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

There is a sense of deja vu about these discussions

There are 3rd party lenses that can 'win' against Canon lenses - but depends on the parameter and how much value you place on it. For example, the 24-70Canon can probably be matched in IQ by a Tammy 28-75 or Sigma 24-70 - but the build quality is much better in the Canon. Both these lenses would beat a lot of lower quality Canon lenses hands down.

It finally comes down to what is most important to you - IQ, AF speed, low light AF, build and ability to handle rough use, weather sealing, assured match with future canon bodies etc etc. - all balanced with the typically lower price of a 3rd party lens.

A lot of us with limited budgets tend to mix and match - going for value. A lot of pros are happy only with the best there is.

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

Here in the USA the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 is $889 from B&H. The Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS is $1095 after rebate. Not much of a difference. The Canon 70-200 f/4, on the other hand, is $545 after rebate.

Ahh, rebates.
We don't get much of them.

2nd hand 70-200 f4 L's go for about $560US

NordieBoy wrote in post #2265242
Ahh, rebates.
We don't get much of them.

2nd hand 70-200 f4 L's go for about $560US

I didn't pay much more than that without a rebate last year. It was about $1150-$1250 from Normancamera.com I believe. I did take advantage of the rebates then too though, so the gap narrowed so it was kind of a no-brainer. Already spending, why not go for the OEM.

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 single answer to that question - you have to judge it lens by lens, e.g. the sigma 14mm is said to better the canon but the Canon 15mm isa cracker (for a 180 AOV)

Whichever lens you're going for research that individual lens

Also the resale value of a canon might be higher bu5 as someone rcentlt pointed out to me you could still lose more than by buying a third party lens and reselling it because it was so much cheaper i the first place

Only solution is to research each lens one at a time

I love my Zeiss glass, and would openly welcome some Leitz also =)

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?

Like most aspects of photography, lens brands and quality are very subjective...what one person considers to be high quality might not measure up to someone else's standards. Sigma and Tamron do make good quality lenses that will provide years of satisfactory service for most all users.

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?

I'd say that the third party lenses can equal Canon on image quality, but build and focus speed is where they fall a bit short. But that depends on which lenses you compare.

IMHO it's all about the laws of diminishing returns. I do not believe that you can beat a high end Canon lens on a Canon camera. I think the L lenses are probably (even though I've never shot with one) worth the money for "pros". With the support you get and durability/build/featu​res I think that professionals could typically be better off with Canon lenses.

As for me, well I'm an amateur who loves taking pictures. My camera does not make me any money and only costs me money so for me buying the comparable 3rd party lens (i.e. my Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX) vs the Canon (in this case the 24-70 f2.8L) makes more financial sense. Is the Canon lens better? More than likely it beats the Sigma on many fronts. But for me, could I tell the difference? Most likely not, or not consistently enough to make it worth the money.

Short answer - you can't beat the company that makes the camera for lenses that work with it in my opinion, but you can get awfully close

Some lenses by some third parties approach Canon's quality on the higher end but none truly match it. The wide open IQ, build quality and AF are hard to match on the L lenses. Show me one third party that makes a weathersealed lens - there aren't any.

Depends on what you're looking for. Third party lenses represent good value and are on par with Canon's low to mid-range lenses and even give some L lenses a run for their money.

IMO, if you want the best and don't mind spending some money - the L lenses are where it's truly at.