Do you have to buy Canon lenses?

[crowl31]

I am looking at all the lens out there and I see the Sigma and Tamrons that cost A LOT LESS then the Canon lenes.

Does anyone have any feed back on the non Canon brands?

 

[(Ghastly) Krueger]

I haven't used either, but I understand from this forum and some reviews that some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses are on par or above the Canon equivalents, but you have to go case by case analyzing each alternative.

You cannot say all Sigmas or Tamrons are good... like you cannot say aevery Canon is excelent.

 

[cameramike]

i have a sigma 70-300 and love it. Sigmas and Tamrons can be just as good as the canons and some say they are better. Some say they aren't, really hard to say. The price difference is usually because of the fact that its CANON and they have a big name, while sigma is not as famous they don't believe in having to over charge.

 

[Big Mike]

Most brands have gems in their line up...and also some dogs. Canon makes some of the best lenses available, but also so pretty crappy ones.
Sigma & Tamron also have very good lenses and some pretty bad ones as well. So you have to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

At the top of the range, most will tell you that Canon's lenses are the best (for Canon cameras). The L series lenses are very very good...but you will pay a lot for them.
You can get lenses with very similar specs, from Sigma or Tamron, but at a price that is often half that of the Canon.
Specs don't often show image quality (or build quality) so there is the difference.

Just how much better the Canon lens's are...is up for debate. It might be 5% better or it might be 40% better. You have to decide for yourself, whether or not that extra bit of image (and often build) quality is worth double or triple the price. For some people, it is. For many, it's not.

So to sum up...you can get very good lenses from off-brand companies, at pretty good prices...but if you want the 'best' tool for the job...stick with top of the line lenses (and pay a lot for them).

 

[leila]

I'm not sure. I use all canon lenses. my old photography teacher told us that Sigma and Tamron do not make their lenses for either Canon or Nikon and therefore you will not get the same quality pictures as with a lens specifically designed for the equipment. It made sense at the time. I definitely want a quality lens.

 

[Rhys]

I generally find (having been a photographer first with film SLRs and now with digital SLRs for a total of around 25 years) that manufacturer's own lenses are a lot better than independent lenses. Others may disagree but my experience has proven to me many times over that Nikon lenses are the best for Nikon cameras and Canon lenses are the best for Canon cameras. I have tried independents and found them sorely lacking. Vivitar was about the worst I'd tried followed by Miranda. Sigma was OK when I used a 600mm mirror lens but nobody can get a mirror lens wrong! Tamron was not that great aside from the 135mm AD2. I don't like my 17-35 Tamron or my 28-75 Tamron. I really detested my 70-300 Tamron. With Canon the only bad lens I have had is the kit lens and even that wasn't so bad - used within its limitations.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm not sure. I use all canon lenses. my old photography teacher told us that Sigma and Tamron do not make their lenses for either Canon or Nikon and therefore you will not get the same quality pictures as with a lens specifically designed for the equipment. It made sense at the time. I definitely want a quality lens.

Not entirely true. They do make lenses to fit the canon and Nikon cameras. What is at issue is that Nikon and Canon do not release their propreitery design specs to off-brand manufacturers. What Sigma has done is reverse engineer their lenses to work with other manufacturers AF. There are some issues with third party lenses not working perfectly with certain cameras, Sigmas in particular. A chip swap is usually in order to correct this. So I've heard. Quality wise, you generally pay for what you get. The premium lenses are rather expensive compared to lesser quality glass. As Big Mike stated, all brands offer gems and dogs, so you do need to compare comparable lenses. Consider price range, build quality and image quality as the base standard. You really cannot comapre a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 L to a Sigma 24-70 EX DG. Both are their respective manufacturers top lenses, but in no way in the same ball park.

 

[Kawi_T]

Most brands have gems in their line up...and also some dogs. Canon makes some of the best lenses available, but also so pretty crappy ones.
Sigma & Tamron also have very good lenses and some pretty bad ones as well. So you have to make sure that you are comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

At the top of the range, most will tell you that Canon's lenses are the best (for Canon cameras). The L series lenses are very very good...but you will pay a lot for them.
You can get lenses with very similar specs, from Sigma or Tamron, but at a price that is often half that of the Canon.
Specs don't often show image quality (or build quality) so there is the difference.

Just how much better the Canon lens's are...is up for debate. It might be 5% better or it might be 40% better. You have to decide for yourself, whether or not that extra bit of image (and often build) quality is worth double or triple the price. For some people, it is. For many, it's not.

So to sum up...you can get very good lenses from off-brand companies, at pretty good prices...but if you want the 'best' tool for the job...stick with top of the line lenses (and pay a lot for them).

You mention that the lens may be 5% better or maybe 40% better. It seems like you kinda threw that out there to say it might be a little better or a lot better. My question is, is there a quantitative way to analyze these lenses in a percent fashion like this?

 

[usayit]

I've met a few pros both on the Nikon and Canon side of the fence that shoot almost exclusively with Sigma lenses. On the other hand, I have no idea if they chose Sigma over Canon for sponsorship or as a personal choice.

 

[That One Guy]

i have a couple of sigmas. pretty good lenses. like all brands they have good and bad.

 

[skipper34]

Like has been said, there are good ones and not so good ones in all brands, Canon and Nikon included. I have Sigma and Tamrons which are outstanding as far as image quality, but are lacking somewhat in build quality compared to some of my Canon lenses. Truth be known, images taken with my best Canon and my best Sigma cannot be distinguished from each other without a trained eye. This means that my customers don't really care which lens is used, as long as they get their images. I do find however that the 3rd party lenses do not auto-focus nearly as fast as my Canon lenses, all things being equal. This in itself is ample reason to stay with the lenses from the manufacturer.

 

[Big Mike]

You mention that the lens may be 5% better or maybe 40% better. It seems like you kinda threw that out there to say it might be a little better or a lot better. My question is, is there a quantitative way to analyze these lenses in a percent fashion like this?

I did sort of throw that out there. There are plenty of actual tests and numbers that do try to quantify lens performance...I'm not into all that. I go by what I see and what I hear from other photographers.

I have heard many 'old school' photographers say that they don't like off-brand lenses. That's understandable...off brand lenses haven't really been all that good until the last decade or so...from what I can tell. But now, companies like Sigma and Tamron really do have quality products and very competitive prices.

 

[Alex_B]

Do you have to buy Canon lenses?

Not if someone buys them for you :lmao:









sorry, could not resist.

Of course there are other brands, and it really depends on the lens, some off brands lenses are rather good, some canon lenses are not so good (or at least not so good value for money).

 

[jwiebe]

Buy the best you can afford. Lenses before body is the old saying. this site has helped me a lot. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

 

[JerryPH]

I'm not sure. I use all canon lenses. my old photography teacher told us that Sigma and Tamron do not make their lenses for either Canon or Nikon and therefore you will not get the same quality pictures as with a lens specifically designed for the equipment.

Thats true... there are lenses that some make that are BETTER than what Canon or Nikon make... the Sigma 18-50 HSM comes to mind rather fast. 1/3rd the price of the Nikkor and sharper plus it has macro to boot!

Take each lens on an individual basis. Sometimes the OEMs make the better lens, other times 3rd party ones are better AND cheaper. Find out what kind of lens you want and do the research.