Brandname or NOT?

[armandventer]

<p>Hi there, I have a Canon EOS 1000D camera, I want to know one thing at this stage; is there a major diffirence in Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses with the same specifications? Is there a better or just a cheaper option to the original Canon lenses?</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Well, if you want to make a broad generalization, then a Canon lens will be the best lens for a Canon camera. However, many third party lenses are very good and perhaps even better than their more expensive counterpart. On top of that, even if the Canon lens is superior, will you (or more to the point will the person paying you) notice the difference? Typically, third party lenses don't have the same quality control and it's easier to get a "bad" copy. Not that you can't get a bad copy of a Canon lens, just more unlikely. To make another broad generalization, third party lenses typically don't focus quite as fast as their counterpart lens. But I would look at this on a lens-by-lens, waht lens you need, basis.</p>

[henrik_lauridsen]

<p>One major difference is that a Canon EF lens will also fit on future Canon EF mount cameras. Tamron, Sigma and others all use reverse engineering in order to build their lenses, so there is a risk that they will not work on future Canon bodies.<br>

Overall you pretty much get what you pay for. I have a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and are quite happy about it. Is it as good as the the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS? Probably not (first of all, no IS), but then again the Canon costs twice as much.<br>

Also, in some cases the 3rd party manufactors have lenses in their array, that Canon do not supply. For example the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that many use as a normal lens on crop cameras such as your 1000D, or the Sigma Bigma (50-500mm).<br>

I think the best advise I can give is that you check the reviews on photozone.de as well as searching through the archives here before buying. And, even before that - familiarize yourself with the lens that came with the camera and get to know your shooting preferences before you spend a fortune on glass.</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Tamron, Sigma and others all use reverse engineering in order to build their lenses, so there is a risk that they will not work on future Canon bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I know, only SigMa does this. All others do license the EOS protocol.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a better or just a cheaper option to the original Canon lenses?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Both. But it all depends on which Canon and third-party lenses you compare. There are huge differences between Canon lenses alone, so you need to clarify this issue. In general, third party manufacturer aim to be better than a specific Canon lens with their own equivalent gear -- most of the times they only try to be cheaper (sometimes sacrificing a little image quality here, or build quality there...), but often they offer a better focal length range, improved build quality or even better optics (i.e., Tokina's super-wide zooms). In technological features (USM, FTM, IS...) or when it comes to prime lenses Canon is usually the best choice.</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>The Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 is an example of a third party lens that is a cheaper option, but also a lens that is second to none as far as IQ and build. </p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>right, it depends.....Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 Ex APO IF HSM is great and I'm glad I bought it over the much more expensive Canon offering. And the reviews I see on <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com">www.fredmiranda.com</a> say the same thing. However Sigma's 24-70 f/2.8 sucks. I finally broke down and bought Canon's version....Canon's version is soooooooooooooo much better in almost every respect. Those are just two examples I personally know of.....hearsay says the Tamron 90mm Di macro is awesome.</p>

<p>and although there are mixed opinions about Sigma's 20mm f/1.8....which I think is pretty damn good....Canon don't make one that fast, and their 20mm f/2.8 that they do offer ain't that great itself</p>

<p>so....it depends</p>

[tdigi]

<p>My experience with lenses is you get what you pay for one way or another. Its not all about the end result photo. Mechanically, cheaper lenses often hunt or miss focus or the colors are off a bit. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>there is a risk that they will not work on future Canon bodies</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While it is true that reverse engineering can sometimes fail to duplicate the original as completely as one might hope, I haven't heard of problems with anyone but Sigma so far. Does anyone know of an actual case, not for some "friend", but for themselves? Back in the old days, Sigma offered "re-chipping" (putting new electronic chips in the older lenses). This has happened so long ago, that you would have to be digging up some really ancient Sigmas on fleaBay to run into the problem.</p>

<p>And of course, Canon wouldn't purposely design new cameras so their competition wouldn't work on them? Would they? So, yeah, there's always the chance of something, but I think that if it were found out that Canon were playing games with EOS, like certain large software companies, the user outcry would really hurt them, so...</p>

<p>Look at tests on Photozone.de and here on P.net, you'll find that while you don't always get <em>what</em> you pay for, you rarely get <em>more</em> than you pay for. This is true within brands as well as between them. All that being said, those tests show that there are some very fine third-party optics out there that often perform just as well as their Canon counterparts.</p>

[peter_dalton]

<p>There is a lot of good information at lensrentals.com. They obviously have a lot of experience with different lenses. There is this one ...<br>

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.05.17/lens-repair-data-30</p>

<p>... and no mention of Sigma would be complete without this one ......</p>

<p>http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga</p>

<p>Personally I have bought two Tamrons which are fine. The only two lenses I have had to return were Canons.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>Third party companies have economies of scale that indvidual manufactures don't have, so they can make some decent lenses on a par with the manufacturers own offerings, at a lesser cost because they can adapt the back focus and mount to various systems and so access a bigger pool of users.<br>

I think for this reason canon has lead the way with things like a variety of TS-e and self integrated MP-E lenses. A professional who needs such a system has one option: buy canon.<br>

That said, I am all for third party manufacturers who offer things that the big companies won't for the price, a case in point is the bigma 50-500. Mine has performed well, but then as it's my own lens its stored properly, carried properly and used properly. Although I read the findings of the hire company with interest, and having administrated a hire store for students, folk don't look after it they way they would if it was their own.<br>

A few nonL canon lenses were mentioned there, such as the 50 f1.4 etc. Now it's not unreasonable that folk should subject their kit to heavy use, but are these lenses that have been designed for professional use? Day in day out? In all weather etc?<br>

Certainly the EF-S lenses weren't. If it's L it should take L, (the exception being my precious 24mm f3.5)</p>

[c jensen]

<p>As others have said it depends. My experience with the following lenses has been great:<br>

Tokina 11-16<br>

Tokina 100 macro<br>

Sigma 50 macro<br>

Sigma 50 f1.4<br>

In particular the last lens listed in my view is better than the Canon 50 1.4 based on my experience. One other consideration - the peripheral illumination correction feature on the 50D and the 5D mark ii will not work with third party lenses. Not sure how much this would matter to you; the world survived without this feature for a long time.</p>

[zafar1]

<p>Another example of a superb third party lens that I use is Tamron 28-300VC. The VC on this is so good that as I press my shutter button half way the world simply stops moving. I can easily handhold till 1/3 second and can get decent shots at 1/2. I have used most of Canon's IS and Nikon's VR lenses. The tamron VC beats all of them hands down.</p>

<p>Tamron also makes the superb 28-75. Tokina's 11-16 f/2.8 and Sigma's 12-24 are unmatched in the industry.</p>

<p>Like everyone else, I would also suggest looking at lenses on a case-by-case basis. Canon's 100mm is excellent and is priced about the same as competition (these days it is short so opportunists have jacked up the prices).</p>

<p> </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Although some third party lenses are on par with the original manufacturers lenses, you have to pick and choose which are the those lenses, meaning you have to do allot of research. For peace of mind, and to avoid paranoia (and this my own personal experience), I would rather stick with the manufacturer's lenses, even if I have to cough up the extra cash. </p>