested in image quality. I cannot tell the difference in print/image quality of a shot made with Canon prograde lens and a comparable pro grade lens from another maker. And for me, that's where it counts, image quality.

I buy non Canon lenses for the same reason you buy non Canon filters because I think they are better, especially taking into consideration the money factor. Weather sealing is a moot point with me as I don't use a 1D body and if I really want to shoot in the rain, I'd get rain covers instead of hoping the sealings hold out. Even if money wasn't a factor for me, some lenses made by third parites are much better or not even offered by Canon. Such as
Sigma 8mm fisheye, Sigma 120-300 f2.8, Sigma 300-800, Sigma 50-150.

Sometimes I don't think the better body build and IS of a lens like Canon 17-55IS is worth a $600 over an optically similar Tamron 17-50. The list is endless, take the 24-70L vs Tamron 28-75, or the Tamron 90macro vs the Canon 100. Accroding to photozone.de and photo.net's tests, they conclude that the Tamron is slightly sharper. Another thing that bothers me is that Canon lens do not include a hood, unless you buy an L lens.

Lastly, I have bought my share of Canon lenses. Some are great value with great optics like a 50mm f1.8, 70-200, (all the variations), and few others.

My main and only point is that Brand name is only one of several factors that I take in to my purchase decision. I don't buy based on a brand name and I won't exclude a lens based on a brand name.

As my original post stated, lenses can't be generalized. You have to invest the time to research what type of a lens you want/need, then research what are out there, and then get the one that best fits your need.
I think buying brand X b/c it's brand X is silly and makes no sense.

anglext wrote in post #2099447
yes those are the things I listed that I was buying the L for...reread my post its exactly what I said...

I was stating that image quality isn't the ONLY reason to buy L lenses, because there are some VERY tough competitiors as far as IQ goes.

I agree and it's a personal decision, some want the features that a Canon or an L lens offers for the premium that it costs to get them. Others do not. For a working pro using the equipment on a daily basis, those extra features maybe worth it. To a weekend hobbiest? I'm not sure it's needed, more desired.

However, optically, the difference is not there and you cannot see them in prints. And to me, getting the best optical quality for the buck is more important than AF noise and what not.

anglext wrote in post #2098538
...you can drive a tank over most Ls...

Yep, and you can drop them off the top of the Empire State Building or into an active volcano if you wish, just damn sure not my 'L's or any other piece of gear I have.

do people think L's are indestructable. I remember seeing someone post pic of his 70-200 2.8 that got hit by a paintball and blew apart the front element.
So this mythical L you can drive over with a tank..Is it made out of a mythical metal called adamantium...LOL

Tee Why wrote in post #2099874
...to me, getting the best optical quality for the buck is more important than AF noise and what not.

Best value then would be a pin-hole camera, cost is well below $1 and the IQ for the buck (or 30 cents, in this case) is as good as it gets. And, as a bonus, no AF noise or what not.

jr_senator wrote in post #2100826
Best value then would be a pin-hole camera, cost is well below $1 and the IQ for the buck (or 30 cents, in this case) is as good as it gets. And, as a bonus, no AF noise or what not.

There is a differnce between bang for the bucks and the cheapest. Generally as you spend more, you get less return on a purchase. That's b/c higher end items, cars, camera, lenses, or whatever, have a higher profit margin built in. I hear Canon's pin hole lens is still costs $1000 and you have to buy your own hood as it's not included since it's not an L pin hole lens.

The cheapest way to photograph would be to just yank images for free off the interntet.

05Xrunner wrote in post #2100817
do people think L's are indestructable. I remember seeing someone post pic of his 70-200 2.8 that got hit by a paintball and blew apart the front element.
So this mythical L you can drive over with a tank..Is it made out of a mythical metal called adamantium...LOL

Actually I thought it just put a whole through the UV filter and then stopped on the front glass.