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

[manaheim]

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.

Part of the problem here is that I don't think a single person on this thread said anything close to that, and yet you're implying that they did.

 

[Overread]

that's why I own 8 Nikon lenses... and two Sigmas.

I see you and raise you:
3 Sigmas
1 Tokina
2 Canons!

Sometimes I even question if I am truly a canon shooter considering that 2/3rds of my setup is 3rd party

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.

There are a few niggles, for example Sigma's original finish (they've only very recently changed) does wear away with time and use (even very careful light use); however in general the resale price is indeed far more a point of marketing and perceived quality than and actual difference.
However resale is something that I think most who are buying lenses really don't need to worry about as they are buying to use not to invest. Some might buy short term and sell on, but in general most people are buying pro end gear with the intent of holding onto it for a long time, so resale isn't a primary concern.

 

[dnavarrojr]

FWIW, I have NEVER bought a lens costing more than $300 without first renting one (or borrowing one) to try it for myself. On NUMEROUS occasions I have read very positive reviews of lenses on BHPhoto, Adorama and other sites only to try one myself and find that for my needs it simply didn't work. You simply cannot rely solely on the opinion of others.

I actually owned the Canon 70-300mm IS lens and the Sigma 70-300mm VC lens and I found the Sigma to be much sharper and have better color. Granted, they weren't primes. But apples to apples / head to head, that's what I personally found.

I am also a firm believer that full frame sensors vs crop sensors make a difference. So when a friend of mine with a 5DMk2 recommended a lens and even loaned me his, I got different results and didn't like the performance of the lens on my T2i. So it's great to ask for opinions, but in the end you really have to just try them out for yourself and see.

ps. I rented the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS and borrowed the Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 OS and on my camera the Sigma just had a sharper image. Again, I think it just performed better with my APS-C sensor. The Canon web site specifically says that the 70-200mm lenses are optimized for full frame cameras.

 

[campeterz]

Thanks for all the options. From the mixed views, I have realized that I need to visit my local stores and test out all of the lenses of interest.

 

[Neil S.]

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.

This is absurd lol....

Better is better, no matter if someone even owns it or not.

A Canon or Nikon 70-200 is better than a 3rd party 70-200 from the time it is made, while it is sitting on a store shelf, and then when it is purchased.

It doesn’t matter what me, or you, or some other guy thinks, it’s just better period.

My 70-200 is magnesium construction, and it is extremely well built and solid. It is what it is, and it’s got nothing to do with me wanting to "make myself feel superior to others".

You are really reaching here by trying to act like buying a quality product makes someone an elitist.

Oh and what about professionals? Are they "making themselves feel superior to others" by buying long lasting, reliable, and high performance gear to support their livelihood?

Again I say this is absurd, and most likely the ranting’s of a jealous person.

 

[manaheim]

FWIW, I have NEVER bought a lens costing more than $300 without first renting one (or borrowing one) to try it for myself. On NUMEROUS occasions I have read very positive reviews of lenses on BHPhoto, Adorama and other sites only to try one myself and find that for my needs it simply didn't work. You simply cannot rely solely on the opinion of others.

I actually owned the Canon 70-300mm IS lens and the Sigma 70-300mm VC lens and I found the Sigma to be much sharper and have better color. Granted, they weren't primes. But apples to apples / head to head, that's what I personally found.

I am also a firm believer that full frame sensors vs crop sensors make a difference. So when a friend of mine with a 5DMk2 recommended a lens and even loaned me his, I got different results and didn't like the performance of the lens on my T2i. So it's great to ask for opinions, but in the end you really have to just try them out for yourself and see.

ps. I rented the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS and borrowed the Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8 OS and on my camera the Sigma just had a sharper image. Again, I think it just performed better with my APS-C sensor. The Canon web site specifically says that the 70-200mm lenses are optimized for full frame cameras.

Good policy, but when I refer to reviews, I'm referring to sites and organizations that perform intensive testing and analysis... not comments on BH or Amazon.

For example...

Nikon / Nikkor Full Format Lens Tests / Reviews

 

[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.

This is absurd lol....

Better is better, no matter if someone even owns it or not.

A Canon or Nikon 70-200 is better than a 3rd party 70-200 from the time it is made, while it is sitting on a store shelf, and then when it is purchased.

It doesn’t matter what me, or you, or some other guy thinks, it’s just better period.

My 70-200 is magnesium construction, and it is extremely well built and solid. It is what it is, and it’s got nothing to do with me wanting to "make myself feel superior to others".

You are really reaching here by trying to act like buying a quality product makes someone an elitist.

Oh and what about professionals? Are they "making themselves feel superior to others" by buying long lasting, reliable, and high performance gear to support their livelihood?

Again I say this is absurd, and most likely the ranting’s of a jealous person.

Before you come on being incredibly disrespectful and brandishing me as absurd and jealous, get your facts straight pal!

If anything being so defensive gives your game away??? Why are you being so defensive? i'm not saying buying a quality product makes someone elitist. I am saying some people write off third party cos they want to justify their purchases and act like they have better gear than other people. Did I say you were doing this?? NO I did not! Did I say that people who buy the best are being elitist? NO I did not! I said that people who bang on about how this brand is better than all the rest are being elitist, when the reviews show different!

One thing I will say to you, DO NOT come on this forum brandishing me as absurd and jealous and showing me little to no respect when I have simply voiced an opinion! You rude inconsiderate human being! Jumping to complete conclusions when I have made an argument about some people who buy gear simply for 'show off' value.

 

[Infinite_Day]

Why do people always have to immediately be rude and confrontational in forums? Is it such a stretch in our increasingly rude society to just post an answer to a question without putting other people's opinions down? People use forums to get and give advice and answers not to be abused and mocked.

 

[penfolderoldo]

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.

What I was attempting to do was to show that your analogy of working out the mean score for primary v third party is completely subjective, and therefore stating that the primary manufacturer WILL automatically have a higher score is simply not the case, it will depend entirely on personal feelings, which is what's fantastic about photography - there's no definite right and no definite wrong... I own 3 Canon lenses and 2 Sigmas, and as i'm lucky enough to make a living out of my hobby, it's not all about getting what you pay for. I use the Sigma 300 2.8 as opposed to the Canon 300 2.8 not because its better bang for my buck but because the IQ's better than the Canon - if the Canon was better i'd use that, period, but it isn't.

 

[dakkon76]

Why do people always have to immediately be rude and confrontational in forums? Is it such a stretch in our increasingly rude society to just post an answer to a question without putting other people's opinions down? People use forums to get and give advice and answers not to be abused and mocked.

This is my first photography forum... but out of all of the other 10+ forums I frequent, this one is, thankfully, quite unique in that aspect. Not sure if it's just a few bad apples that set the whole tone, or if it's associated with the profession. Either way, you just have to try and ignore the 90% negative and weed out the useful critique buried in there somewhere. Ironically, it seems like the most morose of offenders are the ones that do photography on the side. Maybe they're unhappy with day jobs

 

[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.

This is absurd lol....

Better is better, no matter if someone even owns it or not.

A Canon or Nikon 70-200 is better than a 3rd party 70-200 from the time it is made, while it is sitting on a store shelf, and then when it is purchased.

It doesn’t matter what me, or you, or some other guy thinks, it’s just better period.

My 70-200 is magnesium construction, and it is extremely well built and solid. It is what it is, and it’s got nothing to do with me wanting to "make myself feel superior to others".

You are really reaching here by trying to act like buying a quality product makes someone an elitist.

Oh and what about professionals? Are they "making themselves feel superior to others" by buying long lasting, reliable, and high performance gear to support their livelihood?

Again I say this is absurd, and most likely the ranting’s of a jealous person.

Before you come on being incredibly disrespectful and brandishing me as absurd and jealous, get your facts straight pal!

If anything being so defensive gives your game away??? Why are you being so defensive? i'm not saying buying a quality product makes someone elitist. I am saying some people write off third party cos they want to justify their purchases and act like they have better gear than other people. Did I say you were doing this?? NO I did not! Did I say that people who buy the best are being elitist? NO I did not! I said that people who bang on about how this brand is better than all the rest are being elitist, when the reviews show different!

One thing I will say to you, DO NOT come on this forum brandishing me as absurd and jealous and showing me little to no respect when I have simply voiced an opinion! You rude inconsiderate human being! Jumping to complete conclusions when I have made an argument about some people who buy gear simply for 'show off' value.

You did pretty much mock and put down anyone who was "defending" primary vendor lenses as being better........ so who started the insulting war, exactly? Not so clear if you ask me.

Why do people always have to immediately be rude and confrontational in forums? Is it such a stretch in our increasingly rude society to just post an answer to a question without putting other people's opinions down? People use forums to get and give advice and answers not to be abused and mocked.

This forum has a lot of people with very little clue acting pretty damned arrogant mixed in with a lot of people who have been around for a long time who have worn pretty thin "listening to it". It's a volitile combination.

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.

What I was attempting to do was to show that your analogy of working out the mean score for primary v third party is completely subjective, and therefore stating that the primary manufacturer WILL automatically have a higher score is simply not the case, it will depend entirely on personal feelings, which is what's fantastic about photography - there's no definite right and no definite wrong... I own 3 Canon lenses and 2 Sigmas, and as i'm lucky enough to make a living out of my hobby, it's not all about getting what you pay for. I use the Sigma 300 2.8 as opposed to the Canon 300 2.8 not because its better bang for my buck but because the IQ's better than the Canon - if the Canon was better i'd use that, period, but it isn't.

It's about as un-subjective (objective) as you can get, actually. Your analogy was based upon rarity and/or popularity. Mine is based on test ratings from reputable sites that measure lens quality in a variety of way, including very consistent testing methods and scripts.

So... now what's your reason?

 

[Kerbouchard]

It's about as un-subjective (objective) as you can get, actually. Your analogy was based upon rarity and/or popularity. Mine is based on test ratings from reputable sites that measure lens quality in a variety of way, including very consistent testing methods and scripts.

So... now what's your reason?

And yet, you just posted a thread expressing interest in purchasing the Sigma 150 2.8 in this forum's buy/sell section. It's an amazing lens, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't you be looking for a Nikon model? You know, just so you can pay a bit more?

 

[manaheim]

It's about as un-subjective (objective) as you can get, actually. Your analogy was based upon rarity and/or popularity. Mine is based on test ratings from reputable sites that measure lens quality in a variety of way, including very consistent testing methods and scripts.

So... now what's your reason?

And yet, you just posted a thread expressing interest in purchasing the Sigma 150 2.8 in this forum's buy/sell section. It's an amazing lens, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't you be looking for a Nikon model? You know, just so you can pay a bit more?

Oh I dunno, if you maybe READ what I said about 10x that there are some lenses that are made by secondary vendors that are good? Or perhaps the fact that the lens posted was listed for $600 obo, where new it is $1000 and the "comparable" Nikon is a 105 for about $1000, and the Sigma might provide something that Nikon doesn't, again further supporting my statements?

Want to try again?

If yer going to come at me, you may want to read and think through your comments more thoroughly.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Yo, I ain't comin' at nobody homie...

Now that we've gotten that little bit of internet BS out of the way.

I have read what you said. The issue I take with your stance isn't that you think that in general, most Nikon/Canon lenses are better than their third party counterparts. The issue I have is why you seem to think that matters. Earlier, you devised some weird scheme to take every lens, average the quality, and that would give us a difinitive answer. That only makes sense if I plan on buying every lens from a certain manufacturer.

The fact of the matter is, there are top of the line lenses made by every company. There are real pieces of junk made by every company. The average just doesn't matter unless you plan on locking yourself in to one option.

I would think most people on this forum full of photo enthusiasts would seek out the best value and the best quality they can afford. Sometimes, that means going third party. Sometimes the third party guys fill a niche that the main manufacturers don't see a market in. We all benefit from their competition, and the 'my lens is better than yours because it says Nikon' attitude is silly.

It's about as un-subjective (objective) as you can get, actually. Your analogy was based upon rarity and/or popularity. Mine is based on test ratings from reputable sites that measure lens quality in a variety of way, including very consistent testing methods and scripts.

So... now what's your reason?

And yet, you just posted a thread expressing interest in purchasing the Sigma 150 2.8 in this forum's buy/sell section. It's an amazing lens, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't you be looking for a Nikon model? You know, just so you can pay a bit more?

Oh I dunno, if you maybe READ what I said about 10x that there are some lenses that are made by secondary vendors that are good? Or perhaps the fact that the lens posted was listed for $600 obo, where new it is $1000 and the "comparable" Nikon is a 105 for about $1000, and the Sigma might provide something that Nikon doesn't, again further supporting my statements?

Want to try again?

If yer going to come at me, you may want to read and think through your comments more thoroughly.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Yo, I ain't comin' at nobody homie...

Now that we've gotten that little bit of internet BS out of the way.

I have read what you said. The issue I take with your stance isn't that you think that in general, most Nikon/Canon lenses are better than their third party counterparts. The issue I have is why you seem to think that matters. Earlier, you devised some weird scheme to take every lens, average the quality, and that would give us a difinitive answer. That only makes sense if I plan on buying every lens from a certain manufacturer.

The fact of the matter is, there are top of the line lenses made by every company. There are real pieces of junk made by every company. The average just doesn't matter unless you plan on locking yourself in to one option.

I would think most people on this forum full of photo enthusiasts would seek out the best value and the best quality they can afford. Sometimes, that means going third party. Sometimes the third party guys fill a niche that the main manufacturers don't see a market in. We all benefit from their competition, and the 'my lens is better than yours because it says Nikon' attitude is silly.

And yet, you just posted a thread expressing interest in purchasing the Sigma 150 2.8 in this forum's buy/sell section. It's an amazing lens, don't get me wrong, but shouldn't you be looking for a Nikon model? You know, just so you can pay a bit more?

Oh I dunno, if you maybe READ what I said about 10x that there are some lenses that are made by secondary vendors that are good? Or perhaps the fact that the lens posted was listed for $600 obo, where new it is $1000 and the "comparable" Nikon is a 105 for about $1000, and the Sigma might provide something that Nikon doesn't, again further supporting my statements?

Want to try again?

If yer going to come at me, you may want to read and think through your comments more thoroughly.

Kerbouchard, you have missed the point that Manaheim is making completely! He has just stated in his previous post... that most of us questioning him are arrogant people who know nothing about photography and his patience is wearing thin with morons such as ourselves. Specially idiots that question his opinions!