Are "off brand" lenses just as good as Canon Lenses?

I often read about people being pleased with their Sigma and Tamron Lenses so I was wondering if they are on par with lenses from Canon or are they inferior? Are Canon lenses really better than ones from Sigma and Tamron or are we just paying more for the name?

Depends on what third party lens(es) you're considering and which Canons you're comparing them to.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2264697
Depends on what third party lens(es) you're considering and which Canons you're comparing them to.

\

Well, are there any third party lenses that are on par with canon L lenses? Say the 24-70 2.8?

cali wrote in post #2264716
\

Well, are there any third party lenses that are on par with canon L lenses? Say the 24-70 2.8?

L are top of the line and almost always better anything a third party manufacturer comes out with. If not for actual image quality then built, focusing accuracy, speed, quietness, etc.

Ls are priced pretty high. Third party are cheaper. That meanst third party has to cut corners somewhere. Usually the first places they slice are build quality and/or focusing. They'll either make it less durable, or they'll eliminate a version of Canon's USM (UltraSonic Motor) or leave off Image Stablization. Sigma is big on not adding HSM (their own take on USM) to lenses that would be real L killers if they added it and/or IS.

The problem is, if they did add IS and/or their own type of USM, then the price would be right up there with the L and it would be a no brainer to just go with the L in the first place.

As for the Sigma you mentioned, there are a lot of threads that compare it directly with the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-70L, many with image samples.

cali wrote in post #2264690
I often read about people being pleased with their Sigma and Tamron Lenses so I was wondering if they are on par with lenses from Canon or are they inferior? Are Canon lenses really better than ones from Sigma and Tamron or are we just paying more for the name?

no they're not. some folks would like to believe they are but they are not.

third party lenses are generally cheaper tho and some perform very well especially when you factor in cost.

also, there are some third party lenses offered in lengths not made by canon.

whether the upper end canon lenses are worth the price is subject to debate but canon does make the best lenses for canon cameras.

ed rader

IMO they can be matched for performance per dollar, but not as an overall package. The L's seem to have all the right boxes ticked (well most of them).

cali wrote in post #2264716
\

Well, are there any third party lenses that are on par with canon L lenses? Say the 24-70 2.8?

Image quality/price, yes. Tamron and Sigma's specifically(since it has a 24-70 2.8) both can deliever image quality.

The full package? No. Build quality, AF speed, low light ability. However, either the Sigma or Tamron will offer good alternatives. If you stay with 1.6 cropped cameras, Tamron offers a 17-50 which gives you wider 2.8 at a good price. Sigma has a 17-70 but then it is not a constant aperture(2.8-4.5).

3rd parties still do a lot. The midrange/traditional walkaround zoom area is one focal length , in which 3rd parties do fairly well.

I doubt most people could see the IQ difference across any range of decent lenses from any brand. My experience is that when differences are there they are very small and only notable via peeping at 100% crops on screen. Pay your money and take your choice. A better question is whether there is a difference between a shooter who has imagination, a good eye for composition and who understands the craft of photography and one who doesn't ... the images each will produce will be hugely different and transcend any gear differendces by far.

cdi-ink.com wrote in post #2264741
L are top of the line and almost always better anything a third party manufacturer comes out with. If not for actual image quality then built, focusing accuracy, speed, quietness, etc.

Ls are priced pretty high. Third party are cheaper. That meanst third party has to cut corners somewhere. Usually the first places they slice are build quality and/or focusing. They'll either make it less durable, or they'll eliminate a version of Canon's USM (UltraSonic Motor) or leave off Image Stablization. Sigma is big on not adding HSM (their own take on USM) to lenses that would be real L killers if they added it and/or IS.

The problem is, if they did add IS and/or their own type of USM, then the price would be right up there with the L and it would be a no brainer to just go with the L in the first place.

As for the Sigma you mentioned, there are a lot of threads that compare it directly with the Tamron 28-75 and Canon 24-70L, many with image samples.

i dont think that's necessarily true...

if you compare between the sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM with the canon 70-200/2.8 L...the price difference is still quite large. i would also think similar between the sigma 30/1.4 vs the canon 35/1.4L.

the addition of OS/HSM wouldnt make sigma as comparably expensive IMO...

Rookie here. (Me) Probably there are, and probably some better, but for me it is Canon. I have seen the resell value and how fast they sell used, so Canon seems to be my choice unless there was a lens out there so spectacular, and so much of a savings that I just couldn't resist.

unix04 wrote in post #2265181
i dont think that's necessarily true...

if you compare between the sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM with the canon 70-200/2.8 L...the price difference is still quite large. i would also think similar between the sigma 30/1.4 vs the canon 35/1.4L.

the addition of OS/HSM wouldnt make sigma as comparably expensive IMO...

Well, the 70-200 2.8 has HSM, and its priced more closely with Canon's 70-200 2.8(although its been discontinued sadly). Sigma's 24-70 would be priced higher if it actually had the HSM in it, which it should(have in it).

The biggest problem with the Sigma 30mm 1.4, is it only works on 1.6 cropped cameras. I'd own it if that were not the case. Everything else on it makes it sparkle except for that fact.

cali wrote in post #2264716
\

Well, are there any third party lenses that are on par with canon L lenses? Say the 24-70 2.8?

What about the 300 f/2.8L or 300 f/4LIS

RgB wrote in post #2265195
What about the 300 f/2.8L or 300 f/4LIS

Sigma 120-300 2.8, Sigma 100-300 4. No IS, but on par.

I thought the Siggy 70-200 2.8 was priced more closely with Canon's 70-200 f4.

Sigma 300 f2.8

NordieBoy wrote in post #2265205
I thought the Siggy 70-200 2.8 was priced more closely with Canon's 70-200 f4.

Sigma 300 f2.8

In U.S. it sort of is in between. A little higher and a little lower.

http://www.pricegrabbe​r.com …3878/sort_type=​bottomline


THe lowest price is about 811(new with standard shipping).

Still a damn good price for a lens with HSM and 2.8.