# what is the quality of lenses that are not manufactured by canon?



## Koen_S1 (Mar 29, 2012)

I´d like to know how good certain lenses are, like tameron lenses. I´m looking for a bit cheaper version of the 18-135 EF-S lens of canon, and I would love to know your oppinion. 
Also I´d like to know if it is possible to fit a nikon lens on a canon body. 
Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2012)

It varies by manufacturer and by lens, just like for Canon. But in general, quality is slightly lower, and quality control issues are slightly more common.

Yes, it's possible to use an adapter to mount a Nikon lens on a Canon body. You lose AF and automatic aperture control, but AF confirmation is retained with a chipped adapter. Note that the reverse isn't possible - you can't use a Canon lens on a Nikon body (and retain infinity focus, at any rate).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2012)

It all depends on how picky you are. Some third party lenses are very good, and a very few are excellent. But the really cheap low cost ones are a big compromise. 

Generally, third party lenses have slower autofocus, and some are known for poor autofocus accuracy, which can mean fuzzy images if not adjusted. You can never be certain that Canon will not make a change in their camera bodies that will cause some or all third party lenses to stop working. This has happened twice, as I recall with Sigma, but Tamron and Tokina haven't had widespread issues.

I prefer Tokina lenses, but they have a limited selection, and slower autofocus.

Finally, there is resale value. Canon lenses tend to hold their value better, and if you find a good deal on a used one, the value might increase over time. Plan on a big hit if you have a third party lens when you go to sell it. (there are only a tiny number of exceptions with the really high quality lenses)


----------



## bornshooter (Mar 29, 2012)

i wonder about this too i would love to get the sigma 85 1.4 but here of issues with AF accuracy which puts me off.


----------



## grahamsz (Mar 29, 2012)

I have a sigma 70-200 f/2.8 v2. As a lens i love it, the AF is quick and accurate and the images are crisp.

However the biggest issue I have with sigma is that their warranty service is awful. Getting any feedback on how long a repair will take or where your lens is is like pulling teeth. In the end they did return it to me fixed, with a relatively quick turnaround - but it's very frustrating to really not know what's going on until they mail it back.

On the plus side, mine did come with a 4 yr warranty


----------



## dunkers (Mar 29, 2012)

I have a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. If you manage to get a good copy, the lens will not disappoint!

The lens is comparable to Canon's 24-70 f/2.8L. The tammy is slightly less than half the price of the 24-70 and the image quality is on par. 

Only issue with 3rd party lenses is that you lose the L quality durability of Canon's lenses and the AF/USM. The Tamron sometimes hunts a little more than I would like it to and it is a little noisy when focusing.

If you do a lot of research, you will find that both Sigma and Tamron have their share of lenses that people rave about.


----------



## theqspeaks (Mar 29, 2012)

Agree with the previous sentiments. Slower and usually noisier autofocus. Bigger range of quality control tolerances. That said, I own a Tamron, Tokina, and a Sigma for my Canon and I love them all. 

Would I prefer to have the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS over my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC? Sure. But my Tamron is very sharp and focuses fast enough. Oh, and it costs about half as much as the Canon. 

Sigma 30mm f/1.4? Plenty sharp, faster aperture, and better built than the comparably priced Canon 28mm f/1.8.

And my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8? Built like a freaking tank. To get the faster aperture and to save a couple of hundred bucks, I'm glad I got it over the Canon 10-22mm. 

At the end of the day, if money was no object, I'd probably only buy Canon lenses. But, money matters, and sometimes Canon doesn't make exactly what I'm looking for.


----------



## Koen_S1 (Mar 29, 2012)

ok, thank you all! But exacly how much do you guys use autofocus? Because I dont use it that much. 
And what would be the best alternative for a 18-135mm lens?


----------



## preppyak (Mar 29, 2012)

theqspeaks said:


> And my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8? Built like a freaking tank. To get the faster aperture and to save a couple of hundred bucks, I'm glad I got it over the Canon 10-22mm.


Same here. Likewise with my Tamron 28-75, over having to go with the 24-70's from Canon, or the ef-s 17-55, all of which would have cost me 2-3x as much.

That said, telephoto wise, I owned a Tamron 70-300 that was nice, but, I was never really happy with the pictures. Just picked up the 70-200 f/4 IS L instead (granted, at 2x the price), and just shooting the first weekend, I was blown away at how much better it was. I think the other manufacturers do well in the prime and wide-angle area, but, I've definitely been less impressed at their tele's.


----------



## preppyak (Mar 29, 2012)

Koen_S1 said:


> And what would be the best alternative for a 18-135mm lens?


Well, a cheaper version of the 18-135 doesn't really exist...since its cheap as it is already at $300ish. Tamron makes an 18-200 in the same price range, but, all super-zooms like that sacrifice quality for convenience.

If you're not auto-focusing much, can I ask what you shoot the most? Cause that would give us a sense of what lenses to suggest. If you're shooting a lot of landscapes, then we'd suggest a wide lens....if you're shooting sports, it's something else.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 29, 2012)

Boy


Koen_S1 said:


> ok, thank you all! But exacly how much do you guys use autofocus? Because I dont use it that much.
> And what would be the best alternative for a 18-135mm lens?


Boy o boy - if your open to using manual focus your going to get interesting advice.


Perhaps not relevant now: for the price the 18-135 canon is the best value and quality.


----------



## theqspeaks (Mar 29, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Just picked up the 70-200 f/4 IS L instead (granted, at 2x the price), and just shooting the first weekend, I was blown away at how much better it was. I think the other manufacturers do well in the prime and wide-angle area, but, I've definitely been less impressed at their tele's.



Off topic, but man, I got the same lens over the holidays, and it is AMAZING!! Blew away my previous Canon 70-300mm IS. The 70-200 f/4 IS L is the best lens I own, by far. Sharp wide open, sharp at all focal lengths, fast and quiet zoom, great build quality, excellent size, and great IS. Just a joy to use. 

Haven't used a 3rd party tele, but I think I'd agree that I'd probably only go 3rd party for wide and normal focal lengths.


----------



## marcust (Mar 30, 2012)

Sigma, a couple of real good ones offered.
Tamron,a few real nice ones available.
Tokina, 11-16 very nice.


These are the best three, third party, (affordable) ones available. The only downside to third parties is the reverse engineering. Ten years from now the AF,IS, might not work on the bodies that Canon is offering.


----------



## katwil (Mar 30, 2012)

I’ve purchased a half dozen or so Tamron or Sigma lenses over the years. Generally I’ve gotten what I paid for, although the 3rd party manufacturers do seem to get more complaints about quality control. The only issue I’ve had is that as my image standards have increased, my satisfaction with my 3rd party lenses has deceased, but I suppose one could say that about any sub-$500 lens.

To get a comparable lens to the Canon 18-135 at a lower price, you’re probably going to have to forgo Image Stabilization, which could be a significant loss.


----------



## Magnumphotography (Mar 30, 2012)

Like most people have said, there are some great 3d party lenses. I had an old 105mm macro Tamron. Sharp and produced great images. Keep in mind though,some features of the camera/lens interface, may not be available. Such as peripheral illumination correction and micro focus adjustment. Not a huge deal for most, but something to consider.


----------



## Koen_S1 (Mar 30, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Koen_S1 said:
> 
> 
> > And what would be the best alternative for a 18-135mm lens?
> ...


Currently I´m not shooting a lot, but I´m planning to buy a new camera, probably the T3i, and I´d like to shoot landscapes, a little sport (karate, but really not that often) and I´m filming a lot. 
Basicely I´m looking for an allround lens that has enough zoom but also is good for filming. 
Oh, and do you guys think that as soon as the T4i is announced the price of the T3i will drop?


----------



## kdsand (Mar 30, 2012)

Koen_S1 said:


> preppyak said:
> 
> 
> > Koen_S1 said:
> ...



Wasn't the 18-135 supposed to get the new quiet / silent drive soon? If so you may want that for video use.


----------



## Koen_S1 (Mar 31, 2012)

[/quote]

Wasn't the 18-135 supposed to get the new quiet / silent drive soon? If so you may want that for video use.
[/quote]
yes, I thought so to, it should come with the new T4i right? But then again theres the price of such a sweet thing...


----------



## wockawocka (Mar 31, 2012)

You get what you pay for.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 31, 2012)

Wasn't the 18-135 supposed to get the new quiet / silent drive soon? If so you may want that for video use.
[/quote]
yes, I thought so to, it should come with the new T4i right? But then again theres the price of such a sweet thing...
[/quote]

Î expect a substantial jump in price also  .
Video shooters will be happy but regular shooters not, unless there's some other improvements. :'(


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 31, 2012)

wockawocka said:


> You get what you pay for.


Maybe sometimes, but I would argue that sometimes (certainly not always) buying Canon lenses gets you better quality but with often diminishing returns. Your return on investment is almost never 1 to 1. For instance, you might get +10% quality for +200% price; or rather, small improvements for big prices.

It's funny. I think that people who shoot with Canon glass usually (usually!) produce better photos than those who shoot with third-party glass, but I think there's a selection bias going on as well. People who shoot with high-end glass are usually more into their photography, and generally more skilled and dedicated. Truly dedicated photographers choose invest in great gear to get them that little bit of an edge, but that doesn't mean if they had shot with slightly inferior glass most of their shots would have been different.


----------



## AdamJ (Mar 31, 2012)

I mounted my Sigma 12-24mm II on Thursday for the first time since December and found that the AF was dead. Since it's something of a specialist lens on FF, I've only used it a handful of times so I'm very annoyed about it. The lens has gone back to Sigma UK so I'm now waiting to see how their after-sales service shapes up. It's a pity because in all other respects, I love this lens. I have huge respect for Sigma's optical design capabilities in the ultrawide zoom segment.

I'd like to think that my experience is a one-off but if you read lensrental.com's write-up on another well-respected Sigma lens, the 120-300mm OS, you'll see that the electrical failure rate on that lens is startlingly high. That's also a pity because this lens has had very good reviews.

I can't recall ever reading of such a failure in a Canon lens. [Edit: I stand corrected - I've just read another thread mentioning Canon AF motor failures].


----------



## unruled (Mar 31, 2012)

smirkypants said:


> wockawocka said:
> 
> 
> > You get what you pay for.
> ...



I agree with what you are saying, however the bias may well be due to the difference between doing photography as a profession, or as an amateur. It can account for the bigger budget allocation, as well as actually growing more quickly in your skills as you spend your time earning a living with it. 

well, its all speculation anyhow  I think that certainly there are some very nice 3rd party lenses, and especially as an unpaid photographer, its worth shopping around. Lets not forget cheap canon lenses can be just as full of duds as low end 3rd party lenses, its just that we often compare cheap 3rd party lenses to L glass, which is somewhat unfair.


----------



## smirkypants (Mar 31, 2012)

unruled said:


> Lets not forget cheap canon lenses can be just as full of duds as low end 3rd party lenses, its just that we often compare cheap 3rd party lenses to L glass, which is somewhat unfair.


You're so right. I forgot Canon made non L glass (not joking.... seriously didn't think about it).


----------



## ScottyP (Apr 1, 2012)

Either there is a major difference in IQ and quality control, or the reviewing website I most often use (you know the one) is somehow biased toward Canon (and maybe Nikon, but I don't read that part of the site). Every review I read of a Tamron or Sigma lens reads like a death sentence. "My 2nd copy was better than the 1st, but my 3rd copy was so bad I wished I had the 1st copy back..." and so on. Or "I really wanted to like this lens, but..." I think I have read every Sigma or Tamron review on the site and none of them reccomend any of the lenses. In fact, they they kind of discourage you from buying non-Canon.

That said, I went to the one old-school camera store in my PA city today and tried out the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, (and also the non-IS f4 version) and compared them to the Tamron 2.8 equivalent. Have to say, even just tracking the stuff on the store shelves, both the Canons were much faster to focus, and way smoother/quieter.


----------

