Just Canon, mainly for build quality and fix speed (should I need it - and I have this year) although on the whole performance is fantastic, especially in the primes.
However, I'm picky about which lenses I get and avoid the problem ones.
I have no problem using 3rd party lenses. Some have been excellent and Canon don't always provide an option (such as the Sigma 30mm and 120-300 f2.8), others have been a good alternative due to the price point (Tamron 17-50, Sigma 50 f1.4 and 70-200 f2.8), and others have been pretty disappointing (Tamron 28-75) and felt\performed like the cheaper alternative they are.
In general Canon will provide a lens that is the top performer with a price point to match. Until I can justify those prices there are alternatives that meet my budget and perform close to the Canon variants. Paying for that last 10% of performance is expensive!
I use a Canon EF 50/1.4 and EF 28-135 IS USM sometimes, lets say less than 5% of the time.
The rest 95% "alternative" manual lenses are on my Canon EOS DSLR camera bodys, for example:
And Canon EF lenses are extreme expensive - or not the build quality I like to use.
The Canon FD counterparts to the EF L lenses cost the half price - or less for some of the longer lenses.
Canon EF lenses my be nearly perfect - but this is somtimes really boring. The cheap old manual Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 for example has a bad IQ - but this gives very special images. Images that I can not produce with any of the Canon EF lenses!
And these images are some of my best images.
I have (had) several Sigmas. Mostly they don't perform as good as their Canon counterparts, but the Canon counterparts are sometimes several times as expensive, but not as several times better!
Now I have:
- Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 DC and 17-70 DC Macro. Nice lenses, for the price. The latter saved me from buying some macro lens for closeups.
- Sigma 15-30 DG - no Canon equivalent, makes a great and cheap UWA for my APS-H camera
- Sigma 24/1.8 DG - great "poor man's 24L" with insane MFD of about 3 cm.
I've had 24-70 DG Macro, it was great "poor man's 24-70L". And while I have 24-70L now, I miss the nice star-shaped lightsources produced by its octagonal aperture.
jonbrach wrote:
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?
It just depends where you are asking - here is a big majority of members only pushing for Canon gear. Even I have mostly Canon lenses, I have a couple of Sigma lenses (105/2.8 macro, 10-20, 28-300), and a Peleng fisheye lens. Sigma makes excellent lenses, especially macro and some wide angle lenses. Don't believe all the horrible decentering stories here, I think it is very exaggerated.
I am fully with you in regard to your decision to go for the Tamron 24-70 IS. I would never go for the new Canon 24-70 II - I even have the extreme opinion it should not have been released to the market in this form and for the current price, it is a big joke IMO. I will surely hold on to my 24-70 I version instead.
retrofocus wrote:
Don't believe all the horrible decentering stories here, I think it is very exaggerated.
Is that so? I still have the test shots from all of my decentered lenses. If you spent any time on Lens Rentals, LensTip, Photozone, DigiLloyd, The Digital Picture or a shop that dealt with more than a handful of copies at once, you'd have greater awareness of just how common this issue is. In your particular case, it looks like you're shooting a number of full-frame lenses on a crop body. Optical problems are much less apparent when you're throwing away 2/3 of the frame.
I have a few Zeiss ZE lenses now, and I've also used some of the Cosina-Voightlander lenses in Canon mount, which were also pretty good.
I gave up on the third-rate brands like Sigma and Tamron a long time ago - too much money down the drain for shoddy products that never failed to disappoint.
jonbrach wrote:
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?
have used tamron 28-75 and 17-50, great lenses for APS-C (the 28-75 is ok for FF too, not perfect, but neither are the 24-70 I or 24-105 and tamron was actually a bit sharper at edges than the 24-105, didn't compare it carefully to 24-70 I though); actually sold off 17-40L after trying tamron 17-50 2.8; both those tamrons were sharper than the EF 24 and 28m lenses too
the tamron 17-50 is really an utterly first class lens, a true L beater, on aps-c, it simply beats the 17-40L although costing less
the tamron 70-300 vc is amazing for the price (although certaily the 70-300L is better, no question at all, but again huge price difference, that said I went with the L in this case)
tamron 70-200 2.8 is very good optically but the AF is no good for this type of lens where one often wants fast ai servo AF so it's really only for the long landscape shooter who also needs f/2.8 for some static stuff; sigma 70-200 2.8 are quite sharp although not 70-200 f/4 IS or 2.8 IS II sharp and have less reliable AF IMO but reasonably fast
some say the new sigma 16-50 OS is good
sigma 120-300 is a bargain way to get 300 2.8, that said, at least the older non OS version, surely wasn't as good as the 300 2.8 IS in a way at all
some say the sigma 100-300 f/4 is good but so few have used it and i don't know much about those who say it's great
some of the sigma macro are supposed to be good
the new tamron 24-70 vc sounds pretty good (although the 3 spots of glue thing sounds a bit worrisome) and probably the best until the new 24-70 ii arrived
i have heard lots of nasty stories about sigma needing re-chipping though and people have some disasters when trying to use them on 5D3/1DX, etc.
for the most part i guess i don't think they are as good as the canon lenses, but the savings can be huge and, in the tamron 17-50 2.8 case and maybe even sigma 16-50 OS case, on aps-c, i think they actually beat the L
oh and of course for extension tubes, kenko's newest version is a lot less than the canon, a lot, lot less, gives you more tubes and they are well chipped and air is air
oh and some of the zeiss such as the 21mm are pretty amazing from what i have seen (otoh some seem to be no better and yet cost a lot more and have no af)
oh the samyang 14mm is crazy sharp and low on CA (but very crazy distortion) for a wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy lower price than the canon
alexdi wrote:
Is that so? I still have the test shots from all of my decentered lenses. If you spent any time on Lens Rentals, LensTip, Photozone, DigiLloyd, The Digital Picture or a shop that dealt with more than a handful of copies at once, you'd have greater awareness of just how common this issue is. In your particular case, it looks like you're shooting a number of full-frame lenses on a crop body. Optical problems are much less apparent when you're throwing away 2/3 of the frame.
The only crop-format lens in my Sigma line is the 10-22. I switched to full frame over 3 years ago. I have never had any issue with my lenses in regard to decentering including the Sigma lenses. Several of the sites you mention above are very centered towards Canon gear and review accordingly....
retrofocus wrote:
Several of the sites you mention above are very centered towards Canon gear and review accordingly....
And which sites are those? The ones posting crops straight from the camera? Please point out the bias. If your view doesn't mesh with reality, perhaps it's time to change your view instead of assuming a conspiracy.
alexdi wrote:
And which sites are those? The ones posting crops straight from the camera? Please point out the bias. If your view doesn't mesh with reality, perhaps it's time to change your view instead of assuming a conspiracy.
Here's Llloyd on OEM lenses that have been defective right out of the box. There's no reason to believe the third parties do any better.
I think Photozone is valid - they get lenses loaned for testing from consumers and purchase some directly in stores. No association with brands whatsoever. I can't speak for the Digiloyd site since free access is restricted.
Learn a bit more about statistics and you will understand that for everything which is produced are a few outliers. QC is done that this number is under a low limit no matter which brand it is.
I have a very sharp copy of the Tamron 28-75, and a Sigma 150mm F/2.8 Macro. Both these lenses are excellent. I'm sometimes tempted to get a Canon 24-70 F/2.8, but I cure myself by looking at images from the Tamron.
I do have a couple of L lenses, but in these focal lengths/function these lenses do me just fine.
QC is done that this number is under a low limit no matter which brand it is.
Which lens maker do you work for? Because if you don't, you have no idea what you're talking about. As to the sourcing of lens, what difference? Are you proposing that a website with a close association with the manufacturer would have access to cherry-picked lenses? Wouldn't it be then all the more egregious to discover that they performed poorly?
Here's LensRentals testing Canon's 24-70/2.8L Mark I. Perhaps with your fine statistics background, you can tell me the number of samples for a given statistical significance. He's tested about a hundred. Is that enough for you?
from my perspective I wanted IS on a 24-70 and would have paid the price had canon delivered it as part of the new lens.That said,when I read the review about the tamron on the lensrental site that detailed it being sharper than version 1 of the canon 24-70 as well as having IS for 1000 dollars less than the new canon i decided to take the plunge on the tamron...i had the original canon 24-70 and liked it other than the weight so my thought was if the tamron is as good with IS it made sense......so far so good
I have the Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS II and the Tamron 70-300 VC lens and haven't had a problem with either one. With a little PP work I can't tell image from one taken with the best L lens. Before I had the Sigma 50-500 for Olympus and loved it.
Third party builders have upped their game the last two or three years. Don't think any of them will ever march Canon L lenses but for the price and a little PP work they do just as well for me.
