Is there a BIG difference between the different brands of lenses?

[WesVFX]

I see Canon, Sigma, Tamaron, etc... being listed all the time. Is one that much better than the other. I definitely see it in the price... care to give me any input on this?

 

[Jaszek]

Yes. Image Quality, Build Quality, etc. Not all but many

 

[Overread]

It is a hard thing to say across a whole brand, its more of a lens by lens assessment and comparison. Some 3rdparty gear is very cheap and poor, whilst some is very highclass work.

About the only major difference is that 3rdparty gear generally does not have weathersealing, whilst your main camera manufacturer might offer it on the lenses that your after - again not all of their lenses will be weathersealed either.

Best way to approach it is to decide on teh type of lens your after - then look at what is on the market in that area and conduct your research that way

 

[Samanax]

Check out this web page for some lens comparisons.

 

[Plato]

I see Canon, Sigma, Tamaron, etc... being listed all the time. Is one that much better than the other. I definitely see it in the price... care to give me any input on this?

Well, I switched to Nikon some twenty-five years ago because I wanted Nikon glass.

 

[musicaleCA]

And a thing to remember is that third party lenses might not work (AF in particular) on newer bodies. That is to say, if you bought a Sigma or Tameron today for your 500D, and then later on bought, say...er...a 7D, or a 800D, or whatever; just something that isn't released yet...the lens might not AF on that body. That's because third-party lens manufacturers reverse-engineer the AF system, rather than licensing it from the body manufacturer. It's one of the things that helps cut costs for them. If this happens, sometimes the chip can be replaced, sometimes not. By sticking to the lenses of your camera body's manufacturer, you get guaranteed compatibility with future bodies.

 

[KmH]

As long as they don't go changing the mount, like Canon did in 1987.

 

[Plato]

As long as they don't go changing the mount, like Canon did in 1987.

That's actually when I moved from Canon to Nikon. I figured that, as long as my lens collection was useless, I might as well bite the bullet and buy top-notch gear.

 

[musicaleCA]

As long as they don't go changing the mount, like Canon did in 1987.

Quite. If Canon did that while I was using their gear, I'd switch, for better or worse, out of sheer spite.

 

[Derrel]

Actually, Canon has changed its lens mount more than "once". It's more like SIX mount changes with Canon. Nikon is STILL using the F-mount they pioneered in 1959. A cheap Nikon D40 can use Nikon F-mont lenses made in 1959.

eBay Guides - The History of the Canon SLR Lens Mount

Canon R lens mount, 1959 to 1964

Canon FL lens mount 1964-1971

Canon FD lens mount 1971-1976

Canon new FD mount 1976-1987

Canon EF mount 1987-present

Canon EF-S mount what was that? 2004 to the present year?

I corresponded with a now elderly Nikon user who got screwed when Canon switched from the FL mount to the FD mount in 1971,and then who got screwed over AGAIN when Canon switched from the FD mount to the EF mount and autofocus in 1987. It was at that time that he switched from Canon to Nikon. After being shafted twice, he gave up on Canon and went to Nikon and has had a continuously uninterrupted lens mount experience. The F-mount celebrated its Fiftieth anniversary this year, 2009.

 

[musicaleCA]

EF-S ain't so bad, because the bodies are still compatible with EF lenses. Let's just hope Canon doesn't screw us over any time soon.

 

[Overread]

it does look like a 10 year cycle though!
but honestly with the current financial times I don't think they can push for a massive format change - not unless they brought out some seriously advanced features which would outstrip the other competators (in both glass and camera bodies).