Talk sense to me - lenses

[Dale V]

I've had my Canon Dslr just about a year and I've bought a few lenses for it, all genuine Canon and brand new and wanted to keep my dslr a single brand collection. I'm currently eying up a few lenses for the future (not immediate future), but because the ones I'm looking at are a lot more expensive than the others I've previously bought I've took notice of the non Canon brands such as Tamron and Sigma.

The lenses I've got my eye on are:

17-55 2.8 is
24-70 2.8 is
70-200 2.8 is

In non Canon form, you can pick up the lenses brand new for less than half the price of what Canon retail for, but is my thought of "I must buy Canon only" irrational?

I've read reviews and they are favorable, but then there's some saying there are "bad and good quality copies" which kinda seems luck of the draw and out of the buyers hands as to which you'd pick up, where as I assume there would be a stricter quality control on genuine Canon?

Cheers

 

[Raymond Lin]

All brand have good and bad lenses.

There are some Canon lens I wouldn't buy and there are Sigma lenses that i wouldn't buy and vice versa. Like I wouldn't buy a Canon 24-105L because the 24-70 is better. I would avoid the Sigma's old 24-70mm but I would pick up any of their new Art range without hesitation.

As a general rule a Canon L do keep their value better and longer.

 

[Steeps]

Do you need the overlap with the 24-70? Seems a bit overkill when you have nearly all of the wider range covered with the 17-55 and the top end covered with the 70mm on the other lens.

I used a £200 Tamron 28-75 along side my Canon 24-70 mk1 (£600), it was slightly softer in the corners and had a bit of vignetting, but the centre sharpness was great, good contrast and worked fine in my workflow. Sigma 10-20, had 2 copies of this lens as I missed it when I sold it. Also was very happy with my Sigma 70-200 f2.8 mk1 but recently upgraded to a Canon 100-400 mk2... but that's comparing a £300 lens to one that was £1400.

If you're on a budget, for the price Tamron and Sigma are good lenses, I've not tried the new Canon IS lenses but I was more than happy with the shots I got with Tamron and Sigma lenses.

 

[Dale V]

Thanks for the help.

Raymond, all these lenses would be brand new copies, so from each model would you go for genuine Canon or the sigma/tamron. Basing your decision on quality/price and not depreciation. Are the Canon lenses worth THAT much more?

Yeah steeps, there would be an overlap, I think like you say I'd just buy one or the other. I think I'd lean more towards the 17-55. I'm not in a budget really, but I don't want to be paying more than I have to if they're essentially as good as each other barring the brand name.

 

[Holst1981]

It's really personal preference.

I certainly wouldn't rule out the non Canon lenses. Especially the newer Sigma art range.

With these more expensive pro lenses they should all be pretty good.
I have bought second hand before, the logic being that I can easily resell if I'm not happy and not lose much money.

 

[Gungnir]

Sigma have just announced the 24-70 Art. I'd wait for reviews before deciding on a 24-70.

Their current 70-200 f/2.8 OS isn't a match for the Canon MkII. It's a good lens, I have both, but it doesn't render colours anywhere near as well, a bit warm and muddy lacking contrast. It can struggle locking on to dark subjects but performs well most of the time. The Canon is exceptional. Sharp, fast with vibrant colours and good contrast straight out of camera. Sigma always needs tweaking.

Bear in kind that an awful lot of Sigma critics moan about wide aperture primes. User error plays as big a role in many as Sigma quality control. If forum critics were taken at their word you'd never buy any of them, I've owned six, currently four, with minimal issues on one 30mm lens.

 

[D.P.]

Don't ignore second hand Canon lenses - likely you can keep the lens for a few years and sell it on a at a similar price. I made a little profit using a Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 for 3 years. Nothing beats getting paid to use a lens!

The 3rd party lenses will depreciate more in price, which can make them a bargain second hand but you will also suffer the deprecation and also may have compatibility risks if Canon or nikon change AF comms etc. So I always look at 2nd hand Nikon or brand new 3rd party.


Some Sigma and Tamron lenses are utter trash, some are better than nikon or Canon equivalents, and some don't have any. My Sigma Sport 150-600mm is stunning, the best Nikon has is 100mm short which doesn't work well for me on FF, Canon has nothing close at all. Conversely, there is no lens remotely close to what my Nikon 300mm f/4.0 PF lens is like, 700g its a damn featherweight. Canon have the technology (the 400mm DO mk2 is superb but way bigger/expensive) but haven't released an equivalent lens.

I recently got a Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 , I had intended to get a second hand Nikon 14-24 but couldn't find one at a good price and needed a lens in a hurry. The tamron is almost as good but will end up more expensive long term.

 

[voidshatter]

I would still get the Canon/Nikon lenses instead of the Sigma/Tamron lenses. The original manufacturer knows how to tweak these.

With a Nikon lens on a Nikon body, you get matrix metering (instead of simple colour metering), as well as weather-sealing. With a Canon lens on a Canon body, you get the benefit of double-crosstype AF points, and perhaps something more.

I intermittently get f0 errors and no-AF problems, as well as inconsistent AF accuracy for those side AF points with Sigma Art lenses for Nikon mount.

That being said, the Sigma/Tamron alternatives could also be good choices when they do work correctly.

 

[D.P.]

I would still get the Canon/Nikon lenses instead of the Sigma/Tamron lenses. The original manufacturer knows how to tweak these.

With a Nikon lens on a Nikon body, you get matrix metering (instead of simple colour metering), as well as weather-sealing. With a Canon lens on a Canon body, you get the benefit of double-crosstype AF points, and perhaps something more.

I intermittently get f0 errors and no-AF problems, as well as inconsistent AF accuracy for those side AF points with Sigma Art lenses for Nikon mount.

That being said, the Sigma/Tamron alternatives could also be good choices when they do work correctly.

I don't think that is right about the metering at all. For 3D color metering on nikon bodies the lens just has to return the focus distance, which all 3rd party lenses over the last 15+ years do. 3rd party lenses can certainly be weather sealed, that just means a small rubber gasket around the mount.

 

[voidshatter]

I don't think that is right about the metering at all. For 3D color metering on nikon bodies the lens just has to return the focus distance, which all 3rd party lenses over the last 15+ years do. 3rd party lenses can certainly be weather sealed, that just means a small rubber gasket around the mount.

For 3D matrix metering the camera body needs to know which areas are in focus so it can put more weight for these parts of the image to determine the exposure. When I tested a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art on a Nikon D4, the metering was not sensitive to which part of the picture was in focus, but the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G was. The tests were done with early firmware for both the Sigma and the Nikon. I'm not sure whether any later firmware improved it or not.

 

[Holst1981]

With nikon you may need to be more careful with compatibility.
As nikon don't share info with Sigma some lenses have problems with some bodies especially new bodies with older lenses.
(Sigma 17-55 2.8 and d7100 I remember as live view issues put me off)

That said the newer lenses can be updated via USB dock and I've not noticed anybody complaining about art lenses.
You should do some research to check.

The above may not be relevant to Canon as I'm a nikon shooter.

Gungnir makes a good point about reviews.
There are lots of people out there who don't understand how their camera works, and write negative reviews.

Let us know what you choose.

 

[D.P.]

Canon also have proprietary lens communication that is reverse engineered. TBH, its not just 3rd party lenses you may have an issue with. Even Canon and Nikon cna change communication protocols that break their own lenses requiring them to be sent off for firmware upgrades. Of course Canon and Nikon will try a little harder not to break their own lenses but it does happen.

 

[D.P.]

For 3D matrix metering the camera body needs to know which areas are in focus so it can put more weight for these parts of the image to determine the exposure. When I tested a Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art on a Nikon D4, the metering was not sensitive to which part of the picture was in focus, but the Nikon 35mm f/1.4 G was. The tests were done with early firmware for both the Sigma and the Nikon. I'm not sure whether any later firmware improved it or not.

The camera knows which area is in focus form the selected focus points, the lens has no idea which area is in focus. The lens has no sensing, it is merely adjusted by the camera. What the lens does know is the focus distance selected by the camera, which the camera doesn't know because it just sends simple messages like more" or "less" to make the focus longer or shorter.

I've heard this myth before and it comes about from misinterpreting Nikon manuals that state stuff like '3D color matrix metering only works with Nikon AF-D, AF-S G and DX lenses", which is true for Nikon lenses as the lenses before AF-D didn't communicate focus distance (that is what the D in AF-D means). BUt the phrase doesn't explicitly exclude 3rd party lenses, and nikon don't list all the different Tamron/Sigma acronyms that are compatible.
The Distance information was primarily intended for TTL flashes but was later used for metering purposes. Quite simply, if the lens is focused at infinity then the user is quite liekly photographing a landscape rather than a macro insect or portait for example. That data plugged into the 3D color metering helps the camera pick a good exposure.

If you test the ART lens in a TTL flash mode and get correct results then the lens is correctly reporting distance to the camera.

 

[voidshatter]

The camera knows which area is in focus form the selected focus points, the lens has no idea which area is in focus. The lens has no sensing, it is merely adjusted by the camera. What the lens does know is the focus distance selected by the camera, which the camera doesn't know because it just sends simple messages like more" or "less" to make the focus longer or shorter.

I've heard this myth before and it comes about from misinterpreting Nikon manuals that state stuff like '3D color matrix metering only works with Nikon AF-D, AF-S G and DX lenses", which is true for Nikon lenses as the lenses before AF-D didn't communicate focus distance (that is what the D in AF-D means). BUt the phrase doesn't explicitly exclude 3rd party lenses, and nikon don't list all the different Tamron/Sigma acronyms that are compatible.
The Distance information was primarily intended for TTL flashes but was later used for metering purposes. Quite simply, if the lens is focused at infinity then the user is quite liekly photographing a landscape rather than a macro insect or portait for example. That data plugged into the 3D color metering helps the camera pick a good exposure.

If you test the ART lens in a TTL flash mode and get correct results then the lens is correctly reporting distance to the camera.

I no longer have any Sigma Art lens by my hand at the moment. I'll try the 14mm f/1.8 when it's available, and repeat my metering tests.

Nikon used to implement firmware to un-support Sigma lenses, and Sigma used to update firmware to re-support Nikon cameras. This happened when I had my Nikon D4s and my Sigma Art 35mm f/1.4.

Getting into the infighting between Nikon and Sigma is not something I'd want, particularly when reliability is of most important. I still remember when I was shooting an important event and the Sigma Art lens was stuck at f/0 error on both my D4 and D4s.

 

[Vertigo]

I'm confused - what lenses and body do you have at the moment?

 

[jaybee]

The lenses I've got my eye on are:

17-55 2.8 is
24-70 2.8 is
70-200 2.8 is

Cheers

I've owned both Sigma and Canon lenses. Had bad copies in both.
In the 17-55 range, I extensively tested all the ones available years ago when I still owned a Canon DSLR. At the time, the new Tamron VC one was softer than the non VC, which itself had a ridiculously loud AF motor. The Canon was ££££. The Sigma was pretty good so went with that. Since then, Sigma came out with an IS version themselves which is sharper in the center frame than the Canon I recall.

In the 24-70 range I can't comment, but have used a Canon 24-70 (old non IS) and it was a lovely lens.

In the 70-200 range I've only used and owned Canon and they were top notch.

 

[pingu666]

if your on crop id say forget about the 24-70, its just a odd length to actually use on crop.

the main drAwback of non oem lenses is af speed, and some makes did used to have consistent colour rendering on high end lenses, its less of a thing now, maybe just zeiss?

but all makers have gone upmarket now, the cheap n tacky stuff predates that shift, the classic 70-300mm type of thing. sigma chose to go upmarket to keep its factory in japan, rather than go to china or Thailand/Philippines which the oems have done.

and sigma test every lens with a foveon sensor i think, so sharpness wise thats a *very* high bar.

www.dyxum.com has good user reviews of sony/minolta mount lens - but that includes 3rd party lenses that where released on multiple mounts.