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)
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
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
Sep 12, 2012 at 02:08 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10956151 « Third party lenses?how many use them? »
