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

[Albi86]

I think it's important to distinguish whether a lens is better overall or better value for money or better for one's needs. This of course also depends one's own idea of good enough. We all make compromises.

Easy example: the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS2 is easily the best zoom in this range and aperture. That said, I will probably never buy this lens because of the price and because for the way I would use it (portraits) there are better, lighter and cheaper alternatives.

The same goes for the 24-70 and other lenses. If one needs IS or is happy enough with Tamron's optical quality, there's no reason to spend twice as much and get the Canon over it. On the other hand, if weather sealing is needed, then the Canon would be the only option.

Overall, 3rd-party lenses generally speaking offer very attractive optical and mechanical performance leaving out other features that are not essential to most users, and they come at much more affordable price. So whenever I want to buy a lens, I actually look at 3rd-party first. Then I ask myself: is there any reason why I should spend more for the original brand lens? Some times there is something, but most of times not.

[AvTvM]

As a Canon user I will not consider any third party zoom lens, no matter how cheap or optically good it may be. Simple reason: wrong turning direction of zoom ring. It can cause lost shots, when I can least afford to lose them.

Sigma, Tamron, Tokina ... all of them are showing utter disrespect for the largest installed base of camera bodies with lens mounts: Canon.

Unless they start to equip their zoom lenses not only with different lens mounts but also with zoom-ring gears that match the turning direction of Canon-zooms, I will not buy their products and no Canon user should.
It's about time to teach these third-party guys some respect for Canon users.

[sanj]

As a Canon user I will not consider any third party zoom lens, no matter how cheap or optically good it may be. Simple reason: wrong turning direction of zoom ring. It can cause lost shots, when I can least afford to lose them.

Sigma, Tamron, Tokina ... all of them are showing utter disrespect for the largest installed base of camera bodies with lens mounts: Canon.

Unless they start to equip their zoom lenses not only with different lens mounts but also with zoom-ring gears that match the turning direction of Canon-zooms, I will not buy their products and no Canon user should.
It's about time to teach these third-party guys some respect for Canon users.

You make me laugh.

[minim2]

Interesting topic... personally I feel that resale value of original manufacturers may take a hit... I wont be surprised if we start seeing comments like resale value or glasses are forever is overrated!!

macros, 35/50/85 primes... walk around zooms and now TS from samyang...

recently I stumbled upon one guy's flickr and his pics using humble 18-55 were so impressive that I feel more strongly on thing behind sensor is far more important than what is in front of it.

[robbymack]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying the tamron is sharper than the 24-70ii. It is however by and large sharper than the 24-70i plus has IS. For 95% or more of users that is going to be more than adequate especially when you consider the price difference. Even if resale value on the tamron ends up sucking (which I don't think it will) you'd still have to lose more than $1000 to come out negative with respect to the canon and that assumes the canon loses no value. Different strokes for different folks I guess. At least for me, the price difference was not enough to overcome the relatively small iq difference and very slightly slower af performance especially when I considered the IS of the tamron.  If the canon were say only $500 more I may have gone that direction but at a $1000 IMHO it wasn't worth it. That being said those that buy the canon do so for a reason. I am sure you had yours and no doubt they are valid.

[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.

I don't think anyone is saying the tamron is sharper than the 24-70ii. It is however by and large sharper than the 24-70i plus has IS. For 95% or more of users that is going to be more than adequate especially when you consider the price difference. Even if resale value on the tamron ends up sucking (which I don't think it will) you'd still have to lose more than $1000 to come out negative with respect to the canon and that assumes the canon loses no value. Different strokes for different folks I guess. At least for me, the price difference was not enough to overcome the relatively small iq difference and very slightly slower af performance especially when I considered the IS of the tamron.  If the canon were say only $500 more I may have gone that direction but at a $1000 IMHO it wasn't worth it. That being said those that buy the canon do so for a reason. I am sure you had yours and no doubt they are valid.

Where did you get the 95% data?

[syder]

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.

I don't think anyone is saying the tamron is sharper than the 24-70ii. It is however by and large sharper than the 24-70i plus has IS. For 95% or more of users that is going to be more than adequate especially when you consider the price difference. Even if resale value on the tamron ends up sucking (which I don't think it will) you'd still have to lose more than $1000 to come out negative with respect to the canon and that assumes the canon loses no value. Different strokes for different folks I guess. At least for me, the price difference was not enough to overcome the relatively small iq difference and very slightly slower af performance especially when I considered the IS of the tamron.  If the canon were say only $500 more I may have gone that direction but at a $1000 IMHO it wasn't worth it. That being said those that buy the canon do so for a reason. I am sure you had yours and no doubt they are valid.

Where did you get the 95% data?

The Tamron is a better lens than the Canon 24-70 mark i - its sharper and has IS. Its also cheaper than the mark i. For anyone for whom IQ was not an image with the mark i (which was an awful lot of people) the Tamron is better than fine.

For anyone who considers IS and f2.8 to be important, the Tamron is the only 24-70 option.

The Canon mark ii costs over twice as much but is slightly sharper at most focal lengths. Photozone's review shows that at 70mm and f2.8 the Tamron is sharper at the border and extreme of the frame but the Canon is sharper in the centre. Certainly your claims that the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp aren't borne out by the quantative data generated by detailed reviews. The Canon also lacks IS. Its an excellent lens, but compared to the Tamron it's very hard to justify the price differential. Especially when you consider that it lacks IS.

[Dylan777]

The Tamron is a better lens than the Canon 24-70 mark i - its sharper and has IS. Its also cheaper than the mark i. For anyone for whom IQ was not an image with the mark i (which was an awful lot of people) the Tamron is better than fine.

For anyone who considers IS and f2.8 to be important, the Tamron is the only 24-70 option.

The Canon mark ii costs over twice as much but is slightly sharper at most focal lengths. Photozone's review shows that at 70mm and f2.8 the Tamron is sharper at the border and extreme of the frame but the Canon is sharper in the centre. Certainly your claims that the Tamron is nowhere near as sharp aren't borne out by the quantative data generated by detailed reviews. The Canon also lacks IS. Its an excellent lens, but compared to the Tamron it's very hard to justify the price differential. Especially when you consider that it lacks IS.[/quote]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let not get off the track, we talking about Canon ver II.

It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

I can see IS is a huge factor for 70-200 f2.8 due to the side and weight, prevent from shaking. The new 24-70 II is designed with lighter, smaller, sharper and faster AF. Those are keys for pro wedding shooters.

In addition: online review sites are testing lenses under controlled environment. They need to give those lenses to real world shooters(where subject is not stand still, diff lighting from location to location etc...)

I'm not quite sure the sharpness would be the same if IS was included in ver II. Picture below was taken with 24-70 II under lower light without flash. Cropped nearly 40% @ ISO1600.

NOW...show me the sharpness of your Tamron under lower light with ISO around 1600.

[minim2]

NOW...show me the sharpness of your Tamron under lower light with ISO around 1600.

Actually I was browsing through flickr group for tamron 24-70 and, if you do so, it will give you an idea what that lens is capable of.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron-24-70-f-2-8/

[Dylan777]

NOW...show me the sharpness of your Tamron under lower light with ISO around 1600.

Actually I was browsing through flickr group for tamron 24-70 and, if you do so, it will give you an idea what that lens is capable of.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tamron-24-70-f-2-8/

AGAIN...I had tried tamron prior my 24-70 II arrival and I DO KNOW what tamron is not capable of.

Wow....I didn't know that we can search sample photos online. I might try that next time before buying new lenses.

[robbymack]

Dylan you always seem like a level headed guy so i hope youre not taking offense to some of the comments above.  I think all folks are saying is that for most people (obviously this does not include you) the results you get from the tamron are more than adequate especially when one considers the price. I'm on the iPad right now but I will happily take a shot with the tamron tonight at f2.8 and post it...will it be as sharp as your 24-70ii? no, so i am not exactly sure what that will prove. all anyone is saying is that if you like the feel of an extra $1000 in your pocket and think IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version. Does iq improve by spending the extra $1000?  Yes, again no one disputes that, however to a lot of folks the improvement over the tamron will not be worth the extra money.

[syder]

It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

Its impossible to have a debate between quantifiable data on the one hand and your personal opinion on the other.

You complained that the Tamron was nowhere near as sharp as the Canon Mark ii wide open. When tested under controlled conditions this has shown to be untrue - while the Canon is generally a bit sharper, the Tamron is sharper at 70mm at the borders and corners.

Rather than admit you were wrong your response is to obfuscate this simple empirical fact and post a photo. Without even bothering to post details of focal length/aperture etc and a corresponding image from the other lens which you don't have for comparison. Well Done. That clearly proves... Well... Nothing.

[brad-man]

It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

Its impossible to have a debate between quantifiable data on the one hand and your personal opinion on the other.

You complained that the Tamron was nowhere near as sharp as the Canon Mark ii wide open. When tested under controlled conditions this has shown to be untrue - while the Canon is generally a bit sharper, the Tamron is sharper at 70mm at the borders and corners.

Rather than admit you were wrong your response is to obfuscate this simple empirical fact and post a photo. Without even bothering to post details of focal length/aperture etc and a corresponding image from the other lens which you don't have for comparison. Well Done. That clearly proves... Well... Nothing.

Well said. I am a proud and happy owner of the Tamron as well as the Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM AND the Tokina AT-X16-28mm f2.8 Pro FX. The rest of my glass is Canon (mostly Ls), BUT refusal to acknowledge the  quality and value of "other brands" is just myopic

[Dylan777]

It's hard to have a good debate when one side uses online sources Vs otherside hands on. 

Its impossible to have a debate between quantifiable data on the one hand and your personal opinion on the other.

You complained that the Tamron was nowhere near as sharp as the Canon Mark ii wide open. When tested under controlled conditions this has shown to be untrue - while the Canon is generally a bit sharper, the Tamron is sharper at 70mm at the borders and corners.

Rather than admit you were wrong your response is to obfuscate this simple empirical fact and post a photo. Without even bothering to post details of focal length/aperture etc and a corresponding image from the other lens which you don't have for comparison. Well Done. That clearly proves... Well... Nothing.

Did you run this test yourself...or you just getting the data from review sites?

If I post a photo that I took with Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC from the 1st patch @ f2.8 inside the church with my 5D III, will you share your photos or test results?

Again...my comments are based on hands on both Tamron and Canon ver II.  I haven't seen your photo yet. Maybe it's time for someone to touch the products before giving comments.

You can get the shooting details by right click on the photo, under properties.

[Dylan777]

Dylan you always seem like a level headed guy so i hope youre not taking offense to some of the comments above.  I think all folks are saying is that for most people (obviously this does not include you) the results you get from the tamron are more than adequate especially when one considers the price. I'm on the iPad right now but I will happily take a shot with the tamron tonight at f2.8 and post it...will it be as sharp as your 24-70ii? no, so i am not exactly sure what that will prove. all anyone is saying is that if you like the feel of an extra $1000 in your pocket and think IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version. Does iq improve by spending the extra $1000?  Yes, again no one disputes that, however to a lot of folks the improvement over the tamron will not be worth the extra money.

I don't recall I said "IS is important then the tamron is a splendid option especially if you already thought the canon 24-70i was adequate from an iq standpoint as it certainly offers an improvement over that older version"

I do have some pictures that I took with the Tamron from 1st patch at f2.8 inside the church under low light, so I know how this lens performs.

I'm sure alot of us don't mind to have a slower AF lens, that not necessary a bad lens, like Canon 85L.