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

[Zlatko]

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.

Third party manufacturers have to offer something extra, such as extra warranty time.  Warranties only protect against manufacturing defects, not against wear from usage.  If you don't discover a defect in the first year of use, you're not likely to discover it ever.  Manufacturing defects like decentering, faulty autofocus, bad contacts, etc., are usually evident within the first month of use.

The way Tamron assembles their 24-70, with three tiny bits of glue holding the second element, tells me a lot about their build quality, notwithstanding their generous warranty — http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

Also, read here how Tamron refused warranty repair on a one year old lens (claiming "impact damage"), despite the 6 year warranty —
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=22780

[RS2021]

I think canon just let the air out of the sigma balloon

[ions]

It's an interesting position to be in as a consumer, lots of good points on both sides have been made here making that position all the more complicated/better. It's complicated because when we buy something many of us like to feel we are buying "the best" whatever that happens to mean. It's better because as consumers it is a win win the majority of the time.

I had all Sigma EX gear. If I'm honest it was adequate for my needs, sort of. I pushed my needs by wanting that little bit more that the comparable Canon models offered. This comparison was unfair of me for a reason I've seen come up here a few times. I compared my old Sigmas to the new Canon stuff. How well is a Sigma 70-200 from the late 90s going to fare against the new MkII? Exactly. Will the new 35L, when it comes, be better than Sigma's? I'm gonna say probably.

I do think the majority of times, as a whole, the first party equivalent lens is the better choice but there are exceptions for sure. Oh, also, an earlier poster mentioned Zeiss in this lot. I don't think they're an example that fits the intended discussion.

Lastly, Tokina 11-16 over the Canon 10-22 under most circumstances, specifically sharpness.

[tomscott]

Resale value is no issue for a pro. Most kit used in pro situations will be in poor condition. My kit gets used until it breaks, they are not museum pieces they are work horses that I earn money with. If it breaks getting the shot its worth it.

As for sigma vs canon. The canons are built much better, yes sigma are getting better but i mean come on the new 35mm with a piano black finish on it... would be scratched to bits in no time, they aren't particularly rugged and if they take a nock the elements move meaning blurry images. Even the higher end stuff isnt particularly well built. The only sigma lens I bought the front lens element fell out in 6 months they just arent made for heavy use.

If your making money with your gear it pays for itself many times over, its a tool, an investment yes but only to start with because it is a necessity to earn money.

Will always be Canon for me. Not one lens has let me down, look after them have them serviced and they will look after you.

[drmikeinpdx]

I think TomScott has a good view.  Canon lenses, at least the L series, seem to be built more sturdy than the Sigma and Tamron equivalents.  Of course that also comes with larger size and greater weight, as well as higher price.

I view the L series as good tools for pros who are rough on their equipment and can write off the price on their tax return.  They are probably signed up with Canon Professional Service and can get repairs or loaners quickly.

Me, I'm only semi-pro and I treat my lenses very gently.  If a non-Canon lens has something I want and gets good reviews, I'll buy it.

I had a Canon EF-S 17-55 IS with a loose zoom assembly.  It took Canon Service three tries to figure it out.  I sold that puppy then and got a Sigma 17-50 IS that works fine and is just as sharp on my 7D.

When I was using a Canon 5D classic w/o MFA, I went crazy trying to find lenses that would focus well with it.  I bought the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and was not very impressed, because of the poor autofocus performance.  I even tried renting the famous 24-70 L from Lens Rentals.com - what a disaster - the focus was all over the place.  I think it was rented too many times by professionals, LOL!

I finally got lucky and found a Tamron 28-75 on Craigslist for about $260.  I was amazed to find that it worked perfectly and was tack sharp with that old 5D classic.  I am still using it today on my 5D3.  Who needs an L lens? 

And that Sigma 50 1.4?  It focuses beautifully on the 5D3 now.  Autofocus performance depends as much on the camera as on the lens.

I don't worry too much about the brand any more.  Tomorrow I will receive my first L lens, a 135 f/2.0 L that was on sale for $899.  It will be an outdoor portrait lens for my 5d3.  I am prepared to be impressed, but my record with lenses has not been very good.  Wish me luck!

[dilbert]

I think TomScott has a good view.  Canon lenses, at least the L series, seem to be built more sturdy than the Sigma and Tamron equivalents.  Of course that also comes with larger size and greater weight, as well as higher price.

If they're so well built then why don't Canon provide a warranty to back that up with?

[candyman]

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.

You are right. That can only be determined by testing a large amount of those lenses being production model 2012 compared to a same amount of 2011, compared to a same amount of 2010 and soforth. A challenge 

[awinphoto]

I'm sure I may be a minority, but at one point all my lenses were 3rd party... some better than others, and frankly the canon (non L's) were under preforming and overpriced compared to what I was able to get 3rd party... I have since grown and i've sold all my 3rd party lenses in favor of L lenses...  yes if you take the sigma 70-200 2.8 vs Canon's L 70-200 2.8's, you can get better deals, IF you can get a good copy and IF you can live with some compromises in build and overall quality...  A few years ago when I was looking for a general purpose lenses for my 7d, I tested the Canon 17-40, 17-55, sigma 17-50, tokina's pro 16-50, and a few others...  the canon's lenses beat out all the 3rd parties hands down without a question.  I didn't test the tamron lens, my local store doesn't sell them so I couldn't test it and wasn't about to drive 4 hours to test them.  It is what it is... 

P.S. resale value sometimes matters for pro's.... I just sold my nifty fifty and took a minimal hit from what I bought them and upgraded lenses again...  I've also had lenses I sold for more than I bought them thanks to the changes in prices of lenses the last few years...  I dont expect my new 100mm L macro to be worth $900 in 5-10 years, but I do hope secretly prices go up again so i can make my money back when I do sell that lens haha.   

[neuroanatomist]

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.

You are right. That can only be determined by testing a large amount of those lenses being production model 2012 compared to a same amount of 2011, compared to a same amount of 2010 and soforth. A challenge 

Lensrentals routinely sells older units and buys new, to keep the rental pool fresh.  IIRC, they observed that the repair frequency of the 17-55 was pretty high a few years ago, but then dropped substantially.  That suggests the possibility of a change by Canon.

[curtisnull]

EVERY time I have bought a non-Canon (or non-Nikon back in my Nikon days) lens I have regretted it.  When I switched to Canon back in 2004 I got talked into buying Sigma lenses. I bought 7 Sigma lenses and regretted every one of them. 

[AprilForever]

Sigma's old 180 3.5 Macro is an amazing lens. I love mine! I am tempted towards the 180 f2.8 OS Macro... Tokina's 11-16 2.8 is like nothing Canon has, being a stop faster than anything Canon offers, and also by all accounts, much sharper! It is no contest for a number of lenses to go third party. AF concerns on the 120-300 2.8 OS sttered me to Canon's 300 2,8 IS mk I, back in the day.

[andy]

Being from Canada, Canon has now blocked my ability to purchase in the USA.  Stores in the USA are not free to sell to purchasers with Canadian credit cards. I really resent this attack on my freedom. So I may switch to Sigma for some purchases.   I may pick up the new 35 mm and keep my eye on their new Art line offerings.

[Passport]

8-16 Sigma zoom on a T1i is a combination that works well.  The Canon 10-22 doesn't match the width and the copy I borrowed did not perform any better.  I've had the Sigma on many dozens of flights and on hundreds of construction sites.  It still looks new and the images it takes get some publication in specialty magazines and a few of our boardrooms. Autofocus is kind of wasted on a 8mm f4.5 crop sensor lens but I generally let it do its thing and it's snappy enough for the mostly stationary subject matter it is used for.  It was real hard not to buy this lens.

[ions]

Being from Canada, Canon has now blocked my ability to purchase in the USA.  Stores in the USA are not free to sell to purchasers with Canadian credit cards. I really resent this attack on my freedom. So I may switch to Sigma for some purchases.   I may pick up the new 35 mm and keep my eye on their new Art line offerings.

I realize this does not work for all Canadians BUT if you live near the border there is a workaround. Rent a US mailbox at somewhere like Mailboxes Etc. It costs about $100 a year. Now that you've done that you have an American mailing address. Guess what that makes you eligible for? An American credit card! Oh, and you also have an American address to claim warranty work too. Plus there are a lot of sellers on big forums like POTN that will only ship CONUS (lazy buggers), now you have a CONUS address. If you do enough shopping the mailbox can easily pay for itself. If I've bought something that I want to keep the packaging for, the retail box of a camera for example, I just fold it down and take it to the USPS and have the packaging shipped home. The gear is packed as if it's mine. Cause it is. Yeah the hassle of the drive blah blah blah-make a day of it. For example, I live about 45 minutes from the Buffalo/Niagara border. In an evening after work I can go down pick up my stuff at the mailbox and then hit the Anchor Bar for much better wings than I'm gonna get this side of the border and be home in bed by 9. Sometimes I'll hit the Galleria for some shoes and wear them back across with the old ones in the trunk. Shoes are WAY more in Canada than they are in the US. That's just one additional way of making the trip worthwhile with very little risk at the border, there are several more - many grocery items are cheaper (diapers) so pick up one or two things. When at the border and you're asked what you did - "took pics of the kids on the US side of the falls (thus the camera gear), had dinner at the Anchor Bar(wherever) and bought some diapers." They'll wave you through. Remember to fill the gas tank on the US side. Between the principle of being screwed around by retailers/manufacturers and their greedy distribution practices that I do not agree with, plus saving a considerable amount of money and making it an enjoyable day in grand ol' Buffalo it's well worth it to me.

That said, camera prices are getting better in Canada as retailers/distributors/manufacturers appear to be realizing people are wising up up here. Plus Sigma's Canada warranty is great and Gentec is a peach to deal with.

[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...

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.

I don't comment on the products that I haven't touched nor giving advices based on 3rd party reviews. I'm more hands on type of guy. Tamron sharpness at f2.8 is no where near Canon ver II. AF speed is a joke...If you find my statement is not true, let go down to local camera shop and try both lenses. I had the opt. to shoot with Tamron before my 24-70 II arrived, if this was good as the new Sigma 35, I wouldn't spent that much money into Canon ver II.

I don't plan to keep my 24-70 II forever and do not wish to lose 1/2 of what I paid for when newer and better lens comes out in the future.