Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?

[agierke]

long term reliability and optical performance are the main reasons i will not buy 3rd party lenses (excluding zeiss though i only own that brand for my hassi).

even with the hype of matching or exceeding performance, these new 3rd party lenses haven't been tested for durability or reliance. only time in the field will tell if they hold up. my L glass has performed exceptionally well over a long period of time in some rugged conditions. i have heard far too many stories of Tamron's or Sigma's focus mechanisms failing or lens creep setting in etc. historically they just haven't been built as well as top of the line canon glass.

[sdsr]

long term reliability and optical performance are the main reasons i will not buy 3rd party lenses (excluding zeiss though i only own that brand for my hassi).

even with the hype of matching or exceeding performance, these new 3rd party lenses haven't been tested for durability or reliance. only time in the field will tell if they hold up. my L glass has performed exceptionally well over a long period of time in some rugged conditions. i have heard far too many stories of Tamron's or Sigma's focus mechanisms failing or lens creep setting in etc. historically they just haven't been built as well as top of the line canon glass.

No, but then a lot of them cost a fraction of the price and not everyone needs to cope with rugged conditions.  As for the superiority of "the real thing", the autofocus mechanism on my first DSLR (a Nikon D3100) completely died after four months, the Pentax K-5 I later replaced it with arrived with the famous stained sensor problem that the first batch had,  the 5DII with which I eventually replaced that arrived (brand new) with a dirty sensor), my Canon S95 developed a peculiar flaw after four months, and my 70-300L died a week ago (stopped focusing at all, manually or otherwise, and the zoom more-or-less seized up).  All these problems were promptly and efficiently fixed, but still....

As for resale value, I guess it depends on the lens.  When I recently sold all my Pentax equipment, aside from the K-5 body I got more-or-less what I paid for it all (more, in the case of some lenses I had bought second-hand), including a Sigma 8-16mm, a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8.

Now I'm in the Canon camp, it's true that almost all my lenses are Canon, but I gladly bought a Sigma 50-500 OS recently and doubt I'll wait much longer before buying a Sigma 85mm 1.4 (I rented one a while back and loved it).  If a lens does what I want it to do, and I can afford it, I'll buy it, regardless of who makes it, and if I end up losing money selling it, well, if it did what I wanted it to do, then it was worth it.

[FlowerPhotog]

Three of the seven full-frame compatible lenses I own are non-Canon.  Those three, together with my EF-100 2.8L, are the sharpest lenses I have.  I own the Sigma 70 f2.8 macro and the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro (non IS), as well as the Zeiss 50 2.0 Makro-Planar.  The optics on all three of these non-Canon lenses are superb, with the Sigma 70 probably being the sharpest of the bunch.  I suspect I am happy with these more than I might be with other third party lenses because the don't have 1) IS, or 2) zoom mechanisms.   The simpler mechanical design probably leads to much lower quality control issues than with the more complicated zooms with IS.    Since upgrading to the 5d3 last spring, the only full frame compatible lens I have under 50 mm is the kit 24-105, which is passable, but not in the same IQ league as the fixed focal length lenses.  I have been toying with buying the Zeiss 35 1.4, but after reading the reviews on the new Sigma 35, think I see it in my future.

[Zlatko]

In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.

I was reading up on the Sigma 50/1.4 recently.  The review on The Digital Picture (TDP) and reviews by some customers on B&H were somewhat disappointing.  I'm referring to the comments about autofocus consistency (and the Canon 50/1.4 is no champ in this either). 

TDP says, "Inconsistent focus accuracy is definitely the downside of this lens. It is possible that another copy of this lens would focus more consistently, but my guess (helped by feedback from others) is that my lens is representative of this model. Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead."

The ISO12233 chart crops on TDP suggest that the Sigma is a bit sharper, but the Imatest results in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" suggest that the Canon 50/1.4 is a bit sharper.  Imatest results on Photozone.de also suggest that the Canon is mostly sharper.

[Chris Geiger]

I normally shoot with 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 lenses but wanted to mix in more limited depth of field images with my wedding work. I purchased the 50L 1.2 and did get some good photos from it but most images were soft even when I was sure I nailed the focus. I purchased a Sigma 85 1.4 and am getting better results with that (more in focus shots). I tried both the Canon and the Sigma 85's and I just could not see spending twice the money. Yes the Canon 85L goes to 1.2 but it also takes twice as long to focus.  I sold the 50L and plan to get the Sigma 35 1.4 before the start of the wedding season in 2013.

I've not found any Tamron lenses that match the quality of Canon and Nikon Lenses but some of the newer Sigma primes are really good quality. I think Sigma is really putting in some effort to improve their products.

[Dylan777]

So we now comparing 2012 model lenses from 3rd party Vs Canon +10yrs old lenses?

For those saying the new Tamron 24-70 is almost near good as new Canon 24-70 II, I want to see your images in real life situation,, not controlled. Besides IQ, we need to put all the factors on the table - AF speed, build quality, resale value etc...

[Nishi Drew]

In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.

I was reading up on the Sigma 50/1.4 recently.  The review on The Digital Picture (TDP) and reviews by some customers on B&H were somewhat disappointing.  I'm referring to the comments about autofocus consistency (and the Canon 50/1.4 is no champ in this either). 

TDP says, "Inconsistent focus accuracy is definitely the downside of this lens. It is possible that another copy of this lens would focus more consistently, but my guess (helped by feedback from others) is that my lens is representative of this model. Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead."

The ISO12233 chart crops on TDP suggest that the Sigma is a bit sharper, but the Imatest results in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" suggest that the Canon 50/1.4 is a bit sharper.  Imatest results on Photozone.de also suggest that the Canon is mostly sharper.

Ahh yes, the Canon 50mm 1.4 is indeed sharp, but ugh, the non rounded aperture blades and general rendition of the bokeh is pathetic in comparison to the Sigma, and so much CA and flaring, even at F/2.
I read that the Sigma more consistently produces welcoming creamy bokeh than the 50L, and how Sigma at least maintains circular highlights more. Then it comes down to AF accuracy, that's the reason I haven't replaced my Canon 50 yet, and then there's focus shift with the 50L, but my 50mm 1.4 utterly misses regardless of the light and camera AF, and even with the needed AFMA it doesn't quite nail the shot...

[dilbert]

In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.

I was reading up on the Sigma 50/1.4 recently.  The review on The Digital Picture (TDP) and reviews by some customers on B&H were somewhat disappointing.  I'm referring to the comments about autofocus consistency (and the Canon 50/1.4 is no champ in this either). 

TDP says, "Inconsistent focus accuracy is definitely the downside of this lens. It is possible that another copy of this lens would focus more consistently, but my guess (helped by feedback from others) is that my lens is representative of this model. Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead."

The ISO12233 chart crops on TDP suggest that the Sigma is a bit sharper, but the Imatest results in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" suggest that the Canon 50/1.4 is a bit sharper.  Imatest results on Photozone.de also suggest that the Canon is mostly sharper.

The first review that really showed up the difference between the Canon 50/1.4 and the Sigma 50/1.4 was on dpreview. For example, use this URL:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=25,23&fullscreen=true&av=1,1&fl=50,50&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F4


So far as I know, nobody else has presented such a complete result set as dpreview on this matter.

[dilbert]

So we now comparing 2012 model lenses from 3rd party Vs Canon +10yrs old lenses?

For those saying the new Tamron 24-70 is almost near good as new Canon 24-70 II, I want to see your images in real life situation,, not controlled. Besides IQ, we need to put all the factors on the table - AF speed, build quality, resale value etc...

There are video reviews of the Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mk II (and 70-200) that look into AF speed.

Strangely, none of the reviews I read consider resale value, rather what they all consider is the cost to buy.

long term reliability and optical performance are the main reasons i will not buy 3rd party lenses (excluding zeiss though i only own that brand for my hassi).

even with the hype of matching or exceeding performance, these new 3rd party lenses haven't been tested for durability or reliance. only time in the field will tell if they hold up.

Your "L" lenses are so good that Canon will only provide warranty for 1 year.

Tamron will provide warranty for 6 years.

It is good to see that Canon back up their excellent build quality with a warranty to match, isn't it?

The length of warranty period tells me what the manufacturer expects from the product they make.

[Albi86]

So we now comparing 2012 model lenses from 3rd party Vs Canon +10yrs old lenses?

For those saying the new Tamron 24-70 is almost near good as new Canon 24-70 II, I want to see your images in real life situation,, not controlled. Besides IQ, we need to put all the factors on the table - AF speed, build quality, resale value etc...

There are video reviews of the Tamron 24-70 vs Canon 24-70 Mk II (and 70-200) that look into AF speed.

Strangely, none of the reviews I read consider resale value, rather what they all consider is the cost to buy.

long term reliability and optical performance are the main reasons i will not buy 3rd party lenses (excluding zeiss though i only own that brand for my hassi).

even with the hype of matching or exceeding performance, these new 3rd party lenses haven't been tested for durability or reliance. only time in the field will tell if they hold up.

Your "L" lenses are so good that Canon will only provide warranty for 1 year.

Tamron will provide warranty for 6 years.

It is good to see that Canon back up their excellent build quality with a warranty to match, isn't it?

The length of warranty period tells me what the manufacturer expects from the product they make.

+1 for the warranty issue.

Resale value is impossible to quantify as it depends on the general opinion about the lens. Also, it's not a problem because it affects both buyer and seller. If you buy the lens you are likely to be happy to buy it cheap.

[picturesbyme]

Your "L" lenses are so good that Canon will only provide warranty for 1 year.

Tamron will provide warranty for 6 years.

This always been a big "?" for me...
I think it's not necessarily related to the quality of the Ls rather Canon's customer-ripping-procedure...
..just like the ridiculous accessory prices, such as hoods, caps, t.collars, the lack of a hood on non Ls..

 

[candyman]

In the last 12 to 24 months we've seen an array of new lenses from Tamron and Sigma that seem to be laying down the gauntlet to Canon/Nikon in the area of providing good IQ that perhaps started with the 50/1.4 from Sigma. Why the Sigma 50/1.4? Because it tests better than both the Canon and Nikon equivalents albeit, it is more expensive however when Canon replaces the 50/1.4 with a 50/1.4 IS, the Sigma will be cheaper.

I was reading up on the Sigma 50/1.4 recently.  The review on The Digital Picture (TDP) and reviews by some customers on B&H were somewhat disappointing.  I'm referring to the comments about autofocus consistency (and the Canon 50/1.4 is no champ in this either). 

TDP says, "Inconsistent focus accuracy is definitely the downside of this lens. It is possible that another copy of this lens would focus more consistently, but my guess (helped by feedback from others) is that my lens is representative of this model. Thus, unless you are primarily using manual focus or shooting at narrow apertures (f/4), I suggest buying the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens instead."

The ISO12233 chart crops on TDP suggest that the Sigma is a bit sharper, but the Imatest results in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" suggest that the Canon 50/1.4 is a bit sharper.  Imatest results on Photozone.de also suggest that the Canon is mostly sharper.

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 does exist for a while now. Aren't those reviews made at the beginning of the release of the Sigma? Later on the production models improved. I own the Sigma bought it in 2010 and it does not have focus problems though granted its IQ is less on my 5D MKIII than on my 7D

[smithy]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 does exist for a while now. Aren't those reviews made at the beginning of the release of the Sigma? Later on the production models improved. I own the Sigma bought it in 2010 and it does not have focus problems though granted its IQ is less on my 5D MKIII than on my 7D

Yes that's correct; Sigma have (from what I've read) improved the quality of the 50mm/1.4 lenses since those early reviews.

[Albi86]

Also, as Sigma is revising ALL of their lenses, it's safe enough to assume that an improved version with the USB docking will be coming soon.

[Zlatko]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 does exist for a while now. Aren't those reviews made at the beginning of the release of the Sigma? Later on the production models improved. I own the Sigma bought it in 2010 and it does not have focus problems though granted its IQ is less on my 5D MKIII than on my 7D

A quick look at the reviews on B&H finds complaints about autofocus as late as August and September of 2012, so those were not made at the beginning of the release (2008?).  On Amazon, there are customer complaints about autofocus as late as October and November of 2012.  Of course the Canon 50/1.4 still gets complaints about its autofocus many years after its release.  The manufacture of these lenses may be getting better over time, but without some evidence, this idea about improvement may just be wishful thinking.