As you said: latest cameras. Current latest cameras. You do NOT know what will happen in the future but we DO know that Canon lenses will keep being compatible. And ANYONE can express opinions in a forum. It is up to the person asking to decide for themselves. By the way I do have a paperweight 3rd party lens even from the film era (It didn't work on the newest of my Canon film camera!) True it wasn't Tamron (it was a Tokina ATX28-70 2.8 which by the way was nice optically) but that doesn't change a lot. Do you think I will trust 3rd party completely? I may buy a 3rd party out of necessity only if there is no counterpart in Canon (like Sigma 14mm 1.8 ) but I will do it knowning there is a risk (low but risk never the less) But there is NO 100% guarantee that 3rd party lenses will fully work with the future Canon cameras.aceflibble said:I think in this kind of case, where you're evidently looking and able to purchase any of them, the Canon is definitely the better buy. IS and weather sealing alone put it way ahead of the Sigma. One has to assume Sigma will rework the 300mm with OS and sealing as part of the Sport range, and Tamron will put out something similar. Until that happens, while I will vouch for Tamron's service and Sigma's quality in general, for specifically 300mm, first-party wins.Zeidora said:Currently own a 300/2.8 I and consider replacing it. The Canon II sells for 6K, the current Sigma for 4K, and Tamron is vaporware at present. In that price range, the difference is not sufficient to affect decision on which one to get. One thing I look at is minimum focusing distance: Canon 2 m, Sigma 2.5 m. That is a significant point for me (venomous snake portraits). Not quite ready to pull the plug, I think a Coastal Optics 100 UV will be first.
So far, Sigma and Tamron have both kept up-to-date with their USB docks and the latest cameras.NancyP said:Main issues for third party lenses are 1. long term firmware compatibility with newer camera bodies 2. reverse-designed auto-focus protocols usually make AF slightly or markedly slower than OEM lenses.
Sigma has promised to deal with problem #1 by the lens dock for updating firmware. This may also allow better reverse-designed AF protocols to be introduced.
I have several superb non-OEM lenses (2 manual focus: Voigtlander Apo and Zeiss; 1 Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4), but I will say that I don't shoot action with them. My birding lens is OEM, the lowly but reliable (and portable) 400 f/5.6L
The focus is definitely a bigger problem, but I think in Tamron's case it's not too bad. Tamron have elected to nail focus accuracy and consistency, at the cost of some speed. This is my preference, even in sports & wildlife lenses, because being quick is no good if the shot is blurry anyway. I also find the new Tamrons lenses are about as fast as the early-2000s Canons; not as fast as modern ones or the 90s lenses, but fast enough. My usual test for any long lens is to nip down to the nearby bird rehab and try to catch some shots of a resident Lanner falcon they have there. (Born in captivity at a zoo, too tame to survive in the wild, but is allowed to fly freely nearby.) That thing is around 24" all-round and flies at about 160mph; if a lens can keep up with that, it's good enough in my book. So far the Tamron 100-400 and 150-600 G2 have both kept up, even in English overcast light.
Wish I could say the same for Sigma... but then, Sigma's main market these days is portrait & landscape art shooters, so I understand why focus isn't their #1 priority.
By the way the issues with Sigma lenses from the film era were that they could not stop down and they worked only fully open with Canon digital cameras.
To sum it up: Anyone can buy 3rd party for any reason (IQ, cost, size, etc) but it's good to do it well-informed of the slight but no zero risks. (And if the cost is significantly lower even in a compatibility case in the far future it will not matter much if the 3rd party vendor has an even better but equally cheap lens).
Upvote
0