# 3rd Party Lens Regrets?



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2016)

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] (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

bluemoon said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


What did you buy?


----------



## N2itiv (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> 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 (Aug 24, 2016)

AcutancePhotography said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



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


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 24, 2016)

[email protected] said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 24, 2016)

tolusina said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 24, 2016)

andrei1989 said:


> bluemoon said:
> 
> 
> > 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 . . .
> ...



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 (Aug 24, 2016)

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 (Aug 25, 2016)

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 (Oct 1, 2016)

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 (Oct 1, 2016)

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 (Oct 1, 2016)

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.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 4, 2016)

pmjm said:


> 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.



I don't know about it being foolish. Some people like what they like. That red ring might be all that is important to some. Foolish to you and I maybe, but not to them.

I'll probably pick up the EF 16-35 f/2.8L III at some point. However, since the Tamron is so good there won't be a rush. I have designs on one of those Trioplan soap bubble bokeh lenses for now instead (Or the 35mm f/1.4L III, or the 85mm f/1.2L upgrade).  Never satisfied.


----------



## Zeidora (Oct 4, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


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



Soooo true, on more than one level. No zooms in recent times either. It shows on the images.


----------



## axtstern (Oct 4, 2016)

A lot of people here speak exactly what I think.
There was a time I could not even afford Canon's mid price range of lenses.
So I often ended up with Sigma lenses and especially the ones with the sparkling coating usually worked with the camera of the day and failed me on the next model. This included analog aimed wide angles which magnets for the iris sucked to much juice, AF which would crash the camera etc...
On top of this regular issues with guidance rails inside zoom lenses especially prone to this was the first 18-200 OS Zoom and the first edition of the 120-300 2.8 . Still I continued to buy Sigma because Canon did not offer anything that fit my need.

Now the art series is out, the dark ages seem to be gone and Tamron is following heels.
I took the plunge and have kicked out my 24-70 2.8 L first generation and my 16-35 L first generation and replaced them with the Tamron 2.8 stabilized versions.

The improvement in usabillty through the Stabilisation and the optical quality is quiet visible. However the post red ring depression kicks in whenever I take the %d3 out. I do not need the approval of the other photographers arround me, but either Canon or this forum programmed my mind that something is wrong when theres no red ring L glass on the Camera. Somehow this mental sickness does not transport to my M3.

The only disadvantage of the new strive for quality with 3rd parties is the fact that weight does not play any role anymore. I walk arround with the two SIgma 1.8 Zooms on the 80D and the above mentioned Tamrons on the 5DIII when I use my short range shoulder bags. Both combinations are a punishment on day long trips.

Simmilar when using short to middle range equipment I had to change my Tamrac 4 to a 5 for the 80D and the 6 to an 8 (have nothing in between) for the 5DIII all because recent fasst stabilized lenses get huge, fat and heavy.

Especially the 18-35 1.8 is a lens which takes a lot of real estate lying flat in a bag but which is (together with a filter and the thick lens cap simply to high to fit standing in smaller backpacks.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 4, 2016)

I've got a Sigma 400/5.6 APO from the late 1990's that isn't compatible with digital cameras. That turned me off third party lenses for a while.

But recently, I picked up a Sigma 300/4 APO macro lens in a Nikon mount. I'm using it with a Fuji mirrorless camera, so the loss of AF isn't an issue. I chose it over the Canon version because I can still mount it onto a Canon camera and change aperture via the aperture ring - the canon version isn't compatible with digital cameras.

If you're buying old, used lenses with known compatibility issues, and you're comfortable with manual focusing, the Nikon versions might be worth considering over the Canon versions.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 4, 2016)

In addition to my "L" glass (6 lenses) I have the Sigma 50A, Sigma 150-600S, and Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8. I have had each now for multiple years and they are great lenses. Of course the 150-600S is big and heavy but really does produce some great images for the price. The 50A has set itself apart from my 24-70 II enough that I have kept it and the Rokinon is my astro lens. Also, I am not one of the people that have had AF issues with the 50A. It nails AF. I understand others have not had the same experience. I did have some intermittent issues with a 35A.

Personally, for reasons articulated by Mt. Spokane, I would not buy a 3rd party lens that could not have its firmware updated (if it has AF). That is, unless you own a camera body that it works with and plan to keep that camera body for long enough that when you upgrade, the lens (like the Tamron 15-30) might not work with your new body.


----------



## Old Sarge (Oct 4, 2016)

Over the years, since my first digital rebel, I have learned a little by reading various forums, etc. I tried a Sigma lens many years ago and wasn't super pleased with it and sold it online (that was so many years ago that I can remember what it was except it was a mid-range zoom). I use a Tokina 11-16 sometimes with good results. But all of this talk about lenses not working with newer Canon cameras has me wondering about something. Is this strictly a Canon issue? Do new cameras released by Nikon have similar issues with third party lenses?


----------



## JonAustin (Oct 4, 2016)

pmjm said:


> 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.



These two statements very nearly contradict one another. As a person evaluates his options per lens, and if one of the factors important to him is maximum compatibility with Canon EOS bodies, then he is always going to limit his search to the Canon brand. 

All of my lenses are (and have always been) Canon brand for this very reason. I don't want to worry if the next body I buy (or firmware update I run) is going to cause one of my lenses to suddenly behave erratically. I just don't want to worry about it or have to deal with it. And I willingly pay for that peace of mind.

Consequently, I own an assortment of Canon L zooms and few primes (only one of which is an L, and another of which doesn't even have USM). YMMV.


----------



## AJ (Oct 4, 2016)

I own a bunch each of Canon, Sigma, and Tamron lenses, and also two Tokinas.
I have never had quality control issues with any of them (and I do look carefully for flaws) with the exception of the following:


I went through two copies of Canon 17-55/2.8 USM. One was decentered and the other didn't autofocus properly at infinity (close focus was fine)
My Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC used to focus very accurately and precisely (albeit slowly and noisily), but on my newest camera about 50% of the shots are severely front-focused. Seems to be a camera-lens combo that doesn't work well for some reason.
My Canon 50/1.8 has pretty basic autofocus. Precise focus at f/1.8 takes some work. Just pressing the shutter button results in a high failure rate.

The two worst lenses I have every owned (by far) are Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5 (an early ultrawide) and Canon 100-300/5.6 non-L (early kit telephoto). Neither produced acceptable photos, even for web-sized images. I sold both at a loss. Some regret there? Yes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 5, 2016)

AcutancePhotography said:


> andrei1989 said:
> 
> 
> > 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!
> ...



Its Sigma's reverse engineering error. Canon has not changed their protocols, but Sigma made some wrong guesses or assumptions.


----------



## Ryananthony (Oct 5, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > andrei1989 said:
> ...



Ignoring the autofocus issues, I personallu have had zero issues with my 150-600C. For a large portion of photographers, even more so with ones who don't do this for a living, the price is more then a huge factor. 35mm art is $1000 cdn. Canon 35ii is $2300 that's a whole lot of savings to deal with an firmware update every 2-4 years when a new body you purchase comes out.


----------



## pwp (Oct 5, 2016)

My default is usually in favor of L glass. The exceptions have been for a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (pre-Art) and a Sigma 12-24 MkI. A Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for APS-C was a completely forgettable, almost unusable abomination.

The 50 f/1.4 was occasionally heroic wide open, but the hit rate for accurate AF was dreadful. I couldn't trust it and never once used it for commissioned work. AF inconsistency with a 50mm lens shooting at wide apertures is ruthlessly revealed. Pity, it was just fantastic when it did nail focus. Sold after a few months.

The 12-24 is a lens I use a few times a year when the 16-35 doesn't quite make it and the situation won't readily allow for stitching. It's not a fabulous lens, but I have likely scored a good copy. Wide open it's complete mush, but at its sweet spot of f/11 it delivers files acceptable for most usage requirements. I believe the updated 12-24 is a great improvement. Any AF inconsistency with a UWA stopped down to f/11 is unlikely to reveal itself. 

Sigma will see radically increased sales once they fully consign their AF issues to history and the perception of AF unreliability has faded. 

That's not to say every L lens I've ever bought has been a keeper. The old 16-35's were mostly terrible and the MkI 24-70 f/2.8's were very inconsistent from copy to copy. There are good ones out there, but tend to be the exception. A 50mm f/1.2L was a short-lived relationship. This lens does have its fans, but it never completely cut it for me. The EF 50mm f/1.4 while pleasingly compact, was never the best lens in the bag.

This year I've rationalised my lenses, selling off surplus, under-performing or obsolete glass. What remains is 16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II, 70-200 f/2.8isII, 24 f/1.4II, 100L macro, 300 f/2.8is and the 12-24 Sigma. The two least used lenses are the Sigma 12-24 & the 24 f/1.4II. Hmmm...may as well sell the 24 f/1.4II too. Unused this year.

-pw


----------

