Independent lenses- why no coverage here?

[iamacamera]

I'm a little perplexed that- although there re plenty of questions and comments on here about the lenses that Canon manufacture themselves, there is practically nothing about 3rd party lenses to fit EOS cameras! As there seems to be general acknowledgement that Canon lenses span everything from the superlative to the 'on the wallop' consumer optic, it can't be an issue of quality alone! Even if this were the case, manufacturers such as Sigma and Vivitar can surely give Canon a run for their money?

 

<p>

 

As a long-standing FD user, relatively new to the autofocus scene, I'm simply hoping for a wider scope in the lens comments.

 

<p>

 

My next priority is a 19-35mm lens, or something like... any suggestions- whether Canon-made or not?

 

<p>

 

Thanks for your attention JIM

[rob_d]

One reason is most people here stay away from 3rd party Lens's

nothing like getting the lens using it haveing it fall apart though

not as often now 3rd party quailty seems to be coming up.

 

<p>

 

But the #1 issue is when Canon releases the newest latest and greatest

Low and behold usually the 3rd party Lens wont function on the new

body Sigma and Tokina are bad about this.

 

<p>

 

Rob

[jim_strutz]

I've had a few cheap Sigmas & fairly good one that didn't work with

newer Canon bodies, so future compatibility is a issue.

 

<p>

 

I've also has some very good Sigmas and they can be very good for the

money. And the EX series Sigmas have all passed the test on the

newest Canon bodies.

 

<p>

 

As far as afordable wide zooms go, I'll give you three options.

Vivitar/Cosina/Phoenix (same lens) 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 is cheaply made

with a fair amount of slop in the focus ring, but is reasonably sharp

and makes nice picures. It has some of the typical distortion of

cheap wide zooms. That and the Tokina 19-35 are about the best buys

at the low end & in my opinion you get more than you pay for. The

same for the 100mm f/3.5 Macro Vivitar/Cosina/Phoenix. Cheap junk

that takes good pictures & is reliable in spite of the cheesy feel.

 

<p>

 

The next step up is the Canon 20-35 USM. A very good lens that is a

bit sharper & straighter, feels better & focuses quicker for over

twice the money. It's the only one of my recommendations that offers

FTM.

 

<p>

 

For just a bit more money the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 HSM is wider, at

least as sharp & fairly distortion free. It focuses quick & quiet

but does not have FTM. In my opinion 17mm is just barely adequate

for a wide lens so unless I have a 14mm in my bag this is the only

one I would consider. Most people think 20mm is plenty wide though.

[bobatkins]

Well, this is really an extension of the Canon FAQ files which deal

with CANON equipment only.

 

<p>

 

Though many Canon EOS users do use 3rd party lenses, I think most

experienced Canon EOS owners have come to the conclusion that unless

you are on a VERY tight budget, you'll end up with a lot fewer

problems if you stick to Canon lenses. The canon body-lens interface

is notorious for causing problems with older 3rd party lenses every

time a new body comes out!

 

<p>

 

I'm sure there must be a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Vivitar forums somewhere

that deal with 3rd party lenses - optically speaking it really doesn't

matter much what camera you mount them on.

[steven_fisher1]

Sigma is updating their older lenses to work with the Elan 7 for

free, which I thought was pretty nice. Had this done on my Sigma

24mm, frankly a better lens than Canon's. Without the update the

lens wouldn't stop down on the Elan 7.

[nico_smit1]

Jim

 

<p>

 

I guess every serious photographer initially must first go the 3rd

party route themselves to discover that it is better to stay away from

them, more so with AF cameras. Apparently the slightly lower prices

of the 3rd party lenses are too good to ignore. I use to fall into

that trap myself until I discovered the hard way that in photography

you get what you pay for. It is an expensive lesson, having lost a

lot of money selling my 3rd lenses to replace it with Canon lenses.

So much for "saving money by buying a 3rd party lens that is just as

good but cost less". Even though Sigma will update their lenses for

free to work on a new EOS body it is of little condolence to me. Just

the trouble of having to send a lens away and be without it for

several weeks was enough encouragement to get rid of my last Sigma

lens (relief). I friend of mine just bought an EOS 3 and only two of

the 5 lenses he own worked on the camera. Only one Sigma lens worked

(100 macro) and the other was a Canon lens. Three of the Sigma lenses

did not function properly (18-35, 70-300 and 170-500). Another friend

of mine experience a similar problem with his new Minolta. Since he

only owned Sigma lenses he was without his lenses for several weeks.

It is not only a matter of compatibility, but I have yet to see a

3rd party lens in EOS mount that is better in terms of build quality,

optical performance, focusing speed and handling than the equivalent

Canon lens. In the end it is your choice and your money. I know what

I will do.

[steven_fisher1]

The Sigma 24mm I have was replaced with a newer (and looks even

better) better version. But even my now-older version focuses closer,

uses metal construction (not a big deal to me), rates higher on

photodo, and is 30-50 percent cheaper than Canon's. I wouldn't want

Canon's even if it were the same price, because of the 1:4 macro

ability. The Sigma front element doesn't rotate, not sure about

Canon's.

 

<p>

 

Sigma's new 24mm almost a stop faster, focuses closer still (1:2.7),

has 3 more aperature blades than Canon's, and is still less expensive

than Canon. Too bad it uses a 77mm filter. =)

 

<p>

 

Third party lenses shouldn't be automatically ruled out, despite

Canon's attempts to make sure you don't buy them. My apologies to

Bob if he feels this doesn't belong in the EOS FAQ group.

[julian_loke3]

Bob Atkins wrote:

<TABLE>

<TR>

<TD BGCOLOR=grey> </TD>

<TD><I><SMALL>I'm sure there must be a

Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Vivitar forums

somewhere that deal with 3rd party lenses - optically speaking

it really

doesn't matter much what camera you mount them

on.</SMALL></I></TD>

</TR>

</TABLE>

<P>

When choosing a lens for my <A

href=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/elan7e>Elan

7E</A>, I learned that Canon bodies need electronics for the aperture

mechanism

and focus motor to function. The links were particularly useful:

<UL>

<LI>

<A

href=http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/>http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/

third/</A>

<LI>

<A

href=http://www.kyphoto.com/thirdparty/>http://www.kyphoto.com/thirdpa

rty/</A>

<LI>

<A href=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sigma-

Lenses>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sigma-Lenses</A>

</UL>

<P>

Cheers

[jimstrutz]

nico said, "I have yet to see a 3rd party lens in EOS mount that is

better in terms of build quality, optical performance, focusing speed

and handling than the equivalent Canon lens"

 

<p>

 

Steven Fisher seems to think otherwise, at least concerning the Sigma

28mm lens he owns.

 

<p>

 

I haven't actually used any Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc. lens that

were truelly better than Canon, but I have used several third party

lenses that were built very well, perhaps as good as the Canon and

had optics that were the equal to the Canon equivalent. And they did

it for considerably less than the price of the Canon. That's a

compelling reason to buy third party glass.

 

<p>

 

In this field you don't often get more than you pay for, but

sometimes you pay for more than you get. If nothing else, third

party manufacturers keep the big guys reasonably competitive.

 

<p>

 

To me, future compatibility is the real reason for sticking to Canon

lenses. But I buy & sell used lenses and equipment all the time on

online auctions & other places, so if I end up with a third party

lens that is incompatible with a new camera, I sell it to someone

with an older body & buy something else. Since I buy nearly

everything used, on average, I don't loose anything more than the

shipping costs. And the fact that third party lenses don't retain as

much of their initial value is irrelevant.

 

<p>

 

But I still use nearly all Canon lenses.

[jim_trickett]

Lots of Jims around here, huh?

 

<p>

 

Anyway, in answer to your wide angle zoom question, may I

suggest looking around for a used Canon 20-35/2.8 L. I just

picked one up (in Japan, in near mint condition) for around $550

US, which here is the same price as a new Canon consumer

zoom with the same range. It was ever-so-slightly more

expensive than comparable 3rd party offerings, but it's a Canon L

lens! Just my two bits...

 

<p>

 

Jim

[koot_marais1]

Nico (16 June) referred to me with regrads to the compatability

problem with the Sigmas and my EOS 3. While Sigma definitely has a

problem with compatability and focus speed is normally a problem, and

yes, the L-lenses are in a different class, one must compare apples

with apples. I am not convinced that the Canon consumer lenses are

optically better than the 3rd party lenses. I recently got hold of a

28-90mm Canon, and I have yet to find a Sigma lens as flimsy as this

lens. Canon can probably compete price wise with these types of

lenses, but is it worthwhile in the long run? Shouldn't their policy

be that Canon lenses may be somewhat more expensive, but quality will

never be compromised?

[Marc453]

I have a Sigma 70~300 APO and a Sigma $00 APO. Both of these lenses

work well with my EOS-3 and the build quality is pretty good. Of

course I have several Canon lenses and these are a notch or two above

the Sigmas. Still the Sigmas hold their own. I would buy them again

and I would also consider the new Tamron 28~200mm Super and even the

newer Tamron lenses. Most working photographers who own their own

equipment probably has a major manufacturer camera body or two and at

least one third party lens in their camera kit. If you can afford

Canon, go get it. If you need it now and don't have enough nickels

and dimes, take a shot at a Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.

[theoldman]

My reasons for buying Canon for my Canon are simple: I am not a professional and i don't keep up with all the spiderweb info of what will fit what, but i know if i stick with the Canon store downtown everything will work together just fine and if the occasion arises where i have any complaints they'll make it right without any hassle or waiting on my part. On the other hand, my friends tell me that Tamron and a couple other firms make great after-market lenses for the Elan-7. A few days ago a dealer wanted to sell me a 1.4 extender for my Elan-7 and he claimed it would work just fine, AF and everything... But i found out later he didn't quite know for sure, and it would not have worked anyway. I don't get any guessing-games from my Canon dealer, and sticking with Canon for my Canon is my way of taking the easy way out. ;)