Independent lenses- why no coverage here?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I'm a little perplexed that- although there re plenty of questions and comments on here about the lenses that Canon manufacture themselves, there is practically nothing about 3rd party lenses to fit EOS cameras! As there seems to be general acknowledgement that Canon lenses span everything from the superlative to the 'on the wallop' consumer optic, it can't be an issue of quality alone! Even if this were the case, manufacturers such as Sigma and Vivitar can surely give Canon a run for their money?

As a long-standing FD user, relatively new to the autofocus scene, I'm simply hoping for a wider scope in the lens comments.

My next priority is a 19-35mm lens, or something like... any suggestions- whether Canon-made or not?

Thanks for your attention JIM

-- Jim Cross (iamacamera@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001

Answers

One reason is most people here stay away from 3rd party Lens's nothing like getting the lens using it haveing it fall apart though not as often now 3rd party quailty seems to be coming up.

But the #1 issue is when Canon releases the newest latest and greatest Low and behold usually the 3rd party Lens wont function on the new body Sigma and Tokina are bad about this.

Rob

-- Rob D (bobbyd7@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.


I've had a few cheap Sigmas & fairly good one that didn't work with newer Canon bodies, so future compatibility is a issue.

I've also has some very good Sigmas and they can be very good for the money. And the EX series Sigmas have all passed the test on the newest Canon bodies.

As far as afordable wide zooms go, I'll give you three options. Vivitar/Cosina/Phoenix (same lens) 19-35 f/3.5-4.5 is cheaply made with a fair amount of slop in the focus ring, but is reasonably sharp and makes nice picures. It has some of the typical distortion of cheap wide zooms. That and the Tokina 19-35 are about the best buys at the low end & in my opinion you get more than you pay for. The same for the 100mm f/3.5 Macro Vivitar/Cosina/Phoenix. Cheap junk that takes good pictures & is reliable in spite of the cheesy feel.

The next step up is the Canon 20-35 USM. A very good lens that is a bit sharper & straighter, feels better & focuses quicker for over twice the money. It's the only one of my recommendations that offers FTM.

For just a bit more money the Sigma 17-35 f/2.8-4 HSM is wider, at least as sharp & fairly distortion free. It focuses quick & quiet but does not have FTM. In my opinion 17mm is just barely adequate for a wide lens so unless I have a 14mm in my bag this is the only one I would consider. Most people think 20mm is plenty wide though.

-- Jim Strutz (jimstrutz@juno.com), June 15, 2001.


Well, this is really an extension of the Canon FAQ files which deal with CANON equipment only.

Though many Canon EOS users do use 3rd party lenses, I think most experienced Canon EOS owners have come to the conclusion that unless you are on a VERY tight budget, you'll end up with a lot fewer problems if you stick to Canon lenses. The canon body-lens interface is notorious for causing problems with older 3rd party lenses every time a new body comes out!

I'm sure there must be a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Vivitar forums somewhere that deal with 3rd party lenses - optically speaking it really doesn't matter much what camera you mount them on.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), June 15, 2001.


Sigma is updating their older lenses to work with the Elan 7 for free, which I thought was pretty nice. Had this done on my Sigma 24mm, frankly a better lens than Canon's. Without the update the lens wouldn't stop down on the Elan 7.

-- Steven Fisher (srf@srf.com), June 15, 2001.

Jim

I guess every serious photographer initially must first go the 3rd party route themselves to discover that it is better to stay away from them, more so with AF cameras. Apparently the slightly lower prices of the 3rd party lenses are too good to ignore. I use to fall into that trap myself until I discovered the hard way that in photography you get what you pay for. It is an expensive lesson, having lost a lot of money selling my 3rd lenses to replace it with Canon lenses. So much for "saving money by buying a 3rd party lens that is just as good but cost less". Even though Sigma will update their lenses for free to work on a new EOS body it is of little condolence to me. Just the trouble of having to send a lens away and be without it for several weeks was enough encouragement to get rid of my last Sigma lens (relief). I friend of mine just bought an EOS 3 and only two of the 5 lenses he own worked on the camera. Only one Sigma lens worked (100 macro) and the other was a Canon lens. Three of the Sigma lenses did not function properly (18-35, 70-300 and 170-500). Another friend of mine experience a similar problem with his new Minolta. Since he only owned Sigma lenses he was without his lenses for several weeks. It is not only a matter of compatibility, but I have yet to see a 3rd party lens in EOS mount that is better in terms of build quality, optical performance, focusing speed and handling than the equivalent Canon lens. In the end it is your choice and your money. I know what I will do.

-- nico (nico@anp.co.za), June 16, 2001.



The Sigma 24mm I have was replaced with a newer (and looks even better) better version. But even my now-older version focuses closer, uses metal construction (not a big deal to me), rates higher on photodo, and is 30-50 percent cheaper than Canon's. I wouldn't want Canon's even if it were the same price, because of the 1:4 macro ability. The Sigma front element doesn't rotate, not sure about Canon's.

Sigma's new 24mm almost a stop faster, focuses closer still (1:2.7), has 3 more aperature blades than Canon's, and is still less expensive than Canon. Too bad it uses a 77mm filter. =)

Third party lenses shouldn't be automatically ruled out, despite Canon's attempts to make sure you don't buy them. My apologies to Bob if he feels this doesn't belong in the EOS FAQ group.

-- Steven Fisher (srf@srf.com), June 16, 2001.


Bob Atkins wrote:
  I'm sure there must be a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Vivitar forums somewhere that deal with 3rd party lenses - optically speaking it really doesn't matter much what camera you mount them on.

When choosing a lens for my Elan 7E, I learned that Canon bodies need electronics for the aperture mechanism and focus motor to function. The links were particularly useful:

Cheers

-- Julian Loke (jul.loke@home.com), June 16, 2001.


nico said, "I have yet to see a 3rd party lens in EOS mount that is better in terms of build quality, optical performance, focusing speed and handling than the equivalent Canon lens"

Steven Fisher seems to think otherwise, at least concerning the Sigma 28mm lens he owns.

I haven't actually used any Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc. lens that were truelly better than Canon, but I have used several third party lenses that were built very well, perhaps as good as the Canon and had optics that were the equal to the Canon equivalent. And they did it for considerably less than the price of the Canon. That's a compelling reason to buy third party glass.

In this field you don't often get more than you pay for, but sometimes you pay for more than you get. If nothing else, third party manufacturers keep the big guys reasonably competitive.

To me, future compatibility is the real reason for sticking to Canon lenses. But I buy & sell used lenses and equipment all the time on online auctions & other places, so if I end up with a third party lens that is incompatible with a new camera, I sell it to someone with an older body & buy something else. Since I buy nearly everything used, on average, I don't loose anything more than the shipping costs. And the fact that third party lenses don't retain as much of their initial value is irrelevant.

But I still use nearly all Canon lenses.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), June 17, 2001.


Lots of Jims around here, huh?

Anyway, in answer to your wide angle zoom question, may I suggest looking around for a used Canon 20-35/2.8 L. I just picked one up (in Japan, in near mint condition) for around $550 US, which here is the same price as a new Canon consumer zoom with the same range. It was ever-so-slightly more expensive than comparable 3rd party offerings, but it's a Canon L lens! Just my two bits...

Jim

-- Jim Trickett (trickett@osb.att.ne.jp), June 19, 2001.


Nico (16 June) referred to me with regrads to the compatability problem with the Sigmas and my EOS 3. While Sigma definitely has a problem with compatability and focus speed is normally a problem, and yes, the L-lenses are in a different class, one must compare apples with apples. I am not convinced that the Canon consumer lenses are optically better than the 3rd party lenses. I recently got hold of a 28-90mm Canon, and I have yet to find a Sigma lens as flimsy as this lens. Canon can probably compete price wise with these types of lenses, but is it worthwhile in the long run? Shouldn't their policy be that Canon lenses may be somewhat more expensive, but quality will never be compromised?

-- Koot Marais (kma@telkomsa.net), June 20, 2001.


I have a Sigma 70~300 APO and a Sigma $00 APO. Both of these lenses work well with my EOS-3 and the build quality is pretty good. Of course I have several Canon lenses and these are a notch or two above the Sigmas. Still the Sigmas hold their own. I would buy them again and I would also consider the new Tamron 28~200mm Super and even the newer Tamron lenses. Most working photographers who own their own equipment probably has a major manufacturer camera body or two and at least one third party lens in their camera kit. If you can afford Canon, go get it. If you need it now and don't have enough nickels and dimes, take a shot at a Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.

-- Marcus J. Wilson Sr. (marcus.wilson@dtra.mil), June 29, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ