3rd Party lenses scare me - Some questions!

S

Set_Nights

Messages
387
Edit My Images
Yes
So I have always gone for Canon fit lenses... not because I am a snob (ok, maybe a little :razz:) but more because I have no idea what all the 3rd party acronymns mean and I find it all rather scary. Could someone maybe give me some pointers and let me know if the below is correct. From what I can tell:

Sigma

The IS and USM of Canon is the OS and HSM of Sigma.

The EF and EF-S of Canon is the DG and DC of Sigma. If this is the case then, like Canon, can the DC only be used on crop bodies? Additionally can the DG be used on crop bodies and (unlike Canon) is a DC lens actually better than a DG lens on a cropped body?

The L lens series of Canon is the EX (gold band?) lenses of Sigma.

Tamron

The IS of Canon is the VC of Tamron.

The EF and EF-S of Canon is the Di and Di II of Tamron. As above can a Di II be used on a full-frame and can a Di be used on a crop? Is the Di II better on a crop than a Di?

Are the XR (Extra Refractive) and LD (Low Dispersion) particularly important :|?

The L series of Canon is the SP of Tamron.

Tokina

I'm not sure what the IS is in Tokina?

The EF and EF-S of Canon is the D and Dx of Tokina. Can a Dx be used on a full-frame and can a D be used on a crop? Is the Dx better on a crop than a D?

The L series of Canon is the Pro of Tokina?
 
Last edited:
IS = OS = VC (I don't think tokina have stabilised lenses?)

USM = HSM = USD (again, I don't know about tokina and ultra sonic motors)

DG does not quite equal EF. I'm sure I read that DG is the digital coating applied to the rear elements to reduce reflection within digital bodies (users don't really report much difference between DG lenses and their older virtually optically identical non-DG predecessors though), but it seems to be used to mean 35mm format now. (and by the way, canon EF lenses can be used on ALL eos bodies, not just full frame. It's only EF-s that are limited to one format.)

DC sort of equals EF-s. I believe some DC lenses can be mounted on full frame bodies, but will have just a circle of image in the centre, whereas canon EF-s won't mount full frame bodies at all. Don't know much about the crop designations of other brands.
Whether a DC lens is better than a DG lens is a case by case thing, there is no general rule, but they will be smaller and lighter. But full format lenses on crop utilises the centre sweet spot of a lens, so full format lenses on crop bodies often don't show much vignetting or corner softness, so full format lenses can be better on crop than crop lenses.
 
Last edited:
Equivalent - yes, equal - it depends on the individual lens...
 
Set_Nights said:
Sigma

The IS and USM of Canon is the OS and HSM of Sigma.

The EF and EF-S of Canon is the DG and DC of Sigma. If this is the case then, like Canon, can the DC only be used on crop bodies? Additionally can the DG be used on crop bodies and (unlike Canon) is a DC lens actually better than a DG lens on a cropped body?

The L lens series of Canon is the EX (gold band?) lenses of Sigma.
Click to expand...

pretty much, apart from the bit about DC being "better" on a crop. as far as im aware there is no difference optically just that a DC on a 1.3 or full sensor youll get massive vigenetting.
 
Canon IS = Sigma OS = Tamron VC ?

Yes. (No Tokina equivalent.) They're all doing the same job, though they're not all equally effective, even within one manufacturer's range. For example some older Canon IS lenses offer 2 stops of correction, but some newer ones claim to achieve 5 stops.

Canon EF = Sigma DG = Tamron Di = Tokina D ?

Sort of. They all denote lenses which will fit and work on full-frame or crop-sensor cameras, but there are some subtle differences.

DG and Di refer to lens coatings which are designed for digital cameras - coatings are arguably more important than in the old film days because the sensor is more reflective than film. Sigma and Tamron made older non-DG and non-DI lenses which will still fit full-frame sensors.

EF lenses have been made since pre-digital days and Canon don't make a fuss about the coatings. Presumably newer designs have better coatings, but you can't tell from the name. Maybe Canon don't think it's significant enough to clutter up the lens name still further. (Some of their newest lenses boast a "sub-wavelength" coating, but it's still not in the name.)

Tokina have recently introduced FX as a full-frame designator. I don't know whether this or their D have any other meanings though.

Note that all these lenses will work on crop-sensor bodies, and they will *all* work *better* because you'd only be using the central portion of the image which suffers least from softness, CA, distortion, etc.

Canon EF-S = Sigma DC = Tamron Di-II = Tokina DX ?

Yes. They're all lenses designed for crop-sensor DSLRs, built smaller and lighter than full-frame lenses because they project smaller image circles.

EF-S lenses will not fit on full-frame cameras. DC / Di-II / DX lenses might or might not fit. The manufacturers don't say, so it's possible that, even within one manufacturer's range, some might and some might not. But why bother? They would vignette horribly, and they might foul the movement of the mirror.

Canon USM = Sigma HSM ?

Yes. Note that Tamron use HSD and, more recently, PZD. I don't think there's a Tokina equivalent.

These all refer to fast-and-silent focussing motors within the lens. But, as with IS/OS/VC, they're not all equally effective.

For example Canon have two USM implementations, Ring USM and another whose name I can't remember right now. Ring USM is slower and noisier. Tamron admit that HSD is equivalent to Ring USM, which probably explains why many Tamron lenses are notoriously slow to focus, but their new PZD is better.

Canon L = Sigma EX = Tamron SP = Tokina PRO ?

Ooh, don't go there!

Within each manufacturer's range, these designations are all intended to indicate the "professional" or "superior" lenses, but you will never find a clear statement of what exactly that means. This can be less than helpful. For example, in Canon's range not all L lenses are weather-sealed and not all weather-sealed lenses are L. For another example, no EF-S lenses are L, even though some are every bit as good optically as L lenses.

And comparing across different manufactures here would be pointless. There is no meaningful way to compare a Sigma EX with a Canon L.

What about XR, LD, etc?

These refer to the types of glass used. You'll see other designations around too: APO, UD, ED, etc.

I wouldn't worry about it. Lens designers use whatever formulation is required to get the job done. Some manufacturers' marketing suits then paint it on the outside of the lens and some don't. (Canon to their credit don't.) I suppose if you could find two otherwise identical lenses then an XR version ought to be better than a non-XR version, but that doesn't happen: if the design needs XR glass then it has XR glass, and if it doesn't then its a different design.

(Potentially dodgy analogy: a Ferrari isn't superior to a Ducati by virtue of having 4 wheels.)

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
Thank you so much StewartR, that was a really useful post and basically has put my question to rest :).

Canon L = Sigma EX = Tamron SP = Tokina PRO ?

Ooh, don't go there!
Click to expand...

Teehee, that made me giggle :D. Yeah, it's not something I'm bothered by at all but I was just trying to understand what all the common added acronyms mean and it helps to just realise that it's sort of the equivelant of seeing an "L" on a Canon.

Thanks also to everyone else that contributed :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top