3rd party lenses build quality?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>I want to buy a 3rd party macro lens which I can pick up on eBay for less than $350 new or in EXC+ condition. Does build quality influence your decision when buying lenses? I can't afford Canon's older 100/2.8 so I'm looking at alternatives and I'm soliciting your opinions.</p>

[peter_c5]

Many years ago when I had an Olympus system I had a couple of non-Olympus lenses (Kiron). I was perfectly happy with

them till I updated my camera from an OM2 to an OM4. Suddenly they no longer worked, and I had to get rid of them. So

my answer would be that compatibility rather than build quality might be a greater concern - especially in these all-

electronic days.

 

Actually, when using a macro lens one is usually working carefully and slowly - at least I am - so I'm dubious build quality

would be a major issue. However, another issue could be the ergonomics: if the focusing is in the opposite direction to

your other lenses you'll be forever fumbling.

 

Have you looked at the older Canon 50mm macro? It only goes to half life size, but a used one should be less than the

100mm.

[colin carron]

<p>Build quality, for me, is not a huge issue with third party lenses as all the 3rd party lenses I have used have been at least 'acceptable' if not 'good' build quality. I assume any lens you bought would be for normal amateur use. It would help to know which lens you are contemplating buying. Sigma lenses are usuaully very solidly built but just occasionally older ones can suffer from electronic incompatibility with newer Canon bodies. I would make sure compatibilty is not a problem with any older Sigma lens - i.e. does the lens work OK on the seller's Canon camera body?<br /> Tamron are acceptable quality if sometimes a bit plasticky compared to Canon. Both are usually good optically but especially with second hand you are always taking a bit of a chance.<br /> Something I would look for (and avoid!) in a macro lens is whether the lens remains the same length while focusing. In some older 3rd party macro lenses the front element extends out when focusing closer. That is a real pain in macro photography.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Yes, it does. I had a pair of Sigma lenses in the 1990's for my first Canon SLRs that were frankly terrible. The 70-200 enjoyed poor quality images. The mid-range zoom physically unravelled. I'm sure not all 3rd party lenses- or even Sigma lenses- are like that but its affected what I did subsequently and even now I wouldn't think about 3rd party lenses rather than the Canon L zooms I now use. Its just a question of risk minimisation for me.</p>

[SCL]

<p>For me build quality (think technical tolerances) is important, especially in macro lenses where I'm looking for not only butter smooth movement but also extremely precise movement with no backlash or "wiggle" room. If you were talking Canon FD I could easily give you a handful of excellent choices, but EOS is a different animal. Have you given consideration to using a modest macro lens and bellows?</p>

[Aoresteen]

I have lots of 3rd party lenses.

All my Sigmas are good but They

are all primes not zooms. I have

a few zooms but they were reviwed

by Modern Photography and were

rated excelent. I just bought a

Sigma 16mm fisheye for my OM-2

(dates to around 1980) and it is

a highly rated lens. I have the

Sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Sigma 60mm

1.4 in Four Thirds and I am

pleased with them. I research

them then decide if I should buy

them or pass.

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Hi Mark,</p>

<p>I have the Sigma 70/2.8 macro, which goes to 1:1 without an extension tube or life-size adapter, and I think it's build quality is very good, at least as good the best built non-L EF primes. And the best part is that it's sharper than the Canon 100/2.8 macros.</p>

<p>Sigma also makes a highly rated 105/2.8, which is also sharper than the Canons. You should be able to clean used find copies of both of these lenses within your budget.</p>

[browncam]

<p>You do not say which 3rd party manufacturer you are considering. Sigma and Tamron make good quality lenses. I have a Sigma 180 F3.5 macro which has preformed flawlessly. I bought it new. You have to be careful buying used equipment. Make sure the seller has a 100% satisfaction rating and take into consideration why it is being sold. </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>I now have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 manual focus macro lens. It goes to 1:1. The mechanical and optical properties are at least as good if not better than my old Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro lens.</p>

<p>The Tamron lens was made in the mid-nineties just before they came out with their auto focus version. It is the Adaptall version which means I can use it on over 30 different SLR and DSLR cameras I have in my collection.</p>

<p> </p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Marc B., how have you adapted the Tamron lens to a Canon EOS body? With the Adaptall mount there is more than one way to do it.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Ed,</p>

<p>I have an Adaptall mount directly to my EOS body. I also have one for Canon FD, one for Olympus, one for Nikon, one for screw mount, one for Minolta, one for Mamiya, and one for Konica. I bought most of these from KEH.</p>

<p>Most of these are from Tamron. I did try an off brand with focus confirmation but didn't like the hassle.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>Thanks; the original Tamron EOS mount is scarce so I will have to make do with a third party one. I have the 90mm lens with Olympus OM mount, and I tried using an OM-to-EOS adaptor. But although the adaptor works well with real Olympus lenses, it wouldn't stop down properly with the Adaptall OM mount.</p>