whats the difference between branded lense and none branded lense?

[Overread]

Yes they do have to reverse design their camera mounts and this can cause problems is the leading brand name makes a change (even a minor one) to hte software side of the lens. Most companies will rechip the lenses however so that they will work with newer bodies - of course this is not always possible if you start getting older 3rd party glass (often through second hand sources as older glass would not be activly made by the company if it were not compatable).

It is a valid considation but honestly as I said rechipping is a quick and simple proces for the company to return the compatability for software changes. A hardware change (eg a mount change) would not be an issue alone for 3rd party as it would also affect own brand lenses as well.

Yes. You get what you pay for.

Yes, in construction quality and optical quality. You do get what you pay for.

Alone this statement means nothing - you get what you pay for simply means that the shop sends you the product you order More money does not equal a better product in all cases - further not all advantages scale together - there are some optically very good lenses that have poorer construcion and some very well built lenses that have poor optics.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Yes they do have to reverse design their camera mounts and this can cause problems is the leading brand name makes a change (even a minor one) to hte software side of the lens. Most companies will rechip the lenses however so that they will work with newer bodies - of course this is not always possible if you start getting older 3rd party glass (often through second hand sources as older glass would not be activly made by the company if it were not compatable).

It is a valid considation but honestly as I said rechipping is a quick and simple proces for the company to return the compatability for software changes. A hardware change (eg a mount change) would not be an issue alone for 3rd party as it would also affect own brand lenses as well.

Yes. You get what you pay for.

Yes, in construction quality and optical quality. You do get what you pay for.

Alone this statement means nothing - you get what you pay for simply means that the shop sends you the product you order More money does not equal a better product in all cases - further not all advantages scale together - there are some optically very good lenses that have poorer construcion and some very well built lenses that have poor optics.

OK, generally speaking, camera company lenses are superior. There may be exceptions, but I would not buy any 3rd party lens, ever.

 

[Neil S.]

Yes they do have to reverse design their camera mounts and this can cause problems is the leading brand name makes a change (even a minor one) to hte software side of the lens. Most companies will rechip the lenses however so that they will work with newer bodies - of course this is not always possible if you start getting older 3rd party glass (often through second hand sources as older glass would not be activly made by the company if it were not compatable).

It is a valid considation but honestly as I said rechipping is a quick and simple proces for the company to return the compatability for software changes. A hardware change (eg a mount change) would not be an issue alone for 3rd party as it would also affect own brand lenses as well.

Yes. You get what you pay for.

Yes, in construction quality and optical quality. You do get what you pay for.

Alone this statement means nothing - you get what you pay for simply means that the shop sends you the product you order More money does not equal a better product in all cases - further not all advantages scale together - there are some optically very good lenses that have poorer construcion and some very well built lenses that have poor optics.

OK, generally speaking, camera company lenses are superior. There may be exceptions, but I would not buy any 3rd party lens, ever.

I would have to agree with this.

Although I don't own any 3rd party lenses, the reviews I have seen on them tell me they are usually inferior to Canon/Nikon lenses.

I have been considering buying a 50-500mm Sigma in the future, mainly because of its massive focal length. Most likely I would just end up getting the Canon 100-400mm though because I think it probably has better IQ and build quality.

 

[Idahophoto]

I have and use a number of third party lenses and there are many I would say are better than the first party version. The Takina 12-24 is simply one of the finest lenses in it's class and the Tamron 60 F/2 Macro in my opinion blows the Canon and Nikon's 60 F/2.8 versions right out of the water. Sigma has a very nice 50 F/1.4 which many favor over Canon's and Nikons own versions so you really need to decide for yourself. My experiance is you have to judge each lens on its own and decide. Nikon and Canon both produce among the best lenses in the world but that don't mean every lens they make will hit that mark. The Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 I had with my old Nikon D90 is one of my favorite lenses. I thought it produced images every bit as good as Canon and Nikon's own, though lost IS, some build quality and faster AF than if I went with the first party options. It was also 1K less which made me be able to afford it. You have to look at your needs and wants and compare each lens vs lens and decide from there. Lumping it all together will in the end prove disappointing.

 

[Neil S.]

I have and use a number of third party lenses and there are many I would say are better than the first party version. The Takina 12-24 is simply one of the finest lenses in it's class and the Tamron 60 F/2 Macro in my opinion blows the Canon and Nikon's 60 F/2.8 versions right out of the water. Sigma has a very nice 50 F/1.4 which many favor over Canon's and Nikons own versions so you really need to decide for yourself. My experiance is you have to judge each lens on its own and decide. Nikon and Canon both produce among the best lenses in the world but that don't mean every lens they make will hit that mark. The Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 I had with my old Nikon D90 is one of my favorite lenses. I thought it produced images every bit as good as Canon and Nikon's own, though lost IS, some build quality and faster AF than if I went with the first party options. It was also 1K less which made me be able to afford it. You have to look at your needs and wants and compare each lens vs lens and decide from there. Lumping it all together will in the end prove disappointing.

Some interesting stuff here.

This makes me want to do research into 3rd party lenses lol. :mrgreen:

 

[Overread]

I would have to agree with this.

Although I don't own any 3rd party lenses, the reviews I have seen on them tell me they are usually inferior to Canon/Nikon lenses.

I have been considering buying a 50-500mm Sigma in the future, mainly because of its massive focal length. Most likely I would just end up getting the Canon 100-400mm though because I think it probably has better IQ and build quality.

I'd have to wonder what lenses you were reading reviews of - as said above which lenses you look at really affects your views on if they are good or not:

A few notable articles that might interest:
Sigma 180mm macro VS Canon 180mm L Macro
Juza Nature Photography
Juza Nature Photography

Canon Vs Sigma teleconverters
Juza Nature Photography
Optically the 1.4s really are not going to have a difference and whilst tests show the difference in range of the two 2*TCs in the field this would not be noticable.
Of course the canons do have weather sealing - but the sigma have less of a raised central element so fit more lenses than the canon

50-500mm OS vs Canon 100-400mm L
Juza Nature Photography
Note that the OS review in this has been questioned and even Juza has later stated that he wonders if his copy had some error in manufacture that lead to lesser results. Most reviews I've read rate the OS very high (also note that some consider the optical abilty of the original 50-500mm to be a littel better than the new)

Sigma wide angle Vs Nikon Wide angle!
Juza Nature Photography


Again these are select examples and there are going to be cases where nikon/canon offer better than sigma or tamron' but don't discount them jsut because they don't have the little canon lable

 

[Neil S.]

Overread you make some good points here.

I didn't realize the Sigma 180mm macro was that good. I really want a macro at this focal length, so I will consider it if I get one. :thumbup:

The 50-500mm Sigma seems pretty descent as well. I would also have to consider this, if and when I buy a super long lens (which I also really want).

 

[Overread]

Optically speaking there isn't a bad macro prime lens on the market at the moment - canon nikon sigma tamron tokina - all make good highgrade macro lenses. Lab tests might show some minor differences but sample variation would be an issue and in the field use would hardly show up those differences. The main differences are features (like focal length, internal focusing, IS/VR/OS, focusing motors, working distance etc...) and the cost of the lens itself.

Also as you have a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 just get yourself a 2*teleconverter - you'll get a 140-400mm f5.6 IS L lens that is pretty much (optically) as good as the canon 100-400mm. Focusing speed might be a bit slower but its certainly very usable and means that you don't have to add much weight or cost to your current setup. If ou want better long range optical quality I'd look at either the 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L or step up a level and look at the higher grade options like the 300mm f2.8 IS L

 

[Neil S.]

Also as you have a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 just get yourself a 2*teleconverter - you'll get a 140-400mm f5.6 IS L lens that is pretty much (optically) as good as the canon 100-400mm. Focusing speed might be a bit slower but its certainly very usable and means that you don't have to add much weight or cost to your current setup. If ou want better long range optical quality I'd look at either the 300mm f4 IS L, 400mm f5.6 L or step up a level and look at the higher grade options like the 300mm f2.8 IS L

Thank you for this useful post, I appreciate it. :mrgreen:

Although I own the Canon 1.4x TC II, I have yet to buy the 2x.

I guess your right that the slight loss in image quality probably wouldn't put it much below the 100-400, if at all.

The 70-200 2.8 mk II is so outstanding to begin with, and I hear it takes TCs (even the 2x) very well.

I should just buy the 2x TC. :thumbup:

 

[Overread]

You'll find this little test comparison very interesting I think:
70-200 f/2.8 IS II + 2X TCII vs 100-400 Wide Open - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Its what convinced me to upgrade my original 70-200mm f2.8 IS for the new version for the quality with the 2*TC even though I never had any complaint with its bare or 1.4TC performance.

My early experiences:
70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 test - a set on Flickr
have been nothing but good - though I'll admit I've really pushed things at times (many of the building shots were with shutter speeds far too slow for handholding a 400mm lens even with the good IS support that the lens has.)

 

[Derrel]

One has to go on a lens-by-lens basis. Sigma's 180mm f/3.5 Macro is an excellent lens. Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 macro is an excellent lens. Both are as good optically as name-brand Canon or Nikon lenses. The color rendering of Sigma lenses however, is much warmer ('yellower') than Nikkor lenses, and this can not be totally eliminated in post processing. Sigma and Nikkor photos mixed in the same shoot do not look good. Sigma and other third party lenses have had "issues" when the camera makers updated their AF protocols, like when Nikon came out with the D200,and when Canon added the dedicated AF-ON button in the XXD series...those camera-maker updates to their respective AF protocols 'broke' Sigma's reverse-engineering.

Honestly, I think that Sigma needs to work on quality control much more so than Nikon does,lens-wise. My opinion is that Tamron lenses are,generally, better-made than comparably priced Sigma lenses. The lens manufacturing market has changed a lot over the last two decades, but the camera maker lenses are still generally reliable, but bad lenses do seem to get out more often than ever before, in my opinion. Decentered elements are a big problem these days.

One thing not mentioned so far is that the camera maker lenses hold their resale value MUCH better than the third party lenses do; a Canon or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom can be bought and used for 5,6,7 years, and with inflation, can often be resold for about the same dollar amount as it was purchased, or with a very small loss. A Sigma 70-200/2.8 OTOH, will lose half its value at resale. Same with a Tamron or Tokina lens.

 

[Neil S.]

Thanks for the additional info Overread.

The mark II has a fluorite element as well, and I believe the mark I didn't.

This is a pretty significant thing I believe, and should put the lens pretty close to 100% consistent outupt I would think.

That might just be my fav thing about it, is the very consistent output.

It seems extremely well corrected, as I think only a very modern lens like this can be.

 

[Neil S.]

This is some thought provoking stuff here Derrel.

I wasn't really considering quality control, or resale value.

Canon lenses do seem to have high resale value.

Its good to know in case I ever fall on hard times.

 

[Idahophoto]

I agree with Darrel. 1st party lenses will always have a better resale value so in that way there always a safe bet to go with when you want a lens. I'm on a tight budget so I look for lenses that can produce the very best image quality and performance at the lowest price so I often take a strong look at 3rd party lenses. Sometimes it's well worth going with the Nikon or Canon sometimes not. Decide on it case be case

 

[Petraio Prime]

One has to go on a lens-by-lens basis. Sigma's 180mm f/3.5 Macro is an excellent lens. Tamron's 90mm f/2.8 macro is an excellent lens. Both are as good optically as name-brand Canon or Nikon lenses. The color rendering of Sigma lenses however, is much warmer ('yellower') than Nikkor lenses, and this can not be totally eliminated in post processing. Sigma and Nikkor photos mixed in the same shoot do not look good. Sigma and other third party lenses have had "issues" when the camera makers updated their AF protocols, like when Nikon came out with the D200,and when Canon added the dedicated AF-ON button in the XXD series...those camera-maker updates to their respective AF protocols 'broke' Sigma's reverse-engineering.

Honestly, I think that Sigma needs to work on quality control much more so than Nikon does,lens-wise. My opinion is that Tamron lenses are,generally, better-made than comparably priced Sigma lenses. The lens manufacturing market has changed a lot over the last two decades, but the camera maker lenses are still generally reliable, but bad lenses do seem to get out more often than ever before, in my opinion. Decentered elements are a big problem these days.

One thing not mentioned so far is that the camera maker lenses hold their resale value MUCH better than the third party lenses do; a Canon or Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom can be bought and used for 5,6,7 years, and with inflation, can often be resold for about the same dollar amount as it was purchased, or with a very small loss. A Sigma 70-200/2.8 OTOH, will lose half its value at resale. Same with a Tamron or Tokina lens.

Yes, even relatively common 40+ year old Leica lenses sell for princely sums:

This lens sold new for $441 in 1971!:

Leica Summilux-R 50mm f/1.4 50/1.4 Ver.1 - eBay (item 160437911492 end time Aug-22-10 03:49:33 PDT)