Why buy Canon when third party are this good?

[squarebox]

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.

 

[cliffwang]

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.

 

[plutonium10]

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...

 

[cliffwang]

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.

 

[Marsu42]

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...

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.

Any news on the "onion bokeh"? The LenRentals review didn't change, and I just saw that the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from it (, too?): http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review ... Does anyone have the Sigma and feel that it's bokeh is bad due to this effect?

 

[cliffwang]

Any news on the "onion bokeh"? The LenRentals review didn't change, and I just saw that the Sigma 50/1.4 suffers from it (, too?): http://mansurovs.com/nikon-50mm-f1-8g-review ... Does anyone have the Sigma and feel that it's bokeh is bad due to this effect?

Check this thread. Many people posted Tamron 24-70mm samples here. Looks the lens do have onion bokeh effect. The poster say that's okay. However, I will just wait for more information.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1145772

 

[iso79]

Avoid 3rd party lenses except for Zeiss lenses ;D

 

[cliffwang]

Avoid 3rd party lenses except for Zeiss lenses ;D

This lens might change your mind. In many forums people love this lens and are selling their Canon 24-70mm MK1. I actually are waiting for three things.
1. The price drop. The price of third party lenses usually drops in 6 months after they are released.
2. Self improvement. All first shipment of new products are not perfect. In few month they will have new internal reversion.
3. More reviews. This will be the key to make me switch to this lens from my MK1.

 

[Marsu42]

I actually are waiting for three things.
1. The price drop. The price of third party lenses usually drops in 6 months after they are released.
2. Self improvement. All first shipment of new products are not perfect. In few month they will have new internal reversion.
3. More reviews. This will be the key to make me switch to this lens from my MK1.

Me too ... but:

1. Is this really likely to happen given the demand? The 24-70ii is so much more expensive and hasn't got IS I doubt there will be the usual drop. And the 24-70i brick doesn't work well on crop and thus doesn't qualify as a "stepping up lens" for me.

2. There might be more production variance in the first samples, but are there really usually new "revisions" like in cpu designs? Looking at the current reviews, apart from the "onion" bokeh that is due to the design there doesn't seem to be any shortcomings.

3. More reviews won't tell me how much the "onion" bokeh affects my pictures, I guess I'll have to try it myself.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

Although this lens won't affect the new MKII, it could throw a wrench in the used MKI market.
I only have a very old Sigma 24-70 that I almost never use so that might get me to update to a MKI. It doesn't make sense in my case to spend too much on a lens that I'd still use only rarely, so a bottoming out of the MKI market will work nicely.

 

[wickidwombat]

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'm in the same boat once bitten twice shy, I am looking forward to seeing how the 24-70L II is going to perform

 

[1982chris911]

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

For me this comparison shows that the Tamron 24-70mm does not even come close to the MK I not even speaking about the MKII if it can deliver what the MTFs show ...

 

[Marsu42]

For me this comparison shows that the Tamron 24-70mm does not even come close to the MK I not even speaking about the MKII if it can deliver what the MTFs show ...

I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample and will re-test (he got another 70-300L for the same reason) because the iso chart shots contradict everything else said/written about this lens. The sharpness falloff should not be that bad.

But I really hope people will stomp the Tamron into the ground, because then it'll drop in price faster than usual and I can get one ... the only drawbacks to me are really the "onion" bokeh and that its no Canon lens (ie. no cps).

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample

this is the whole problem with tamron in general its a complete lottery as to how it will perform

 

[cliffwang]

I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample

this is the whole problem with tamron in general its a complete lottery as to how it will perform

Tamron gives you 6 years warranty and you can return it in 30 days if you purchase it from Amazon. What I don't understand is why people don't return the lens if they get a bad copy. By the way, Do you really think Canon 24-70mm Mark I is better than Tamron? I believe many people get a bad copy of Canon 24-70mm L.

 

[wickidwombat]

I'm pretty sure he got a bad Tamron sample

this is the whole problem with tamron in general its a complete lottery as to how it will perform

Tamron gives you 6 years warranty and you can return it in 30 days if you purchase it from Amazon. What I don't understand is why people don't return the lens if they get a bad copy. By the way, Do you really think Canon 24-70mm Mark I is better than Tamron? I believe many people get a bad copy of Canon 24-70mm L.

I returned the tamron lens i had after 2 days

I have never been really happy with the canon 24-70 mk1 so i dont own one as when i have tested it I wasnt impressed (I know lots of owners are happy though) I would say the mk1 has a stellar track record in this regard. so currelty I use the 16-35 or the 24-105 or primes dependign what i am doing
I am lokoing forward to testing the canon 24-70 mk2 though to see how it stacks up
I would be pretty happy if sigma released an IS one with the same build and quality of their 85 1.4 which I love

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=786&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=101&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

For me this comparison shows that the Tamron 24-70mm does not even come close to the MK I not even speaking about the MKII if it can deliver what the MTFs show ...

We'll see. It did better on the LensRentals tests and on a test some european magazine carried out.
For whatever reason, my results often don't match TDP and he seems to often have Tamron stuff test out poorly, for whatever reason.

 

[RuneL]

I've never tried a Tamron lens but I've had sigma and my overall impression is bad. AF-motors froze, AF is slow and extremely noisy, no constant manual focus, poorly built and they do not last and they freak out in moist conditions. The only Canon lens I've had break was a 50 1.8. I have a working 16-35 2.8 from 2001 and a working 70-200 2.8 from 1996-ish, they do tend to last, at least the old ones did, the newer I'm not so sure, the overall build quality seems more flimsy and they have too much plastic on them.

 

[dswatson83]

The main reason I want this lens is for f/2.8 with stabilization. I WISH Canon had something like this. Either I loose the 2.8 or I loose the IS with a Canon product. If Tamron can do this with the IQ of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 at a price that is $300 cheaper, it is tough to say no. I'm looking for a lens that stays on my camera 80% of the time. My 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is the best lens I own but it is really heavy, large, and too long for indoors. But I love shooting at 2.8 and the IS is great to have for stills and just about mandatory for handheld video. I'm sure most of us wouldn't even be talking about this lens if Canon offered one. Even if it was $2000

 

[Marsu42]

I'm sure most of us wouldn't even be talking about this lens if Canon offered one. Even if it was $2000

Well, maybe *most* of us - but given the choice, with my budget I'd still get a 35L + Tamron 24-70is for the price of ob one Canon 24-70ii ...