Are 3rd party lenses as good as their Canon counterparts?

[campeterz]

I was recently looking at some of the Sigma and Tamron lenses, and realized they were much less than the Canon version. I have not used any lenses other than Canon ones, and I was wondering how they compare. For instance, the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamronhttp://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50m...R0SI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313620548&sr=8-1 lhttp://www.amazon.com/Tamron-17-50m...R0SI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313620548&sr=8-1ens is more than half the price of 17-55mm f/2.8 Canon lens. Another example is the 70-200 f/2.8 Canon compared to 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma and Tamron.

Like I said before, I have only used Canon lenses up until now. I have often heard, for many things in life, "You get what you pay for". I am wondering if there is a significant difference between off branded lenses and Canon ones.

What is your experience with this topic?

 

[chaosrealm93]

i think most would say that the third party offerings are at least 70%+ of what manufacturers offer at (often) half the price. however, the difference in performance is increased as you get more towards the "pro" end of the spectrum of manufacturer lens.

 

[chaosrealm93]

i personally dont like to buy third party lenses, just me. i think theyre not as well made, more tacky and doesnt perform as well. i'd rather splosh a bit more cash to get something better

 

[chaosrealm93]

there's sorta of a hierarchy within the third parties.... sigma>tamron>tokina (except for their ultrawide zoom, as its ONLY available from tokina)

 

[Overread19]

A lot depends on which lenses you are comparing - some 3rd party lenses are weaker, equal to or better than their Canon equivalents - some are even totally unique and not even offered by Canon.

In the end the best is to take it lens by lens and compare at an individual level because it does vary so much. In addition there is the personal level, sometimes the 3rd party fits one's budget and also delivers the quality that the person needs for their output medium.

 

[Bakugekiki]

Canon lenses are also more likely to hold their value than their 2nd party counterparts. If you are likely to sell the lens in the future then chances are you'll end up paying less by taking the 1st party route. If value isn't a concern then I think Overread is right, it depends on which lens and what kind of quality you need.

 

[mjhoward]

i personally dont like to buy third party lenses, just me. i think theyre not as well made, more tacky and doesnt perform as well. i'd rather splosh a bit more cash to get something better

there's sorta of a hierarchy within the third parties.... sigma>tamron>tokina (except for their ultrawide zoom, as its ONLY available from tokina)

I now know that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have 3 Tokina lenses and their build quality is much better than the sigma and tamron counterparts. They're even built as good if not better than most of the Canon lenses I've used. All my Tokina lenses are tack sharp and use 9 Aperture blades. In the case of the 16-50 f2.8, Sigma, Tamron, AND Canon have elected to use 7. And what are you talking about the 'Ultra-wide zoom' is only available from Tokina? Canon has the 10-22mm zoom, which is WIDER than the 11mm of the Tokina. Tamron has the 10-24mm UWA and Sigma has the 8-16mm UWA lens which is wider than any of them.

 

[Kerbouchard]

I actually only have one third party lens, but it is a true gem. Generally regarded as better than it's Nikon/Canon counterparts. Mine happens to be the Sigma 150 2.8, but there are several others that come to mind. The Rokinon 85mm 1.4 seems to hold it's own against the top tier lenses and it's pretty cheap in comparison.

Basically, it all depends on which lens from which manufacturer. They all have lenses that they just seemed to completely hit out of the ball park...and they all have some real stinkers(and that includes Canon and Nikon).

The main downfall to third party manufacturers is not quality, but that they have to reverse engineer the technology. That means if Nikon or Canon make a significant change to their circuitry, sometimes the third party lenses will not function on newer camera bodies without being modified or rechipped.

 

[manaheim]

i personally dont like to buy third party lenses, just me. i think theyre not as well made, more tacky and doesnt perform as well. i'd rather splosh a bit more cash to get something better

there's sorta of a hierarchy within the third parties.... sigma>tamron>tokina (except for their ultrawide zoom, as its ONLY available from tokina)

I now know that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have 3 Tokina lenses and their build quality is much better than the sigma and tamron counterparts. They're even built as good if not better than most of the Canon lenses I've used. All my Tokina lenses are tack sharp and use 9 Aperture blades. In the case of the 16-50 f2.8, Sigma, Tamron, AND Canon have elected to use 7. And what are you talking about the 'Ultra-wide zoom' is only available from Tokina? Canon has the 10-22mm zoom, which is WIDER than the 11mm of the Tokina. Tamron has the 10-24mm UWA and Sigma has the 8-16mm UWA lens which is wider than any of them.

I think you're going against the tide here.

I agree with what others are saying... Nikon/Canon > Sigma > Tamron > Tokina.

There are definitely cases where there are 3rd party lenses out there for which there is no primary brand equivelent... there are cases where the third party lenses are NEARLY as good as the primary brand equivelent, but as a whole, the primary brands are going to be better. Better at the same level as the price? Like 2x better when the primary is 2x as expensive? Generally not... however, photography gear goes up in cost exponentially as it gets better, so it's not surprising to see it be marginally better and 2x the cost. You see the same thing within the primary brand itself.

IMO, anyone that says otherwise is being more defensive than anything.

 

[mjhoward]

I actually only have one third party lens, but it is a true gem. Generally regarded as better than it's Nikon/Canon counterparts. Mine happens to be the Sigma 150 2.8, but there are several others that come to mind.

Another excellent example. I almost bought one of these myself before getting my Tokina 100 2.8. That lens is fantastic and is one of the Sigma's that is really just built like a tank. My choice ended up coming down mostly to the weight. I wanted a macro I could easily hand hold with a small lighting rig attached.

 

[Kerbouchard]

i personally dont like to buy third party lenses, just me. i think theyre not as well made, more tacky and doesnt perform as well. i'd rather splosh a bit more cash to get something better

there's sorta of a hierarchy within the third parties.... sigma>tamron>tokina (except for their ultrawide zoom, as its ONLY available from tokina)

I now know that you don't know what you're talking about.

I have 3 Tokina lenses and their build quality is much better than the sigma and tamron counterparts. They're even built as good if not better than most of the Canon lenses I've used. All my Tokina lenses are tack sharp and use 9 Aperture blades. In the case of the 16-50 f2.8, Sigma, Tamron, AND Canon have elected to use 7. And what are you talking about the 'Ultra-wide zoom' is only available from Tokina? Canon has the 10-22mm zoom, which is WIDER than the 11mm of the Tokina. Tamron has the 10-24mm UWA and Sigma has the 8-16mm UWA lens which is wider than any of them.

I think you're going against the tide here.

I agree with what others are saying... Nikon/Canon > Sigma > Tamron > Tokina.

There are definitely cases where there are 3rd party lenses out there for which there is no primary brand equivelent... there are cases where the third party lenses are NEARLY as good as the primary brand equivelent, but as a whole, the primary brands are going to be better. Better at the same level as the price? Like 2x better when the primary is 2x as expensive? Generally not... however, photography gear goes up in cost exponentially as it gets better, so it's not surprising to see it be marginally better and 2x the cost. You see the same thing within the primary brand itself.

IMO, anyone that says otherwise is being more defensive than anything.

To be a bit defensive, I can name several lenses by Nikon and Canon that were complete failures and make some of the off-brands look like a Zeiss in comparison.

Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc, etc, have all made junk. They have also all made some flat out fantastic optics. It depends on the individual lens more than it does on the specific manufacturer.

 

[manaheim]

To be a bit defensive, I can name several lenses by Nikon and Canon that were complete failures and make some of the off-brands look like a Zeiss in comparison.

Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc, etc, have all made junk. They have also all made some flat out fantastic optics. It depends on the individual lens more than it does on the specific manufacturer.

Did you even read???

but as a whole, the primary brands are going to be better.

 

[Kerbouchard]

To be a bit defensive, I can name several lenses by Nikon and Canon that were complete failures and make some of the off-brands look like a Zeiss in comparison.

Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc, etc, have all made junk. They have also all made some flat out fantastic optics. It depends on the individual lens more than it does on the specific manufacturer.

Did you even read???

but as a whole, the primary brands are going to be better.

Yes, I read the part where you said in all caps that there are some cases where third party manufactures are NEARLY as good. I told you that there are some cases where third party manufactures surpass the primary manufacturers and that there are some cases where the primary manufacturers should have been making a paper weight instead of a lens.

To me, when you said, "as a whole, the primary brands are going to be better." means that you think as a whole, the primary brands are better. That isn't the case. There are a lot of cases, as in not part of the whole, where the primary brands are not better than a comparitively priced alternative.

Either you don't know what "as a whole" means, or you are going to come back and tell me that what you said is not what you meant.

Doesn't really matter to me, but 'as a whole', they have all made some great lenses and they have all made some crappy lenses.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Well, interesting this one has come up! As I've mentioned in other posts, I was one of the people who thought third party could never compare.

When I actually got out of my armchair and did some RESEARCH, yes did some RESEARCH!

I discovered that actually on quite a few occasions the third parties make lenses as good or slightly better.

To give examples.... The Tokina 11-16 is rated higher than any Nikon and Canon UWA.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is rated as slightly better than Nikon or Canon 1.4's, and I have also seen the Sigma LUX compared to the Canon 50 1.2 L in terms of quality. The Canon is about 5 times the price!!!

The New Sigma 85 1.4.... I have seen a recent reviewer who is a Canon fan boy. Saying hes going to sell the Canon 85 1.2 L because the Sigma is a better lens. The Sigma is also better than Nikon 85 1.4 AF-D from results I have seen, the Nikon 85 AF-S G seems to be the best though. But again the Nikon is TWICE the price of the Sigma so it darn well should be!

Tokina, Tamron and Sigma appear to make Macro lenses that match Nikon/Canon in Image quality, where Nikon and Canon wins is in the build quality department.

This is to name a few! I am now the proud owner of two third party prime lenses and they are by far the best lenses I own! So don't listen to the fanboys saying third party is junk, I did and it was a mistake on my part!

 

[campeterz]

Well, interesting this one has come up! As I've mentioned in other posts, I was one of the people who thought third party could never compare.

When I actually got out of my armchair and did some RESEARCH, yes did some RESEARCH!

I discovered that actually on quite a few occasions the third parties make lenses as good or slightly better.

To give examples.... The Tokina 11-16 is rated higher than any Nikon and Canon UWA.

The Sigma 50 1.4 is rated as slightly better than Nikon or Canon 1.4's, and I have also seen the Sigma LUX compared to the Canon 50 1.2 L in terms of quality. The Canon is about 5 times the price!!!

The New Sigma 85 1.4.... I have seen a recent reviewer who is a Canon fan boy. Saying hes going to sell the Canon 85 1.2 L because the Sigma is a better lens. The Sigma is also better than Nikon 85 1.4 AF-D from results I have seen, the Nikon 85 AF-S G seems to be the best though. But again the Nikon is TWICE the price of the Sigma so it darn well should be!

Tokina, Tamron and Sigma appear to make Macro lenses that match Nikon/Canon in Image quality, where Nikon and Canon wins is in the build quality department.

This is to name a few! I am now the proud owner of two third party prime lenses and they are by far the best lenses I own! So don't listen to the fanboys saying third party is junk, I did and it was a mistake on my part!

I see that the primes are often high quality, but how do zooms and tele-zooms compare? I am mostly looking for a walk around lens with a fixed f-stop.