So whats people's beef with third party lenses?

[ksmattfish]

It depends on the individual photographer as to what features are important. Maybe I can't tell the difference between Sigma/Tamron AF vs Canon L AF because 99% of my subjects aren't moving real fast. Sports and action photogs may feel quite differently. I don't care that the AF on my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 is circa 1990's, because I always manual focus at those focal lengths anyway.

A feature that is very important to me is size and weight. I'm carrying several cameras for 8+ hours at a time, and I notice the difference between the Canon L 24-70 f/2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 by the end of a day of shooting. Lighter and smaller are positive features for my shooting.

 

[Garbz]

That way if you started with a Nikon body, but chose to switch to Canon, you could simply replace the lens mounts on your third party lenses and off you go.
Seems to me that would be a good selling feature for those lenses.

And the chip and electronics inside each lens. By that time you are probably half way to the cost of the new lens again. This may have sounded like a good idea way back when, but the modern lens has as much electrical design in it as it does optical design. These electronics are also jammed in very hard to reach places in side. I would hate to have to try and get at them.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I use Leica R lenses on my Canon EF mounts via adaptors.

 

[anubis404]

Well, I have a Sigma EX lens and it is plenty sharp and built very strong. The AF is less than impressive (my 50mm F1.8 is faster), but fast AF is a want and not a need for me.

So people feel that Canon/Nikon lenses are more reliable than the third party lenses? Personally, I wouldn't trade my Sigma 18-50 F2.8 for a Nikon 17-55 even if it was free (well, yes I would. But I would just sell the Nikon and buy a Sigma). The Sigma is built like a rock, is plenty sharp, as 1:3 macro capabilities, and most importantly is light. Especially when carrying lenses around for long periods of time, it is nice to have a lighter lens.

 

[Joves]

I have no problem with third party myself. Though I only own one the rest is Nikkor. I have Tamrons 28-300 which is a great walking around lens but, it is very slow compared to my Nikkors. It is even slower than my 80-400VR, which is pretty slow to me.

 

[jlykins]

I have owned both Nikkor and Tamron. I have shot with Tonkina. Specificly the 11-16. I love my Tamron lenses. I have the 17-50 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. They are both great lenses and I wouldn't think twice about buying them again. I have shot all day with both without an ounce of trouble. As far as optical quality, I don't see a difference. There are a few key features that the Nikkor has that I prefer. For example, the Nikkor has a built in clutch system for the auto focus, the Tamron doesn't. You have to switch the AF/MF switch on the lens or the body to switch it. I prefer the clutch, but for an extra $800 I'll flip the switch...

 

[table1349]

The only thing important in a lens purchase for me is that the lens be the very best for the job at hand. Not just today by over the long haul. That sometimes can exclude some 3rd party lenses, not due to optical quality, but build quality. The bottom line for me is quality.

 

[dxqcanada]

... hmm maybe it is like the old days ... comparing Made in USA vs that Japanese stuff.

In the early days I recall that the target audience that the Third Party lens manufactures aimed at was the budget photographer.
It wasn't too long that they did start making higher quality optics when they started getting more sales and 35mm SLR's were at their peak.

I think that company's like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. know that it is not profitable for them to compete directly with the main optic companies, so in most case's the optical quality of their lenses will be less ... but they also know that they can sell to many photographers that cannot afford the higher quality optics.

Yes, not everyone can justify buying a Canon EF 400mm lens or a Nikkor 200mm macro ... but they might be able to afford a third party lens that is almost as good.

Though I will say that there are many third party lenses that are just too poor optically ... but they tend to be very low in price.

 

[Ken Rockwell]

... hmm maybe it is like the old days ... comparing Made in USA vs that Japanese stuff.

In the early days I recall that the target audience that the Third Party lens manufactures aimed at was the budget photographer.
It wasn't too long that they did start making higher quality optics when they started getting more sales and 35mm SLR's were at their peak.

I think that company's like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. know that it is not profitable for them to compete directly with the main optic companies, so in most case's the optical quality of their lenses will be less ... but they also know that they can sell to many photographers that cannot afford the higher quality optics.

Yes, not everyone can justify buying a Canon EF 400mm lens or a Nikkor 200mm macro ... but they might be able to afford a third party lens that is almost as good.

Though I will say that there are many third party lenses that are just too poor optically ... but they tend to be very low in price.

This ones bang on!

I don't like the cheap plastic feel of them.

 

[Laurence]

This ones bang on!

I don't like the cheap plastic feel of them.

Well, maybe so Ken....but you are not to be trusted, right?

 

[Jim Stafford]

I'm wrestiling with this question also. For me it is the Canon 100-400 L or the Sigma 150 - 500. Contrary to a lot of opinions here, in this case the Canon is lighter and smaller. I'm seeing the Sigma new at rougly $900 and the Canon I have found new at $1300. One test I reviewed of the two stated the picture quality to be on par with each other but my opinion from looking at the test photos was that the Canon was much better.

 

[Prophet]

I'm wrestiling with this question also. For me it is the Canon 100-400 L or the Sigma 150 - 500. Contrary to a lot of opinions here, in this case the Canon is lighter and smaller. I'm seeing the Sigma new at rougly $900 and the Canon I have found new at $1300. One test I reviewed of the two stated the picture quality to be on par with each other but my opinion from looking at the test photos was that the Canon was much better.

The L comes with IS. Its very handholdable, unlike the Sigma.

-JD-

 

[Overread]

Jim - not sure if you have seen this review - but here is one that shows the current 3 superzooms from sigma and also the canon 100-400mm in direct comparison as well as 100% crops from each lens:
Juza Nature Photography