# Canon lenses vs 3rd parties...



## canon23 (Mar 30, 2012)

Hey Photo Folks,

I'm consider new to the photo community...well, at least most recently with intense regained interest. I bought a Rebel 4 yrs ago and used it just for lesiure. Recently, I just bought the 5D Mark II and got it w/the kit lens (24-105). I also have the 50mm 1.8, but is looking to increase my lenses. Should I buy mainly Canon L lenses or consider 3rd parties, such as Sigma and Tamron, etc.? Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## elflord (Mar 31, 2012)

canon23 said:


> Hey Photo Folks,
> 
> I'm consider new to the photo community...well, at least most recently with intense regained interest. I bought a Rebel 4 yrs ago and used it just for lesiure. Recently, I just bought the 5D Mark II and got it w/the kit lens (24-105). I also have the 50mm 1.8, but is looking to increase my lenses. Should I buy mainly Canon L lenses or consider 3rd parties, such as Sigma and Tamron, etc.? Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks.



Always consider all options -- if you're shopping for a particular type of lens (for example, a normal length fast prime), look at all the offerings, weigh all the factors I own the Sigma 85mm f/1.4mm. It's a nice lens that occupies a fairly wide gap between the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2. All my other lenses are Canon (other fast primes). If I wanted a cheap fast zoom or a cheap wide angle, I'd also consider a third party lens. 

As you have a high end camera, you'll probably want mid to high end glass which means you'll probably own mostly Canon, but there are some decent mid to high end third party lenses that are worth considering (the Sigma 50 and 85, anything made by Zeiss, budget manual focus lenses from Samyang)


----------



## pwp (Mar 31, 2012)

Any FF Canon will punish anything less than high quality glass. Your 24-105 f/4is is class glass, and uncommonly versatile. 

If you like your 50mm and use it a lot, and want to upgrade from your current f/1.8 lens there is plenty of choice here. 

Canon's 50mm f/1.4 is now fairly ancient, but don't let that put you off. It's a very respectable lens, rock solid build, low price, surprisingly compact and delivers excellent quality even one click down from wide open at f/1.8. Click to f/2.8 and most copies are stellar. For similar money there is the widely liked Sigma 50 f/1.4. It's bulky & heavy but delivers excellent IQ. Got deep pockets? The L 50 f/1.2 has a lot of satisfied users.

The non-L EF wides frequently disappoint, but you could occasionally get lucky. If your budget is strong, a lens that few photographers like to go without is an L 70-200 f/2.8isII or the more compact, cheaper L 70-200 f/4isII. Both lenses are brilliant quality and if you did a poll asking about photographers most used lenses I'd bet you'd see the 70-200 top the poll by a clear margin.

Paul Wright


----------



## iso79 (Mar 31, 2012)

Invest in L lenses and never look back. Don't waste your money on 3rd party lenses.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

iso79 said:


> Invest in L lenses and never look back. Don't waste your money on 3rd party lenses.



Now if you hadn't given this as an advice but as a statement of your personal preference, there would be nothing to discuss about. But as it stands it's just the type of very bad advice that is frequently found in this forum and any shop would give you if they would want to give as much money out of you as possible. For aps-c (and not the op's mk2) its even more complicated, because part of the expensive glass ef lenses is not even used for this sensor type, thus it's even more strange to recommend L lenses for everything

* to the op: You can pretty much decide for yourself since you've good one crappy lens (50/1.8) and a good one (24-105L). If you can live with the 50mm Canon one, you'll never find anything wrong about decent 3rd party lenses. But there are excellent 3rd party lenses out there, For crop Sigma or Tokina ultrawides, the Sigma 50/1.4 is better than the legacy Canon one, and in the tele range some Sigma 2.8 lenses outperform cheaper Canon ones hands down. Even in the af/usm/is departement, the 3rd party manufacturers seem to have caught up. So you won't get around comparing reviews and prices to make a decision, or of course if weight or budget is no matter get something like the 24-70ii and the 300 and up 2.8 Canon tele primes.

* personally, I've always bought Canon lenses because of the higher resale value if I would ever want to switch brands completely. As for the other general differences:

a) One constant annoyance about 3rd party lenses is quality control, so be sure to test a new lens and get it replaced if it shows sharpness falloffs or unbalanced CAs.

b) you might need more af micro adjustment on 3rd party lenses, but your mk2 has got this feature.

c) 3rd party manufactures allow for longer warranty than the very short Canon 1y.

d) 3rd party lenses might have issues with upcoming bodies (i.e. not your mk2) because on the one hand side the protocols are only reverse engineered by some and on the other hand side Canon seems to make sure that there are problems.

e) Canon only delivers in-camera correction profiles for their own lenses, but you don't need these if you shoot raw and then apply a profile in dxo or lr.

f) Canon L lenses have an annoying red ring and even more "here comes the money" white color which might give you a short ego boost and device the crowd in front of you, but later on imho are rather embarrassing (I color-taped my big white lens to get around this).


----------



## iso79 (Mar 31, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Invest in L lenses and never look back. Don't waste your money on 3rd party lenses.
> ...



It's not bad advice. It's from personal experience. I've wasted so much money on Tamron and Sigma lenses because I wanted to save a few bucks. And every time a disappointment. That money I could have used for L lenses. You only need a few. Pays for itself in the end.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2012)

iso79 said:


> I've wasted so much money on Tamron and Sigma lenses because I wanted to save a few bucks. And every time a disappointment. That money I could have used for L lenses. You only need a few. Pays for itself in the end.



I understand the frustration, but in this case it would be helpful to post exactly what 3rd party lenses disappointed you and why - because as I wrote above there seem to be top Tokina or Sigma lenses out there, so labeling them all inferior does make bad advice since it's much too general.


----------



## iaind (Apr 2, 2012)

Buy the best you can afford. Canon lenses are futureproof. Third party lenses are reverse engineered.
Some early Sigma lenses will only work on film cameras unless they have been re-chipped.
Canon L glass holds its value.
A quality lens with outperform lesser variants.


----------



## Wideopen (Apr 8, 2012)

Invest in some nice L glass. Bodies and 3rd party lens values depreciate rather quickly while L glass retains most of its value as well as increase in value in some cases.


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> f) Canon L lenses have an annoying red ring and even more "here comes the money" white color which might give you a short ego boost and device the crowd in front of you, but later on imho are rather embarrassing (I color-taped my big white lens to get around this).



I'm the type of person that likes black, it's lower profile and fits my "style", but the white(or really off-white) color of the longer L lenses does serve a purpose, besides marketing/recognition. It helps keep the lens cooler if you're out in the sun, you don't want important things like some of the elements to move around because of thermal expansion. In fact, Nikon is offering (at least some) lenses in white, as well.

And there are nice non-L lenses, as well. Two of my sharpest lenses are non-L, my 100mm f/2.8 macro and 15mm f/2.8 fisheye. But I believe everything else I have is L, except my Lensbabies.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 9, 2012)

As much as I love Canon L lenses and own a bunch, they ARE overpriced. They were already overpriced, then Canon just decided to outdo the already high prices with their new lens lineup, e.g. 24-70 MkII for $2300.. really?

While one must approach 3rd party lenses with caution, with enough investigation, one can achieve a 3rd party lens collection by choosing the good ones. For example, the Sigma 70mm Macro lens is a fantastic lens, sharper than even my Canon 100L and far cheaper. 

I am hoping the new Tamron 24-70 IS hits one out of the park as well, to give photographers a much less expensive option to Canon's 24-70 II.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 9, 2012)

drjlo said:


> As much as I love Canon L lenses and own a bunch, they ARE overpriced. They were already overpriced, then Canon just decided to outdo the already high prices with their new lens lineup, e.g. 24-70 MkII for $2300.. really?



2nd that.

I'v considered upgrading my EF 15mm f/2.8 to EF 8-15mm f/4, and decided to buy a Sigma 8mm f/3.5. A major reason was price - not only new L glass expensive, but as the lens is available only from the local official distributor, which charges $250 more than the U.S. price (before taxes).

As I often shoot in low light, I also wanted to keep the 15mm f/2.8 for the extra stop.


[Yes, I've read how the new lenses cost the same in Yens after taking inflation into account. I'll care about that the day my salary is paid in inflation-corrected-Yens.]


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

RunAndGun said:


> but the white(or really off-white) color of the longer L lenses does serve a purpose, besides marketing/recognition



I can see this is true for shooting with a 600L, but for your general 70-200/4 and 70-300L there is so little white I doubt it makes a difference, esp. seeing that other L primes and mid-range zooms are big and black. But of course I didn't test this myself, so I might be completely wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> RunAndGun said:
> 
> 
> > but the white(or really off-white) color of the longer L lenses does serve a purpose, besides marketing/recognition. It helps keep the lens cooler if you're out in the sun, you don't want important things like some of the elements to move around because of thermal expansion.
> ...



Ostensibly, the reason Canon paints the barrels white (or gray/beige, depending on your mental WB setting) is thermal protection, specifically for the fluorite lens elements which are more sensetive to heat than glass. Most of the white lenses (including the 70-200/4 lenses) have fluotite in them, but for lenses without fluorite elements (e.g. the 70-300 L) it's pure marketing.


----------



## smirkypants (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ostensibly, the reason Canon paints the barrels white (or gray/beige, depending on your mental WB setting) is thermal protection, specifically for the fluorite lens elements which are more sensetive to heat than glass. Most of the white lenses (including the 70-200/4 lenses) have fluotite in them, but for lenses without fluorite elements (e.g. the 70-300 L) it's pure marketing.


The 400mm f4 DO, which is also white, also contains one fluorite element. 

Interesting stuff here about early Canon fluorite lenses:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/earlyfdlenses/300mmfd.htm


----------



## Aditya (Apr 9, 2012)

I found myself in a similar situation a while back--I started off with a Rebel XT and ended slowly upgrading to a 7D and 5D MKII. Although much depends on your focal range needs I second the opinions here that L lenses are the best investment for both lens & image quality. Your 24-105 is a really great lens and you may be disappointed with the results from lesser quality glass. 

Most of the time I shoot with an 85mm 1.8 and the 135 2L (both reasonably priced). Other good L-series values are the 17-40 and the 70-200 f4, the non-IS version being a affordable complement to your 24-105. 

You should check out the Fred Miranda lens reviews page too for more feedback. 

Good luck!



canon23 said:


> Hey Photo Folks,
> 
> I'm consider new to the photo community...well, at least most recently with intense regained interest. I bought a Rebel 4 yrs ago and used it just for lesiure. Recently, I just bought the 5D Mark II and got it w/the kit lens (24-105). I also have the 50mm 1.8, but is looking to increase my lenses. Should I buy mainly Canon L lenses or consider 3rd parties, such as Sigma and Tamron, etc.? Your inputs are much appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most of the white lenses (including the 70-200/4 lenses) have fluotite in them, but for lenses without fluorite elements (e.g. the 70-300 L) it's pure marketing.



Thanks for the explanation! I'm reading that fluorite elements help color rendition - does that make a big difference? I'm asking because I've got the fluorite-less 70-300L and it does take color pictures, too...

PS: Is there a technical reason for painting a red ring on lenses, too  ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm reading that fluorite elements help color rendition - does that make a big difference?



Fluorite has better refractive properties than glass, meaning it reduces chromatic aberration. If you compare Canon lenses with fluorite elements to their Nikon counterparts, you'll find that most of the Nikon lenses have an extra ED element compared to the Canon lenses - so, the fluorite element is essentially doing the job of two ED elements in reducing CA.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> so, the fluorite element is essentially doing the job of two ED elements in reducing CA.



... doesn't sound like a big deal nowadays - first off, on my 70-300L I'm getting hardly any CAs (no wonder using f4-f5.6) and in addition to that, if there were some I'd remove them with one click in LR4. Am I missing something?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ... doesn't sound like a big deal nowadays - first off, on my 70-300L I'm getting hardly any CAs (no wonder using f4-f5.6) and in addition to that, if there were some I'd remove them with one click in LR4. Am I missing something?



Not really, except that as a 'slow' lens the 70-300 L would have less CA anyway, compared to an f/2.8 lens. But by that logic, everything can be fixed in post. Why have good metering, just adjust exposure. Why have a fast lens, just add OOF blur later. Ok, I exaggerate. But, that one click in LR4 isn't magic - there are consequences to fixing things in post (in this case, loss of sharpness, or increase in noise if the tool compensates for the reduced sharpness).


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> But by that logic, everything can be fixed in post. Why have good metering, just adjust exposure. Why have a fast lens, just add OOF blur later. Ok, I exaggerate.



Indeed: postprocessing blur certainly is a difference to real bokeh, even using the latest plugins. And metering doesn't matter that much anymore to me when shooting raw with the added dynamic range. Color rendition is a problem if you don't remember how the original situation was, and btw nobody else will either. CAs are really the smallest problem to me since they only occur on a f4-5.6 lens at extremely high contrast borders. Thus, this is what I find important about a lens' iq: sharpness > bokeh >> color >>> CAs


----------



## RunAndGun (Apr 9, 2012)

I'd rather have an optically superior lens than an inferior one. And if having a fluorite element allows them to remove an element, that allows the lens to be lighter and possibly smaller. Call me old school, and maybe working in TV has something to do with it, too, but I don't want to rely on post. Do it right(or as close to it as possible) to begin with. It's great that we can fix SO much in post nowadays, but I'd rather have as clean an image as possible from the start.


----------



## Alangeli (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> .. I've got the fluorite-less 70-300L ...



The 70-300L does have fluorite elements.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

Alangeli said:


> The 70-300L does have fluorite elements.



Um, link? Usually Dr. Neuro isn't wrong on something like this...



RunAndGun said:


> I'd rather have an optically superior lens than an inferior one. And if having a fluorite element allows them to remove an element, that allows the lens to be lighter and possibly smaller.



The question is: Did Canon leave out the fluorite element out of the 70-300L because they're just cheap and wanted to save the money, or did their research show that CAs aren't a problem with this lens anyway? Well, we'll never know - but if they saved $200 for leaving out something I wouldn't have noticed anyway, me and my purse say it's ok.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Thus, this is what I find important about a lens' iq: sharpness > bokeh >> color >>> CAs



Depends on the lens and the situation. For example, I'd be quite concerned about CA in a shot like this (from a 50L):







Think that one click in LR4 would fix that? 



Alangeli said:



> The 70-300L does have fluorite elements.



Really? Can you provide a link that supports that? The description states, "_It features two Ultra Low Dispersion (UD) elements for improved image quality and reduced chromatic aberration,_" nothing about fluorite, and the block diagram of the lens in Canon's technical hall does not show any fluorite elements, either... ??


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 9, 2012)

In general what you encounter with lenses is the law of diminishing returns, you increasingly pay significantly more for smaller and smaller gains. L glass tends to be significantly more expensive then non-L with fairly marginal improvements, but is fairly consistent in quality.

Non L Canon and Sigma stuff has to be looked at on a lens by lens basis, with some being 'meh' and some being very good. Zeiss tends to be like the L stuff, marginally better with significantly higher costs, but better resale value. There is also, as others have said, compatibility issues since 3rd party lenses are reverse engineered, but this is rarely actually much of a problem since Sigma and Zeiss tend to know what they are doing.

Personally I have some L, some regular, some Sigma, and some Nikkor M39 stuff that I use on my camera and have found that if you get a good lens they are all pretty similar in quality.. provided you avoid the lemons.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> inge.jpg[/img]
> Think that one click in LR4 would fix that?



Of course you're right, I was talking of moderate CAs on tele zooms... but looking at your sample (I guess it's from a corner at wide open aperture): Did you actually try to fix this with LR4's lens profile CA reduction? I'm asking because it really does a good job, esp. since there's nothing else purple in your shot - but of course sharpness will suffer.


----------



## Alangeli (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Alangeli said:
> 
> 
> > The 70-300L does have fluorite elements.
> ...



Sorry, I was wrong, I always thought that this lens also got a fluorite element.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > inge.jpg[/img]
> ...



Not my shot, it's from photozone's review of the 50L on APS-C, and I'd guess it's the full image, not a corner crop (this is longitudinal CA, which affects the whole frame, unlike lateral CA which is worse at the edges).


----------



## AJ (Apr 9, 2012)

Yes you should consider third-party lenses.

For years I've enjoyed lenses from Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina. Zeiss is another good brand. All these manufacturers make superb lenses as well as duds. Do your research before buying one of these lenses to know what you're getting. If you don't want to do your research then buying a Canon L is pretty much a guarantee of quality.

As for sample variance. All manufacturers including Canon, Nikon, Tamron and Sigma make duds. It's probably true that Tamron and Sigma are more prone to manufacturing defects like decentering. That said, buying an L lens is no guarantee. My friend bought a badly decentered 70-200/4. Canon eventually fixed it, but it took six months. Read the photozone reviews about 24-70/2.8L and 24-104/4L for more stories of bad copies of L lenses. If you're concerned about getting a bad sample, buy from a bricks+mortar shop who will stand behind their products with exchanges and refunds.

I think it's a real shame - *IMO Canon should test every individual 70-300L before putting it on the shelf*. This way "L" would actually be a guarantee of quality. "L" would actually mean something.

It is said that 3rd party manufacturers are no insurance for future compatibility. Perhaps this is true. However Canon has changed their lens mount too, rendering old lenses useless. Today, a lot of FD glass sells for pennies to the dollar because of this. When Sigma lenses started misbehaving years ago, Sigma offered free chip upgrades.

So, let me make an analogy. Suppose you ask what's good for dinner and someone suggests filet mignon (Canon L). It's certainly a good suggestion, one you can't go wrong with, but there are other cuts of beef out there (Canon non-L) as well as pork and chicken (Tamron and Sigma).

I love my Tamron 17-50/2.8, Tamron 90/2.8, and Sigma 10-20 dearly. These lenses have performed for me year after year. They don't owe me anything, and I don't care about their resale value.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 9, 2012)

AJ said:


> I think it's a real shame - IMO Canon should test every individual 70-300L before putting it on the shelf. This way "L" would actually be a guarantee of quality. "L" would actually mean something.



Did you have an actual bad experience with this particular lens, or are you citing reviews? I'm asking because I thought a lot about "how to get a good copy" before I bought my 70-300L, and there were very divided opinions about how large the manufacturing tolerance on Canon L lenses really is and how likely it is to end up with a bad copy that needs countless cycles of service and adjustment.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

AJ said:


> Suppose you ask what's good for dinner and someone suggests filet mignon (Canon L). It's certainly a good suggestion, one you can't go wrong with, but there are other cuts of beef out there (Canon non-L)...



Chuck roast? Please...that's for the dog.


----------



## AJ (Apr 9, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's a real shame - IMO Canon should test every individual 70-300L before putting it on the shelf. This way "L" would actually be a guarantee of quality. "L" would actually mean something.
> ...



I should have said: Canon should individually test every L lens.

I don't have a direct experience with a bad copy of 70-300L. I just picked that one because IMO the price is quite steep, and because it came up previously in the thread.

I've only ever purchased one bad lens myself, a 17-55/2.8 which was very blurry at 35 mm somehow. I sent it back and got a better copy.

The faulty 70-200/4L that I referred to was bought by a close friend of mine. In fact we placed a joint order to save on shipping. He'd been shooting shallow-dof photos for a few weeks and chalked up strange results to user error. Then he ran a brick wall test. He showed me the problematic photos. One side was severely blurred even when stopped down the f/11. At this time the return policy was up so he had to deal with Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 9, 2012)

AJ said:


> I should have said: Canon should individually test every L lens.



Boom. The cost of all L-series lenses just went up by 15%. Any manufacturing process produces a few lemons, and QC is designed to reduce that number to an acceptable level. 100% perfection and/or testing every lens simply costs more than it's worth. That's why there's a warranty.


----------



## dstppy (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I should have said: Canon should individually test every L lens.
> ...



Maybe THAT'S the deal with Canon's latest pricing 

I'm honestly curious how this new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC is going to stack up to the outgoing EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM . . .


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> AJ said:
> 
> 
> > I should have said: Canon should individually test every L lens.
> ...


100% perfection is impossible in all thing's in life..


----------



## AJ (Apr 9, 2012)

Lens testing the way Canon does it is actually a pretty quick procedure.

The lens is used much like a slide projector lens: a test pattern is back-projected through the lens from the lens mount out the front and onto a screen. I imagine a technician could can test a prime in less than a minute or so, a zoom in a minute or two, assuming no adjustments need to be made.


----------



## lol (Apr 9, 2012)

For relatively high cost low volume items like DSLR lenses I'd be very surprised if they don't already test 100% of lenses made. However, they might not test them all the same way i.e. they don't 100% test 100% of lenses. For example, they would at the least give it a function test to look for any obvious flaws and a basic optical sanity check. As long as the testing is optimised for the manufacturing process the cost impact is minimal. If you demanded the head lens designer to individually inspect every lens, that would be a different story.


----------



## peederj (Apr 10, 2012)

If you like automation features, certainly get Canon lenses with a Canon body. The luxury line is abbreviated "L."

If you have money and work manually, maybe get Zeiss primes. You will find ready buyers for those second hand if you wish to part with them.

If you don't have money and work manually, try Samyang/Rokinon. Or if you are afraid of taking valuables on location but still want an excellent manual capture (e.g. guerrilla video).

If you have a moderate amount of money and want some of the automation features, try Sigma/Tamron/Tokina which might give you a little and take a little vs. the Canon equivalents.

I have examples of all of these...some are better deals than others, but none that I chose were ripoffs. 

Have fun and take pictures.


----------

