Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

[Flake]

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f-2-8-vc-usd-lens-review-19056

This lens is half the price of the Canon version and it has VC (IS), when the results are this good what is the point in paying twice as much for a lens which hasn't even made it to market properly yet, weighs a ton & doesn't have IS?

 

[RLPhoto]

Very interesting article. Canon will definitely loose some sales to this lens, but I wouldn't buy it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Interesting, I'll be watching for other testers and see what they say. It looks like 70mm is the weak spot.

 

[mitchell3417]

I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.

 

[Bennymiata]

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.

 

[mws]

No weather sealing, which is very important to some people. But for a more casual shooter, or someone who is just a hobbyist, there are some really great third party lenses.

 

[lol]

The backwards zoom is still an instant dealbreaker for me.

 

[tron]

I copy from another post of mine the reason I would think twice of buying 3rd party lenses:

I bought the Tokina ATX28-70 f2.8 by the year 1993. It worked fine on my EOS600 and EOS620 (and later I found out that it worked fine on EOS1n). When I tried to use it on a EOS50E (1996 or 1997) the camera was blacking out when I pressed the shutter release. Needless to say it does not work with digital bodies too

My old Sigma 14mm - I say old because there was a newer edition of that lens - works ... a little on my EOS5DmkII Only when the aperture is fully open (You can only imagine the vignetting I get! I didn't even care to check the optical quality).

I didn't even know that there was at least a specific usable aperture until I saw at ebay a listing of a very old SIGMA 500mm that was reported to work with analog bodies plus with EOS5DmkII at open aperture (only). That gave me the idea to check my SIGMA lens.

Check:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-Sigma-APO-500mm-1-4-5-Case-/170784321711?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27c389f0af

"This lens will only focus on digital cameras like the 5D or 50D and work with an open aperture, you will get an error message if you stop down "

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

Tamron will sell a boatload of these things. I know I'd certainly consider it if I were looking for a 24-70.

 

[EYEONE]

I had a Tamron. I sold my Tamron. Would take a lot of great reviews for me to go back to a Tamron.

+1 I don't think I could ever buy Tamron again. The AF was a complete and total disaster. I'll take AF the way it was suppose to be over VC or IS (not needed on this focal length anyway) any day. I know this Tamron is half the price but it's not even an option in my mind.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

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.

 

[mws]

Must have misread, I thought I saw a part about no weather sealing. Need more coffee.........

 

[stabmasterasron]

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.

 

[pdirestajr]

1. I have a hard time spending over 1000.00 for a 3rd party lens.

2. At that price, I'm expecting to last a long time. How will this Tamron lens look and operate after 5+ years of use?

3. I know that Canon lenses hold their value really well. Who is going to pay you close to 1000 down the line for a used Tamron lens?

4. They are also reversed engineered, what if Canon makes a change in the future that affects how 3rd party lenses play with them?

 

[nda]

I have an old Canon 28-70mmf2.8L and I still get asked by pro photographers if I would be interested in selling it. It's in average condition, 12 years old, heavy and I have been offered AU$1000. What do you think the Tamron will be worth in 12yrs time?

 

[AJ]

I've had my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about 5 years. I've taken it to the ends of the Earth and it's still going fine. It's a sleeper lens that delivers again and again and again. I don't care about resale value because I don't plan on selling it. If it were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't owe me anything. I got my money's worth a long time ago. That said, new ones go for about 75% of new price on my local Craigslist (asking price).

As for autofocus - yes it's loud. But it's very accurate and not bad in low light. Let's not forget the 24-70/2.8 VC has USD - Tamron's version of USM.

 

[Policar]

The flip side of bad resale is you can get used lenses affordably. I couldn't afford the zoom I wanted, but I picked up a used 70-300mm Tamron VC for about half the cost of the Canon version (used) and it's not bad at all! Fast AF and great stabilization, acceptably sharp, too. And then there are the unique third party lenses (11-16mm Tokina, which is pretty good, and the 20mm f1.8 Sigma, which is not so good) that seem to hold their value...

Canon's more expensive lenses usually seem really refined, whereas the competition comes close but misses a bit. The 17-55mm IS f2.8 isn't much sharper than the Tamron or Sigma equivalents, but it's more consistent across focal lengths at the edges and manages acceptable bokeh and low distortion and is a bit longer. This 24-70mm VC looks good in terms of performance, but the bokeh looks terrible. But the price of the 24-70mm II will probably make this a popular lens.

 

[!Xabbu]

I've had my Tamron 17-50/2.8 for about 5 years. I've taken it to the ends of the Earth and it's still going fine. It's a sleeper lens that delivers again and again and again. I don't care about resale value because I don't plan on selling it. If it were to break down tomorrow, it wouldn't owe me anything. I got my money's worth a long time ago. That said, new ones go for about 75% of new price on my local Craigslist (asking price).

As for autofocus - yes it's loud. But it's very accurate and not bad in low light. Let's not forget the 24-70/2.8 VC has USD - Tamron's version of USM.

+1 I don't understand what issue people have with the AF - it works perfectly well on my 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC and I get great pictures out of this lens. Do I sometimes think about upgrading - yes, but overall I'm really happy with my Tamron.

And my Tokina 11-16mm is just a dream - I don't believe that the Canon UWA is even coming close in color, contrast and sharpness.

However, I also own a Sigma and it's a super soft lens. Might be a bad copy, but for me Sigma's are something I won't touch again.

 

[K-amps]

Interesting, I'll be watching for other testers and see what they say. It looks like 70mm is the weak spot.

Good thing we some flavor of 70-200 to make up for that

 

[hyles]

I think what is wort is how reliable is AF in low light condition and how is IQ wide open.
In good light condition it may even be good, but pro that need to work in low light using it wide open, with the canon they can be save that the lens deliver execellent IQ. If this lens shows good IQ in difficult condition it may sell well.
I used the tamron 17-50 2.8, Af was slow and noisy, but quite accurate. IQ wide open wasn't great.
The canon 17-55 2.8 AF is fast and accurate and IQ wide open is very good. I would not trade the canon for the tamron. What about the 24-70? It dipends how it will behave @ 2.8
Diego