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

[Kerbouchard]

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.

It depends on the lens. The problem Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron run into in their lenses is sample variation. You could have two separate owners, one pleased as punch and one cussing every time they take it out of the bag.

The variations from lens to lens seem to be higher in the third party brands. Personally, if I was going to pick up a Sigma zoom, I wouldn't do it online. I would take my laptop, my camera, and a memory card up to a camera shop and test lenses until I found the one that works best with my camera body. It might be the first, or it might be the sixth.

 

[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!

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.

The Sigma 70-200 OS 2.8 is great from what I hear, you can always tell when a manufacturer is doing something right!! Did you hear that Nikon is trying to sue Sigma over the OS technology? this is a pure sign to me Nikon see Sigma as a threat now, Sigma has really raised their game over the last few years. I realise the 70-200 is not a walkaround though.

I'm not a fan of walkaround zooms so know little about this, but actually I hear the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 is very highly rated. I noticed, one of the guys commenting on your post has one and he rates his Tokina lenses very highly.

Or the sigma 17-50 2.8...http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/531-sigma1750f28os?start=2 a really good review here.

 

[penfolderoldo]

It's the same age old discussion that i've no doubt pops up here on a regular basis, and there is no right answer - Kerbouchard hit the nail on the head, they've ALL made some fantastic, knock out optics, and they've ALL made some complete crap. I'm a Confirmed Canon user, but have a couple of Sigma primes - the 85 1.4 and the 300 2.8. For me, IQ is as good as the Canon equivalents, both of which i've used in the past.

MJHoward, what basis do you have for stating you know the build quality of your Tokinas is better than the Sigmas or Tamrons? have you used the equivalent lenses?

I'm inclined to agree there's a hierarchy within optics, pretty much as Manaheim said, with the possible reversal of Tokina and Tamron, but whatever works for you as a photographer works FOR YOU, everyones different.

 

[Neil S.]

The answer to the question is usually no, they are not "as good". This is only true though of course when you are comparing lenses in similar price ranges. Also, in some rare cases the 3rd party might actually be better for a given price as well.

Just because a lens is made by Canon or Nikon doesnt mean it is automatically a great performer, since they make bargin types as well.

Price is a concern for most people, and since 3rd party lenses are usually more affordable they offer a good value/alternative.

Its not really "better or worse", its more about value and budget vs 1st party quality.

If money was no object I would go out and buy all the new Canon telephotos when they come out (400mm 2.8L IS II for example). This would allow me to take some seriously bad ass shots, and there arent any equals in the 3rd party market compared to these supreme lenses.

The problem is that money IS a concern for me, and I couldn't hope to afford those lenses any time soon. Because of this I would probably end up getting something like the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 if I was going to buy a really "long lens".

You only have to chose what lens you want to buy for a given budget/reason, you dont have to decide to never buy a brand of lenses. Its best to always keep your options open, as well as your mind open when it comes to this stuff (or anything else in life for that matter).

When it came to my 70-200 I went all out and got the best one I could, because I planned to take a lot of photos in that focal range. I wanted a bulletproof solid performer of a lens, with outstanding image quality. If I had purchased a 3rd party 70-200 instead I am sure I would have wished that I just spent more and got a genuine Canon one. I am very happy with my decision, and never consider that I did the wrong thing.

Hope this helps

Neil

 

[analog.universe]

If you want to compare the quality of various walk around zooms, I suggest checking out some technical lens tests. I like the ones at Welcome to Photozone! and also LensTip.com - lens review, lenses reviews, lens specification - Lenstip.com.

You can get detailed reports of sharpness, distortion, CA, autofocus accuracy, etc.. and compare the brands for yourself. This obviously doesn't tell you about build quality or resale value, but you can get an idea of how the optics will do. By this method I bought a Tokina 11-16mm, which was much sharper than the Canon 10-22, and sharper than the sigma 10-20. Now that I've got the thing in my hands, I can tell you the build quality is also much better than my Canon 85mm. The only real way to approach this is on a lens by lens basis. You cant just stack companies and decide who's the best.... Canon makes the best supertelephotos on the market, but I wouldn't touch their ultra wide angles (except the 17 ts-e, that thing is a beast). The Sigma 50mm 1.4 has made quite the impression on the net, frequently rated above all the competition, but the 30mm 1.4 is one of the softest lenses from any manufacturer in that focal range.

Research each lens individually, it takes mad time, and can be boring, but it's the only way to insure that you get the best from YOUR money... which may not be the best use of someone else's money. Sometimes lensrentals.com has a little blurb about build quality and long term performance, so they're worth checking out for an opinion as well. There are certain sigma lenses that are on their "high risk of failure" list. (high meaning over 1%) But there are also Canon's on that list, and Sigma's that are not.

 

[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.

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.

Take all the lenses of any one third party manufacturer and assign them a rating based upon quality, divide that by the number of lenses. Now do the same thing with a primary provider. Compare the two. The primary provider will have a higher score.

 

[Compaq]

ymmv

 

[penfolderoldo]

Take all the lenses of any one third party manufacturer and assign them a rating based upon quality, divide that by the number of lenses. Now do the same thing with a primary provider. Compare the two. The primary provider will have a higher score.

...or, check out the Icelandic wholesale fish market. If Halibut is selling for more per pound on thursdays than cod is selling for on a Tuesday then OBVIOUSLY its clear that primary lenses are better...

This has about as much relevance as what's suggested above it! They will only come out on top IF you rate them higher on quality, if you don't the primary provider won't 'win'.

 

[mjhoward]

MJHoward, what basis do you have for stating you know the build quality of your Tokinas is better than the Sigmas or Tamrons? have you used the equivalent lenses?

I perhaps should have chosen my wording a little more carefully. What I meant was that of the Tokinas I own, they are built better than the equivalent models made by Sigma and Tamron, with the exception of the Macro lenses which seem to have the same build quality across the board. Yes, I have used some of these lenses from Tamron and Sigma but I've not owned them so I can't speak on longevity. I have read, however, of a few accounts of someone receiving a very sharp copy of the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and within a year or so, it wasn't as sharp do to the use and build... could have been a bad batch, I don't know.

Now Image quality, is a slightly different story. There are going to be trade-offs, albeit in most cases very small trade-offs. I might have just been lucky and happened to get very sharp copies for all of my Tokinas, I dont know. But the biggest trade-off from them is the pretty well known CA issue. I've only noticed this issue with my standard zoom and it is only when the conditions are just right and shooting with wider apertures. The CA isn't bad either, just somewhat noticeable and pretty easily fixed in PP. My Tokina's also don't have any equivalent to VR or IS, which might be important to some, but are not to me with the focal lengths I'm working with, and for the 100mm Macro, it's nearly useless anyway.

Sigma and Tamron both offer a form of image stabilization and have several models that are optically very good. They, admittedly, can have some characteristics that are better than Tokina and vice versa. Its been my experience that variations between copies can even be larger than the differences between models made by different manufacturers, as Kerbouchard has pointed out. But for me, Tokina wins with build. They are just built like tanks. If you know anyone with the 11-16mm, see if they will let you use it and use that as a reference for how the rest of Tokina's are built.

As for lenses made by Sigma and Tamron outside of the UWA and Standard zoom lenses similar to those I have, there are several that are outstanding both in IQ AND Build Quality. The Sigma 150mm Macro that Kerbouchard mentioned is a prime example of one. That lens is as solid as anything made by the primary manufacturers. The Sigma 300-800mm is another example. I've used the Canon 800mm lens many, many times and I know its IQ. The fact that Sigma can produce a ZOOM lens that reaches 800mm on a FF body and can compare favorably against the longest Prime lens currently made by Canon speaks volumes. It is often referred to as a bundle of telephoto primes, it is that sharp. Those are to just name a couple. Anyway, hopefully some of this info will help the OP in their research! :thumbup:

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I get the feeling actually alot of the people angrily defending their Nikon and Canon lenses, are the same people who drive down the road in a BMW who act like they have a better car than everyone else.

'My car is better than yours, because its a BMW and you only have a Ford...' when sometimes in reality BMW's have as many mechanical problems as a Ford does!

SAD fact of life is people always want to make themselves feel superior to others.

 

[Dao]

Based on the recent reviews from Consumer Reports in US, FORD in general rate much better than BMW as far as reliability concern. They Rate Honda > Subaru > Toyota > Volvo (yes Volvo) > Ford > ..... And surprisingly, few of the luxury euro brands fell to the bottom section.


However, BMW is still a BMW.

 

[Destin]

I have the sigma 70-200 2.8, NON OS version. I Paid $799 for it about 18 months ago, and it's held up great. Sure, it doesn't feel as heavily built as the nikon, but as long as you aren't using it to pound nails in, or beat up Canon shooters (sorry, had to throw that in there ) then it's more than durable enough.

As for sharpeness...you tell me...

It has some CA when shooting with a STRONG backlight, but other than that, I can't complain about it one bit. Considering that it's 1/3 the price of Nikon's latest offering (yes, i know it's not really a fair comparison) it really can't be beat.

Will I upgrade to the Nikon eventually? Most likely, once the Sigma becomes the weakest link in my bag. But for now, that's a LONG time away.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Based on the recent reviews from Consumer Reports in US, FORD in general rate much better than BMW as far as reliability concern. They Rate Honda > Subaru > Toyota > Volvo (yes Volvo) > Ford > ..... And surprisingly, few of the luxury euro brands fell to the bottom section.


However, BMW is still a BMW.

My point proven!

Just out of interest what is so shocking about Volvo being fourth?? Volvo are famous in europe for making cars built like tanks!

BMW Audi Mercedes look prettier and have that STATUS factor, but sometimes don't provide something alot better than the rest! Same in my mind with own brand lenses vs third party lenses, this is why it proves the people who bang on about their canon or Nikon lens being better have a hidden agenda, they want the status which goes with the higher price tag! They always want to justify the money they have spent.

 

[manaheim]

I get the feeling actually alot of the people angrily defending their Nikon and Canon lenses, are the same people who drive down the road in a BMW who act like they have a better car than everyone else.

'My car is better than yours, because its a BMW and you only have a Ford...' when sometimes in reality BMW's have as many mechanical problems as a Ford does!

SAD fact of life is people always want to make themselves feel superior to others.

I drive a 7 year old Volkswagen. Next theory.

Take all the lenses of any one third party manufacturer and assign them a rating based upon quality, divide that by the number of lenses. Now do the same thing with a primary provider. Compare the two. The primary provider will have a higher score.

...or, check out the Icelandic wholesale fish market. If Halibut is selling for more per pound on thursdays than cod is selling for on a Tuesday then OBVIOUSLY its clear that primary lenses are better...

This has about as much relevance as what's suggested above it! They will only come out on top IF you rate them higher on quality, if you don't the primary provider won't 'win'.

What?

Did you seriously try to relate rising and falling fish prices to lenses?

We're not dealing with fish. We're dealing with incredibly delicate high-tech equipment.

If you wanna slap a drinking glass with some black duct tape around it on the front of your camera, it'll be damned cheap but your pictures will be garbage. If you want the latest technology in optics, vibration reduction, etc. it's going to cost you. And unfortunately the costs to research, develop and produce these higher quality lenses goes up exponentially. 70-300 4/5.6... $130... 70-300 F4 VR ... $400 ... 70-200 2.8 VR2 ... $2500.

Simply stated, you get what you pay for.

But all that said, don't listen to me... go look at the reviews. Generally speaking, Sigmas are fine, but if there is a Nikon equivelent it will usually beat it. Does it blow it out of the water? Very rarely... but it is very often better. There are exceptions... but it's not the norm.

If you want to shake your fist and claim I'm going based upon popularity or I'm just defending the cool one because it costs more, you feel free, but I can assure you I always research and I buy the one that is the best solution and the best quality for my dollar, and that's why I own 8 Nikon lenses... and two Sigmas.

 

[dakkon76]

Man, this makes me want to think up a controversial question purely to see how pissy everyone can get. This forum is truly unique in that aspect at times

... I didn't think I'd ever consider anything but Canon lenses for my Canon, but after reading plenty of reviews in favor of Sigma's 50mm f/1.4 over the Canon alternative I decided to give it a shot. I'm no pro, but everyone who had tried the Sigma AND the Canon agreed that the Sigma had better image quality, felt more substantial, and performed faster/quieter. Saying that Canon and Nikon are the only 2 companies in existence that can make good optics for their gear is like saying you can't hook up a 3rd party monitor to your Mac. And chances are, most of the haters out there haven't actually given anything else an unbiased look.

As far as retaining their value... if that part's true then it's most likely not related to build quality or longevity, but more related to the general public holding the same opinion of 3rd party optics as several of the people here. Again, all about bias rather than fact.