3rd Party Lens Regrets?

[Ozarker]

Back when I started planning and building my "L" lens tool box (After ditching all my EF-S glass) I swore I would only ever buy Canon "L" glass.

My plan was to never buy anything slower than f/2.8, except possibly a 600mm f/4... way off in the future.

The last piece of the puzzle for me was an ultra wide angle zoom.

Normally I buy from Adorama or B&H to save on the tax. This time I felt compelled to drive the 90 miles to Las Vegas for a first hand look at what I was dealing with.

I read the reviews on the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II and it didn't excite me too much. It's a nice lens, but the coma performance and distortion wide open that I'd read about kind of knocked it out of the running.

I'd read great reviews of the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, but since I thought I might want to do some astro photography and wanted f/2.8 I ruled that out.

Canon's EF 11-24mm f/4L was within reach ($) and I picked it up. What a beast! The problem was that it is f/4 and cost a whole lot of money. The positive is that it gave no overlapping focal length with my 24-70. As a true obsessive compulsive the no overlap part is huge for me.

Then while trying to give myself a cooling off period before dropping nearly $3K on a lens I wandered over to the Tamron counter. There I found another beast: Tamron's SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC. I had read real good reviews about this lens and the f/2.8 checked a box for me. Yup, there is overlap. Nope, it isn't Canon. Yup, I now know that Tamron labelled an f/3.2 lens as a f/2.8. However, it is a great lens and I've been very happy with it. I like heavy lenses.

Now I read that sometimes 3rd party lenses are not compatible with new Canon cameras. It works on my 5D mark III, but if it doesn't work on a 5D mark IV... then I haven't outsmarted Canon in the long run.

Has anyone else out there run into this problem?

 

[[email protected]]

Any of the new glass Sigma and Tamron are putting out can be firmware upgraded with the docks.

I too fell for the Tamron 15-30. Canon-only guys are missing out.

For me (not a landscape guy) the 16-35 f/4 IS L is just too slow. Same for the 11-24. The alternate to the Tamron was the Sigma 24-35 f/2.

We are now past the time that new Canon bodies and firmware updates can cause but temporary hiccups to high quality 3rd party glass. Hopefully Canon is in the process of catching up with its wide aperture zoom lineup with Blue Goo and other technologies. But it cannot rely on an ability to just hobble third party lenses.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was stuck back around 2001 with five Sigma EOS compatible lenses which would not work on my new Canon Rebel DSLR. Sigma was able to upgrade just one of them (for $125), the others were worthless, they just gave error 99 and locked up the camera. They still worked on film SLR's though.

Now, it is usually the case that when Canon releases a new pro level camera, some of the third party lenses do not work. If you bought a Sigma Art lens, you can buy a dock to upload firmware to fix Sigma's error. That's right, you pay to fix their error!

With Tamron and some Sigma lenses, you must pay to ship the lens to them and wait until its returned. I expect that some will be declared out of production and, like mine, will not be repaired. Once again, you pay for their reverse engineering error.

There is always a possibility that a new lens communication protocol cannot be fixed by a firmware upload, its a risk.

Zeiss has done it right, no autofocus, they will likely always work on any Camera that uses EF lenses.

 

[Besisika]

Yes, I run into problem last week-end with the Tamron 15-30 and 1DX II. Somehow exposures where off by a 2/3rd or stop in both ends. Some pictures were too dark and some too bright. I was on a real shoot so I didn't spend too much time on it, I just put the sigma 35 and continue my shooting.
I will try it again this week-end but disabling all the lens correction options didn't help. Could be my mistake somewhere, but that was not a good experience.
I love the lens though, it is fine with 5D III and if there is a solution I want to keep it. My sigma is perfect on the 1DX II.

 

[bluemoon]

got stuck with a handful of lenses when going digital back with a 10D. Swore I would never give them any money and am glad I stuck with it. Many are mentioning minor issues with focusing and metering even with the docks and firmware upgrades. 'just not worth it . . .

pierre

 

[andrei1989]

got stuck with a handful of lenses when going digital back with a 10D. Swore I would never give them any money and am glad I stuck with it. Many are mentioning minor issues with focusing and metering even with the docks and firmware upgrades. 'just not worth it . . .

pierre

I was stuck back around 2001 with five Sigma EOS compatible lenses which would not work on my new Canon Rebel DSLR. Sigma was able to upgrade just one of them (for $125), the others were worthless, they just gave error 99 and locked up the camera. They still worked on film SLR's though.

Now, it is usually the case that when Canon releases a new pro level camera, some of the third party lenses do not work. If you bought a Sigma Art lens, you can buy a dock to upload firmware to fix Sigma's error. That's right, you pay to fix their error!

With Tamron and some Sigma lenses, you must pay to ship the lens to them and wait until its returned. I expect that some will be declared out of production and, like mine, will not be repaired. Once again, you pay for their reverse engineering error.

There is always a possibility that a new lens communication protocol cannot be fixed by a firmware upload, its a risk.

Zeiss has done it right, no autofocus, they will likely always work on any Camera that uses EF lenses.
[/quote]

there is a fix now for these issues
some really smart guy made an interface board that converts the new canon protocol for the old sigma lenses

 

[tolusina]

Back when I started planning and building my "L" lens tool box (After ditching all my EF-S glass) I swore I would only ever buy Canon "L" glass.

My plan was to never buy anything slower than f/2.8, except possibly a 600mm f/4... way off in the future.

The last piece of the puzzle for me was an ultra wide angle zoom.

Normally I buy from Adorama or B&H to save on the tax. This time I felt compelled to drive the 90 miles to Las Vegas for a first hand look at what I was dealing with.

I read the reviews on the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II and it didn't excite me too much. It's a nice lens, but the coma performance and distortion wide open that I'd read about kind of knocked it out of the running.

I'd read great reviews of the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, but since I thought I might want to do some astro photography and wanted f/2.8 I ruled that out.

Canon's EF 11-24mm f/4L was within reach ($) and I picked it up. What a beast! The problem was that it is f/4 and cost a whole lot of money. The positive is that it gave no overlapping focal length with my 24-70. As a true obsessive compulsive the no overlap part is huge for me.

Then while trying to give myself a cooling off period before dropping nearly $3K on a lens I wandered over to the Tamron counter. There I found another beast: Tamron's SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC. I had read real good reviews about this lens and the f/2.8 checked a box for me. Yup, there is overlap. Nope, it isn't Canon. Yup, I now know that Tamron labelled an f/3.2 lens as a f/2.8. However, it is a great lens and I've been very happy with it. I like heavy lenses.

Now I read that sometimes 3rd party lenses are not compatible with new Canon cameras. It works on my 5D mark III, but if it doesn't work on a 5D mark IV... then I haven't outsmarted Canon in the long run.

Has anyone else out there run into this problem?

What did you buy?

 

[N2itiv]

No regrets so far. I have an EOS A2 35mm film camera and a 6d. The A2 was purchased in '95 and its design is at least 3 yrs. older. The Sigma lens I have is an 24-60 f/2.8 version and it works properly w/both cameras. That's over a 20 yr. design span. It also worked w/no problems on a 30d and 5d.
It's not just lenses, though. I also have a Sigma 500 super flash-ETTL ll compatible-that works on the film camera, but don't work/isn't recognized by the 6d.

 

[Otara]

Pretty disappointed tamron 150-600mm experience. Having to send interstate in Oz just to make it compatible with the very next model isnt great (80D), and even with the origina there were VC problems with panning.

The dock is more convenient, but it still adds on the cost and inconvenience of having to get it. Maybe its better in the US, but one repair shop for all of Australia (thats not in the two main cities) means Ill be giving them a miss in future.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

If you bought a Sigma Art lens, you can buy a dock to upload firmware to fix Sigma's error. That's right, you pay to fix their error!

That's an odd way to look at it. How is Canon changing how Canon lenses interact with Canon cameras somehow Sigma's error?

 

[Mikehit]

If you bought a Sigma Art lens, you can buy a dock to upload firmware to fix Sigma's error. That's right, you pay to fix their error!

That's an odd way to look at it. How is Canon changing how Canon lenses interact with Canon cameras somehow Sigma's error?

Agreed. Sigma could make you buy a new lens so they are dong you a favour.

 

[sunnyVan]

Saw the tamron 15-30 the other day at B&H store. Such ginormous beast!

I had the art 35 for a year. Absolutely loved it. I thought I was going to keep it forever. In the end I traded it for canon 35 f2. No regret whatsoever. My point is that you should just enjoy the moment and not think too far ahead. Don't we all feel gassy and change mind all the time?

Just enjoy the tamron right now. If you ever encounter issues in the future, sell it . No big deal. Maybe you'll want the new canon 16-35 2.8 then. Besides, it is still a fantastic lens even if AF doesn't function and you treat it like a manual lens.

 

[Ozarker]

Any of the new glass Sigma and Tamron are putting out can be firmware upgraded with the docks.

I too fell for the Tamron 15-30. Canon-only guys are missing out.

For me (not a landscape guy) the 16-35 f/4 IS L is just too slow. Same for the 11-24. The alternate to the Tamron was the Sigma 24-35 f/2.

We are now past the time that new Canon bodies and firmware updates can cause but temporary hiccups to high quality 3rd party glass. Hopefully Canon is in the process of catching up with its wide aperture zoom lineup with Blue Goo and other technologies. But it cannot rely on an ability to just hobble third party lenses.

From what I understand, the Tamron dock doesn't work with our Tamron 15-30.

 

[Ozarker]

Back when I started planning and building my "L" lens tool box (After ditching all my EF-S glass) I swore I would only ever buy Canon "L" glass.

My plan was to never buy anything slower than f/2.8, except possibly a 600mm f/4... way off in the future.

The last piece of the puzzle for me was an ultra wide angle zoom.

Normally I buy from Adorama or B&H to save on the tax. This time I felt compelled to drive the 90 miles to Las Vegas for a first hand look at what I was dealing with.

I read the reviews on the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II and it didn't excite me too much. It's a nice lens, but the coma performance and distortion wide open that I'd read about kind of knocked it out of the running.

I'd read great reviews of the EF 16-35mm f/4L IS, but since I thought I might want to do some astro photography and wanted f/2.8 I ruled that out.

Canon's EF 11-24mm f/4L was within reach ($) and I picked it up. What a beast! The problem was that it is f/4 and cost a whole lot of money. The positive is that it gave no overlapping focal length with my 24-70. As a true obsessive compulsive the no overlap part is huge for me.

Then while trying to give myself a cooling off period before dropping nearly $3K on a lens I wandered over to the Tamron counter. There I found another beast: Tamron's SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC. I had read real good reviews about this lens and the f/2.8 checked a box for me. Yup, there is overlap. Nope, it isn't Canon. Yup, I now know that Tamron labelled an f/3.2 lens as a f/2.8. However, it is a great lens and I've been very happy with it. I like heavy lenses.

Now I read that sometimes 3rd party lenses are not compatible with new Canon cameras. It works on my 5D mark III, but if it doesn't work on a 5D mark IV... then I haven't outsmarted Canon in the long run.

Has anyone else out there run into this problem?

What did you buy?

"However, it is a great lens and I've been very happy with it."

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

got stuck with a handful of lenses when going digital back with a 10D. Swore I would never give them any money and am glad I stuck with it. Many are mentioning minor issues with focusing and metering even with the docks and firmware upgrades. 'just not worth it . . .

pierre

I was stuck back around 2001 with five Sigma EOS compatible lenses which would not work on my new Canon Rebel DSLR. Sigma was able to upgrade just one of them (for $125), the others were worthless, they just gave error 99 and locked up the camera. They still worked on film SLR's though.

Now, it is usually the case that when Canon releases a new pro level camera, some of the third party lenses do not work. If you bought a Sigma Art lens, you can buy a dock to upload firmware to fix Sigma's error. That's right, you pay to fix their error!

With Tamron and some Sigma lenses, you must pay to ship the lens to them and wait until its returned. I expect that some will be declared out of production and, like mine, will not be repaired. Once again, you pay for their reverse engineering error.

There is always a possibility that a new lens communication protocol cannot be fixed by a firmware upload, its a risk.

Zeiss has done it right, no autofocus, they will likely always work on any Camera that uses EF lenses.

there is a fix now for these issues
some really smart guy made an interface board that converts the new canon protocol for the old sigma lenses
[/quote]

My lenses are 15 years gone, I can't imagine why anyone would bother to convert 20+ year old Sigma lenses, they were often poorly made when compared to current lenses. Sigma could have fixed them, but they wanted to sell new ones. They offered a trade in towards new ones, but my net cost was more than a new lens at B&H. That kind of a scam left a bad taste and its still there.

 

[JPAZ]

Samyang / Bower / Whoever 14mm f/2.8 lens. Some folks have gotten stellar results and the price is certainly reasonable. My first one broke (my fault) when my tripod fell over. Despite the positive aspects of the lens, seeing the "guts" showed me the construction which is not bullet proof. But, I got another. Again the lens is fine especially for the price.

Then, I had the opportunity to get a Canon 14mm f/2.8. Not only did I get AF (I know that is sometimes not needed in this wide a lens) but the construction certainly seems tougher. Sure, it cost quite a bit more, but at lest my copy blows the 3rd party lens out of the water. The Samyang sits in it's box ever since.

 

[pj1974]

The only 3rd party lenses I have owned have all been Sigma ultra-wide-angle (UWA) lenses for Canon APS-C DSLRs. These are:

1 x Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6- which I still have and love
3 x Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 (one had a slight decentring issue and was replaced by my local camera store for the 2nd copy, – which I sold when I bought the 8-16mm; the 3rd copy I bought second-hand and sold at a profit).

Because AF is important to my still photography, I doubt I will only buy certain third party lenses where AF is critical, I will likely not buy third- party lenses were auto-focus (speed, accuracy and consistency) are important. The AF on my Sigma UWAs is not as consistent as any of my Canon lenses. (I have several Canon lenses from the 10-18mm STM to the 50mm STM, to the 70-300mm L USM).

That is, for fast glass beyond 20mm, in the following condition: if there is an official announcement from both Canon and the third party manufacturer that this lens is ‘future-proofed’, and if changes in technology render the third party lens inoperable, I’ll be given a new (at least better) equivalent by either (or both!) companies. So… as I doubt that will happen, I doubt I will buy a lens of this type.

I am happy with my Sigma UWAs – their sharpness, contrast consistency and colour produce very pleasing images. To date there is no other UWA zoom for Canon APS-C that matches the wide angle of the Sigma 8-16mm. Because I can use MF and/or calculate the hyperfocal distance at UWA settings, AF is not that important.

But I doubt I’ll get a 50mm f/1.4 – f/2.8 prime lens that is third party, unless there is substantial evidence there will be no current issues, OR issues in the future. What Tamron have implemented with respect to AF on Canon DSLRs sounds good, but not without flaws. For this reason I’m still hanging out for Canon to produce a new fast 50mm prime…

Paul 8)

 

[pmjm]

I just picked up that exact same Tamron 15-30, and indeed, when you put the 5D Mk IV in live view, it crashes the camera. You have to hard-power-off and power back on.

Unfortunately, I'm stuck mailing it into Tamron for a firmware update, which will probably take about a week before it ends up back in my hands.

But in general, if you do your research, there are a LOT of comparison tests out there between third-party lenses and the Canon L equivalents. Hats off to Sigma and Tamron for hiring some great optics engineers and nailing down their manufacturing processes because in many cases the third party lenses now offer advantages over the L's.

L lenses will always be the safe bet, the plug-and-play, and the status symbol. That red ring is like having an Apple logo on the back of your phone. It's the champagne of lenses.

But third party lenses can have some advantages. Pricing is the first thing that comes to mind, but sometimes they offer IS where the Canon lens does not, sometimes they'll have an extra f-stop, sometimes they'll be sharper on the edges, and undoubtedly sometimes they'll be inferior to the Canon.

Blanket statements like "I ONLY BUY L LENSES" seem to me to be (at least in 2016) a foolish statement. You have to evaluate your options PER LENS and make a decision based on which factors are important to you.

 

[dpc]

I've had a Sigma 150-500mm, a Sigma 150-600mm C, a Tokina 35 mm macro and a Tokina 11-16mm. No auto focus issues. I still have the 150-600 and 11-16 and use them regularly. I got rid of the Sigma 150-500 because I wasn't quite satisfied with the image quality at the long end. I gave the 35mm away to one of my kids. I still wish I had it.

 

[candc]

I have several sigma lenses and also the tamron 150-600. The sigma's are love/hate. You can get spectacular results but you just want to throw them out the window sometimes. At least the tamron's good iq and slow mediocre af is consistent. I would not recommend sigma over canon equivalent unless you really can't afford the price difference.