December 22, 2014, 11:39:46 PM

Author Topic: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?  (Read 15642 times)

SpareImp

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2012, 08:10:48 AM »
The miserable onion bokeh on the portrait shot was all I needed to see to wait for the Canon II instead. Though the 24-105L serves me very well and has IS...

If you can afford the Canon MkII, that’s probably the better choice in terms of performance. However, I did have the 24-105mm before I sold it, and its IS is quite old and simply not as good as the Tamron promises to be (look it up on youtube). I’ve actually never felt as if I needed it on the 24-105mm – but that’s just me. That being said, the guy who reviewed the Tamron in the review you are referring to, says in the comments-section that the onion bokeh was due to water droplets on the front element as it was raining. I’d wait to see some more tests before I write it off.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2012, 08:10:48 AM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2012, 02:57:02 PM »
Probably the biggest difference between buying a genuine Canon lens or an alternative brand is resale value.
A good Canon lens will hold its value, whereas third party leneses do not.

Also, you have to consider the build quality and reputation, and I think that Canon has that in spades.

Tamrons are usually considered to be "cheap" lenses.
I'm not saying they are bad, as I own a few third party lenses that perform very well, but if I went to sell them, I wouldn't get anywhere near what I paid for them.

But when it is half the cost what resale is there to worry about? You are already a $1000 behind to start!

Anyway it will be interesting to see how the two compare. Some say the tamron has very nasty bokeh and is not very sharp f/4 and under (but it might be a way to get top landscape quality at a decent price).

I actually liked the Tamron 17-50 2.8 better than the Canon 17-40L and sold the L. Found the Tamron 28-75 to be sharper, center and edge, than the 24-105L although having a bit worse contrast and much slower AF (and of course no IS and less range).

On the other hand the Canon 70-300 IS L is definitely better than the Tamron 70-300 VC (although the Tamron is a steal for the price).

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #32 on: April 30, 2012, 02:57:57 PM »
I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.

+1.....sticking with Canon L glass, and in some cases Carl Zeiss.   Only lens other than these I might consider is the Sigma fisheye.

++1....sold my 17-50 VC.  Image quality was OK, but autofocus was a joke compared to ultrasonic from canon.  Maybe the new USD from Tamron will be good.

In the field, I actually got more shots with ideal focus from the 17-50 non-VC than from my 17-40L.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #33 on: April 30, 2012, 02:59:45 PM »
I have had TERRIBLE experiences with Tamron.

Out of the 4 Tamrons we have, 3 of them are completely broken and 1 the focus barrel is about to break.

Our little Nikon 18-55 pieces of crap withstood more and lasted longer than our Tamron equipment.

I will ONLY buy Camera Manufactures lenses now. I won't touch a 3RD party lens (except Zeiss for video) for anything.

Oh and good luck selling them for what you paid....

My tamrons have held up vastly better than some canon such as canon 50 1.4 and they certainly have better build than the canon 70-300 IS non-L.


bycostello

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
    • London Weddings
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #34 on: April 30, 2012, 03:01:42 PM »
your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better

tron

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1927
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2012, 04:06:59 PM »
your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better
+1
+1
+1

iaind

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2012, 04:36:40 PM »
your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better

Couldn't agree more
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E /24-70 2.8II L / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L /180 3.5L/ 300 4L / 100-400L

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2012, 04:36:40 PM »

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2012, 05:17:51 PM »
your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better

I don't know if the first reason is true or not.  I just wonder how many old third party lens cannot be used on Canon's new bodies.  However, I really question your second and third reasons.  I mentioned that Canon's lenses do not always have better resale value in my earlier post.  Most resale values of Canon lenses are below 80% of it original value.  I am still trying to sell my Canon 17-55mm which I bought @ 1100 plus tax.  If you like, I would like to sell you 900 without tax. :)
Here is the link to show you this lens is better than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.  Please don't tell me Mark II is better because they are not in the same price range and lack of IS feature.

Edit: forgot the link.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

By the way, people are posting some pictures taken by the lens in the past two days in this thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772
They look great.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 02:48:11 AM by cliffwang »
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

pj1974

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 385
    • View Profile
    • A selection of my photos (copyright)
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2012, 11:55:16 PM »
This has been an interesting thread to follow.  ;)

I think that third party lenses (eg Tamron, Sigma, Tokina and others) have their place, particularly when the prices are much lower than similar lenses

Some time ago, I was looking at replacing my Canon 100-300mm USM which I had for some years. For replacements, I was thinking of the Canon 70-300mm (micro)USM IS, and was also considering the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD which I had seen some good reviews of. I didn't want the Canon 100-400mm L USM IS (because of its weight / size, older IS, push-pull action and design). So after reading various reviews (professionals and 'in the field user reviews') - as well as knowing how good the Canon 70-300mm was... I basically thought I would go with the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD, and even bought a good quality 62mm filter for it - that came up at a good price. Neither the Canon 70-300mm or Tamron 70-300mm had quite the quality I wanted, but I NEEDED both IS (or VC) AND more contrast & sharpness than my Canon 100-300mm could offer at 300mm, as well as being sharper wide open.  So I was on the edge of this purchase 'with a sigh'.

Then the Canon 70-300mm L USM IS was announced. While it was a higher price... I immediately was interested, but thought... hmmmm maybe not - it's a big white L (whereas I wanted and needed something portable). However a few weeks later - when I had tried the Tamron 70-300mm VC USD in store, I asked to see the Canon 70-300mm L. I was immediately impressed how portable it was - and yes, it fit attached to my 7D in my existing LowePro shoulder bag. The salesperson offered me a good price, and would throw in a quality Hoya CPL filter at a discounted price too.

After going home and checking some more early user reviews as well as pro and site reviews, I decided I would purchase it... as it really met all my needs (in terms of IQ, USM, IS).  I have not looked back. A few years ago I was looking at purchasing a telezoom - and was looking at a few Sigmas (eg 80-400mm, 50-500mm, 135-400mm, etc)- but none of the lenses, including the more recently introduced 'OS' versions had as good image quality AND HSM focus and OS, in a truly portable and 'shoot all day without any strain' size / weight. Also, generally I found some of these lenses did not have the best bokeh. Some of them did 'some things' well - but not 1 lens met exactly what I was looking for.

When I was looking to purchase an ultra-wide zoom, I ended up looking at the Sigma 10-20mm HSM f4-5.6 as well as the Canon 10-22mm USM f3.5-5.6.   I ended up getting the Sigma 10-20mm mainly because the image quality was basically identical on both lenses (both are capable of producing great, sharp, contrasty photos) - whereas the Sigma's price was almost half that of the Canon's... plus the build quality of the Sigma is a bit better, plus it came with a lens hood included (and the size / shape of the hood much better than the Canon version).  However, there is one 'niggly little thing' with my Sigma lens (apart from the 'different zoom ring direction' to Canon lenses)- and that is that the Autofocus is not always consistent, nor 100% accurate. Thankfully the way that I use my ultrawide lens (for 90% of the time it's for landscapes) - I just use manual focus, and because of the extremely wide depth of field, all the shot is in focus (and sharp!) The remaining 10% of my use of this lens is a mix of architecture (still use MF) and some 'special effect' photos - which occasionally benefit from AF. Still, for the very few times I use it on AF, it's not an issue. (PS - and the Sigma 'yellow cast' is not really a noticeable issue on my lens, if I need to I adjust in post processing).

Then when I was looking to purchase a macro (I wanted something around 90mm - 150mm) - I didn't find a lens that had the focus I needed (true USM / inner focussing) as well as the optical quality and size.  Whereas there are many very good, ultra sharp macro lenses out there, also from third parties- I ended up buying the Canon 100mm (non L).  It has the characteristics that I needed, without a compromise on IQ.

Ok, the point of all the above is that I do think there are many great third party lenses... and indeed there are some lenses made which the original camera body manufacturers do not have an exact equivalent to (eg the Sigma 120-300mm f2.8, or some ultrawide primes, or the Tamron 60mm f2 macro).  However where there are very similar or equivalent lenses, generally speaking - the original manufacturers lenses seem to have a bit of an edge. Note I say 'generally'. Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh..  I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II.  There is a place for both.  8)

Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.

Paul
I'm not a brand-fanatic. What I do appreciate is using my 7D and 350D cameras along with a host of lenses & many accessories to capture quality photos, and share with friends.

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2012, 02:21:17 AM »
Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh..  I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II.  There is a place for both.  8)

Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.

Paul

I believe most people buy Tamron 24-70mm VC for two reasons.
1. It has better IQ than Canon 24-70mm Mark I(not Mark II)
2. VC feature.

If Canon 24-70mm Mark II is 1299, I believe people wouldn't be interested in Tamron 24-70mm VC.  Remember this lens is even cheaper than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

dilbert

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3294
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2012, 05:15:42 AM »
Just as in this case, I think the Tamron 24-70 will have 'great IQ' (and it has the bonus of VC) - but - it won't have the absolute 'stunning IQ' of the new Canon 24-70mm USM, plus I expect the Canon will probably have superior bokeh..  I can understand why a lot of people will be getting the Tamron 24-70mm (particularly for the price) - yet most professionals will probably buy the Canon 24-70mm mk II.  There is a place for both.  8)

Happy shooting everyone!! Competition IS good.

Paul

I believe most people buy Tamron 24-70mm VC for two reasons.
1. It has better IQ than Canon 24-70mm Mark I(not Mark II)
2. VC feature.

If Canon 24-70mm Mark II is 1299, I believe people wouldn't be interested in Tamron 24-70mm VC.  Remember this lens is even cheaper than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.

I suspect that Tamron has more flexibility in their price than Canon as Tamron waited until after the Canon 24-70 Mk II had been released and MSRP given before announcing the price on theirs.

Simply put, newer Tamron lenses are currently providing excellent "bang for buck". I'm hoping that they'll come out with a 14-24 or 16-35 or something in the wide angle range now because I think they'll at least be able to eclipse the 17-40L.

squarebox

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 240
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2012, 07:01:43 AM »
your canon lenses will always work on future canon bodies
your canon lenses will retain value more
your canon lenses are just better

I don't know if the first reason is true or not.  I just wonder how many old third party lens cannot be used on Canon's new bodies.  However, I really question your second and third reasons.  I mentioned that Canon's lenses do not always have better resale value in my earlier post.  Most resale values of Canon lenses are below 80% of it original value.  I am still trying to sell my Canon 17-55mm which I bought @ 1100 plus tax.  If you like, I would like to sell you 900 without tax. :)
Here is the link to show you this lens is better than Canon 24-70mm Mark I.  Please don't tell me Mark II is better because they are not in the same price range and lack of IS feature.

Edit: forgot the link.
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/04/quick-tamron-24-70-mtf-data

By the way, people are posting some pictures taken by the lens in the past two days in this thread.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772
They look great.

your 17-55 example of selling at a rate below other 3rd parties is slightly flawed.  While everyone is stating canon lens hold their values, it needs a qualifier and that's canon EF mount lens.  I've seen ef-s lens lose quiet a bit more value than EF lens.
5Dmk3 - 16-35L - 24-105L - 70-200L F2.8 mk2 - 35L - 50mm 1.4 - 100L - 600xt-rt

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2012, 12:26:00 PM »
your 17-55 example of selling at a rate below other 3rd parties is slightly flawed.  While everyone is stating canon lens hold their values, it needs a qualifier and that's canon EF mount lens.  I've seen ef-s lens lose quiet a bit more value than EF lens.

May people here said "Canon lenses have better resale value".  None of them said "Canon EF Mount lenses have better resale value".  By the way, you know the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 is EF-S mount, right?

Edit:
Let me make it clear.
1. Canon really makes a lot of good lenses.  That's why I have many Canon lenses.
2. A third party lens can hold it value well if the lens is really good.  I don't know how good the Tamron 24-70mm is yet because I haven't see some helpful reviews.
3. Canon lenses DO NOT always have good resale value.  Please search Canon EF 24-105mm L on CL.  The resale value is low as well.

Too many people just post here without proof.  Some of the posts really bias on Canon.  They just against anything not good for Canon.  That makes me feel they are posted by CANON EMPLOYEES.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 12:41:25 PM by cliffwang »
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2012, 12:26:00 PM »

plutonium10

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2012, 01:49:31 PM »
IMO the 24-105's low resale is strongly linked to the fact that it has been the kit lens of the 5D MK I, MK II and now MK III. Some people no doubt get it as a kit lens because it's a good value and then find that they want the 24-70 or something else...
EOS 7D | EF-S 15-85 IS USM | EF 70-300 L IS USM | EF 100 L IS USM Macro | Gitzo GT2531 | Arca-Swiss Z1

cliffwang

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2012, 02:03:44 PM »
IMO the 24-105's low resale is strongly linked to the fact that it has been the kit lens of the 5D MK I, MK II and now MK III. Some people no doubt get it as a kit lens because it's a good value and then find that they want the 24-70 or something else...
Agree.  That's why the resale value of 24-105mm is below 80% of it value.  However, the resale value of Canon 24-70mm on CL is also about 80% of it value.  It's only slightly better than 24-105mm.  You can check it on CL.  By the way, the WANTED price from buyer for 24-70mm is only about 900USD anywhere on CL.
Canon 5D3 | Samyang 14mm F/2.8 | Sigma 50mm F/1.4 | Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 VC | Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro L | Canon Closed-up 500D | 430EX | Kenko 2x Teleplus Pro 300 | Manfrotto Tripod

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Why buy Canon when third party are this good?
« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2012, 02:03:44 PM »