I have been a Canon only lens guy but recently dipped my toe in the third party lens pool and bought myself a very sharp used copy of the Sigma 85 1.4 and just received a copy of the Tamron 24-70 2.8 because I couldnt get myself to spend 2300 dollars on a lens without IS.....I am wondering how many people here use third party lenses or stick to Canon only?
jonbrach
I did almost the exact same thing you did and bought the sigma 85mm and the new tamron 24-70. Plus I purchased a good copy of the Nifty fifty to round out my kit nicely. All three of my current lenses cost me what the new Canon 24-70 would have, and this way I have two nice primes.
i am a bit of a lens nut...i like to try as many as i can and I have confined myself to canon glass up until now but I liked the sigma 85 1.4 enough to give the tamron a chance rather than spend 2300 on the new canon 24-70 so i sold my canon 24-105 and bought the tamron....i have had some problems with other sigma lenses though,I bought a 30 1.4 years ago that I disliked and I tried a 50 1.4 that wouldnt focus properly so it seems to be hit or miss...that said,so far i am happy with my 85 1.4 and the early verdict on the tamron seems positive!
I've actually never owned a canon L lens. When I had my canon kit before my best lens was a tamron 28-75, which I always loved. I jumped ship to a Hassy H2 Digital for awhile, and had the 80mm which was stellar. However, since I switched my kit again, I really love the sigma 85 and the new tamron. I really can't find any negatives about the Tamron as a general purpose lens, and the IS is wonderful.
I actually prefer Sigma over other 3rd party lenses, but then I have not tried a Zeiss yet (afraid to be addicted!)
I got 2 Sigma lenses which are either better than the corresponding Canon (50mm 1.4) or unique (150mm OS macro). I also have the Rokinon/Samyang 14mm which is again great value for money. Lastly, for the kicks I bought a Opteka 500mm mirror lens with its donut bokeh
I am considering getting a Tamron 24-70 VC but I love my 24-105 L way too much to do so now!
I've tried and/or used many different third party lenses. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 OS that easily betters the Canon v.1 and is "close enough" to the v.2. I also have a Rokinon 8mm fisheye, which is awesome, but manual focus. I'm looking forward to receiving a Sigma 24-70 that I recently acquired in exchange for a Sigma 10mm fish. At one time or another, I've also tried the Tamron 70-300 VC, Sigma 70-300 OS (though just because it came in a lot I picked up on ebay), Tamron 17-35 (nice alternative to the 17-40, a little slow focusing), Sigma 17-70 (ok), Tamron 70-200 (great optics, slowww focus), Tamron 180 (super), Sigma 150 (super), and Sigma 30 1.4 (nice, but not a focal length I loved on crop). All of them were pretty good bargains and no lemons... I love Canon's lenses, but don't feel any loyalty to them. The 3rd party lenses are often very fine, but occassionally sacrafice a bit here or there.
I use Canon zoom and prime lenses most frequently, but it's nice to have alternatives. Most of my "alts" are older manual focus lenses from Mamiya 645, Zeiss, Pentax, Leica, and etc. Generally, each Alt provides something unique, relative to each other and to the Canon lineup.
GC5 wrote:
I've tried and/or used many different third party lenses. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 OS that easily betters the Canon v.1 and is "close enough" to the v.2. I also have a Rokinon 8mm fisheye, which is awesome, but manual focus. I'm looking forward to receiving a Sigma 24-70 that I recently acquired in exchange for a Sigma 10mm fish. At one time or another, I've also tried the Tamron 70-300 VC, Sigma 70-300 OS (though just because it came in a lot I picked up on ebay), Tamron 17-35 (nice alternative to the 17-40, a little slow focusing), Sigma 17-70 (ok), Tamron 70-200 (great optics, slowww focus), Tamron 180 (super), Sigma 150 (super), and Sigma 30 1.4 (nice, but not a focal length I loved on crop). All of them were pretty good bargains and no lemons... I love Canon's lenses, but don't feel any loyalty to them. The 3rd party lenses are often very fine, but occassionally sacrafice a bit here or there. ...Show more →
I too have the lastest Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 with OS - I actually had the Canon 70-200 L Mk II alongside the Sigma for a week and I simply couldn't tell the difference between them in the resulting images - the Canon focused a tad quicker, but not $1,000 quicker and there was no real discernable difference in the final images - yes the canon was ever so slightly better, but only for the most crazed of pixel peepers. Much to my own surprise, I sent the Canon back. I have the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and its a little soft at f/1.4 but from f/2 it's awesome. I also have the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and its my bread and butter Real Estate lens. I used to be exclusively Canon, but the only Canon glass I have left is the 85 L mk ii and the 35L... Everything else is 3rd party.
My advice is try 'em out and get them from reputable places with liberal return policies (B&H, Adorama, e.g.) and see if they meet your needs... If not, send them back...
When I started with full frame (5D2) I found that Canon's best offering, especially on the wide end were either weak or too expensive. So I started buy the best MF lenses from Contax (now Zeiss versions) and Olympus. Perfect for landscape when carrying a bag of lenses was acceptable, but as I have progressed, I've switched to mostly Canon in the bag for various reasons.
I'll still pull out the Zeiss 35f2, Contax 21f2.8 and Contax 35-70 often to get the best results when doing landscape. Other times AF is a must for me, so I will always have a "mixed bag".
My Contax N 24-85 with AF is better in terms of IQ than my 24-105, but the Canon has better AF and includes IS, so each has their own purpose.
If you look at my profile, you'll see that a have way too much gear, but somehow I manage to use all of it on occassion.
I've usually had at least one third party lens in my assortment of lenses. While I've owned Sigma Macros in the past and liked them both for their sharpness as well as "bullet-proof" construction, I currently own a Tokina 100mm macro (also very sharp, built like a tank and reasonably priced) and a Tokina ATX 17-35 UWA. I've always preferred the Tokina UWA lenses and at one time owned both their 12-24 and 11-16.
I purchased a Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX in 2001. I now use it on my 7D. It is much sharper than the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and 100-400L. but not as good as my 85 1.8. Some say you shouldn't pixel peep a 7D at 100%, but the Sigma is still sharp here, while the Tamron and 100-400 are getting a bit soft.
In film days I was also impressed by a Sigma 90mm macro and a Tokina 24mm prime.
Lenses vary, and while I obsess a bit over sharpness it is not the only consideration. My 100-400L is the softest of the lenses I regularly use, but it's still plenty sharp for big (20x30inch) wildlife pictures on my wall and I still think of all the lenses I've bought it has brought me the most satisfying images I've taken.
Sigma has some ambitious, interesting lens designs. I'll consider them if Canon is weak in that particular range. The 70-200 OS? A fine lens, but I wouldn't bother, ever. Not when the 70-200/2.8L IS I is available. The 12-24/4.5-5.6? Technically not as strong, but absolutely unique and worth a look. Same with Tamron's 24-70.
Sigma's problem (that may be shared with other third-party makes) is that their quality control is questionable. I thought the original 10-20mm was a great lens, easily Canon's equal, on my 40D. Except that all four copies I tried were decentered, two of them severely. Canon's 10-22 was 50% more costly and both copies were more consistent than Sigma's best. The result is that I won't buy from a store without a liberal return policy, and I've very reluctant to roll the dice with used copies. Perhaps for this reason, many third party lenses tend not to hold their value well on the used market.
Chris B. wrote:
II currently own a Tokina 100mm macro (also very sharp, built like a tank and reasonably priced) and a Tokina ATX 17-35 UWA. I've always preferred the Tokina UWA lenses and at one time owned both their 12-24 and 11-16.
I haven't heard any first hand account on Tokina 17-35, what has been your experience so far?
