My fear to consider a lens other then Canon

P

P-Chan

Messages
429
Name
Ramon
Edit My Images
Yes
I have recently started in DSLR with my 500D.

My 1st lens apart from the kit lens was the 75-300 III USM Canon. I tried finding alternatives like Sigma lenses for this one but I was drawn back to canon without much effort.

Could be cause Im mostly reading about Canon lenses, I understand a little more the canon glass, I regonize better canon lenses or maybe cause my body is canon thus am drawn for the comfortable saftey the name brings.

Now im into getting my 3rd lens, the Ultra wide 10-22 Canon. Im looking at alternatives like sigma and tokina. Sigma didnt really like but tokina am abit not sure. The best thing is tokina is cheaper but yet it feels like a sin if I should go for Tokina rather then the safe bet Canon.

Is it cause most reviews public forums talk more frequently about Canon lenses then anything else? am i paraniod? (yeah I am) or others too choose to be safe in their brand when they buy?
 
Well I'm in the 'safe' camp. :D

It's nothing to do with lens snobbery - I take the view that with the amount of electrical connections that have to mate between camera body and lens these days, I'd rather both were made by the same manufacturer. That's quite apart from the fact that the Canon glass comes at a price and we should expect it to be better optically. There'll be exceptions obviously.

If I was in the market for a 10-22 lens then I might consider the Sigma purely on it's reputation and price.
 
Right tool for the job .. whether that be Canon, Sigma or Tamron.
 
the tokina is by all accounts an excellent lens and has a larger max aperture than the 10-22...they are both great lenses, I personally consider f2.8 to be a requirement (and as such will be ditching my 10-20 soon), but if you don't shoot in low light, then the 10-22 might be a better bet cos of the longer range.

Right tool for the job... :)
 
I think it's always worth keeping an eye out for reviews and other TP comments.

Canon and Nikon can charge more because of the people who asume that if they pay more - they're getting a better lens and never stray.
 
i've found that sigma make perfectly good lenses (bad copies etc aside).
 
silverstar189 said:
i've found that sigma make perfectly good lenses (bad copies etc aside).
Click to expand...

thats the bit that ALWAYS comes up, and makes me worry about sigma !
 
Tricky69 said:
thats the bit that ALWAYS comes up, and makes me worry about sigma !
Click to expand...

Unfortunately canon glass has poor copies as well. My 70-200 has just been exchanged as it wasn't up to scratch. Also for what it's worth I have always found sigma much better to deal with than canon or any of their repair centres. Deffinatly don't discount sigma. I will be interested what you / other people think of the tokina as I'm looking to get one.
 
There have been a lot of threads regarding the Canon vs Sigma and this is like perpetual motion, it will never end.

I've the Canon 10-22 lens and the only time I've tried to use it in low light is when my camera has been stuck on a tripod so the fact it doesnt go to F2.8 is neither here or there for me. The lens is great quality and I've heard it described as an L lens without the red ring, being very nearly comparable to the 17-40L for quality. Of course this is subjective, as I'm sure posts following this will atest.

Anyway for the record, I've had a sigma lens, and I'll just say I now only buy Canon. :shrug:

Cant comment about Tokina, but my target for future purchaes are L lens having experienced the quality of them, so only Canon for me.
 
I always get OEM glass for the same reason as CT says.

Sigma were a mixed bag IMO; if you're lucky you might get a decent copy, but more often than not I didn't.

Generally, without tarring all lenses with the same brush, Canon glass is superior in almost every way IMHO...
 
In the past (before I found this site), I had only really considered Canon because I didn't have any real way of checking that the lenses were compatible, I could understand the Canon range, and some Sigma lenses are not compatible with Canon cameras.

Now however, I have found L glass, and I lust after that.
I have a good range that is 'affordable', 10-22, 18-55, 28-135, 70-300 , 100-400 (I would yearn for longer, but I doubt that is going to happen), and now I want to 'upgrade' the 18-55 and 28-135. It is quite likely that these might be L, but I want the lenses to be significantly better than my current ones
 
I hated sigma as I had a couple of 17-40 type lenses that I didn't get on with
soft, slow and noisy.

however, my sigma's that I have now I really like...price vs performance
 
A couple of years ago I bought a Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 DG MACRO because I had seen v good reviews of it and it sounded ideal for what I wanted:

An excellent walkabout lens which would cover everything I wanted, and was internally focussed so the size remained constant.

I was however VERY disappointed!

It wasn't even as sharp as my 75-300mm, was absolutely useless at macro (I only got 1 reasonably sharp photo out of abut 100 taken), and had quite noticeable CA.

I sent 5 shots taken with it to Sigma who agreed it was a bad copy and Jessops exchanged it for a Canon 70-300mm IS USM lens.

I really wanted the Sigma lens to be as good as the reviews but it wasn't - it may have been a bad copy but unfortunately after that experience with Sigma lenses I didn't want to take a chance with another bad copy.

I have stuck to Canon ever since.

Now the Sigma lens was my idea of a perfect lens and I wish Canon would come up with a lens with that spec.
 
Maybe I'm not too picky but all the modern lenses I've used have been acceptable and at least as capable as myself in most respects.

My current lens set includes only Sigma and Tamron offerings however even purchased secondhand they would cost in the region of a grand, not "L" expensive but still a good bit of cash to invest.

I was quite worried before buyig the 10-20 after reading all the less than glowing reports but no problems here at all.

Personally I can't really fault my 10-20, 28-75 and 100-300. All really good bits of kit. Some shortcomings maybe but bang-for-buck they can't be beaten.


Russ
 
petersmart said:
Now the Sigma lens was my idea of a perfect lens and I wish Canon would come up with a lens with that spec.
Click to expand...

They have! It's the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM.
ef_28-300mm_f3.5-5.6_l_is_usm_v2.jpg



Advantages over the Sigma:
- faster wide open at 300mm
- amazing build quality
- image stabilisation
- in a completely different league with regard to image quality

Disadvantages
- size (twice as long and 25% wider)
- weight (1670g vs 490g)
- price (£1900 vs £250)
 
when i had my sony i had two tamron lenses and would recommend it
 
The Canon 10-22 is as good as it gets on a crop Canon camera, if you wish to go that low then the Canon is your best bet.
If you are willing to spend the same money for a 3rd party lens then the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX is awsome and with f2.8 it is fantastic for interior shots too.
 
ive got 3 sigmas in my bag, all of which i am extremely happy with.

some people will tell you im blessed.

CT said:
I take the view that with the amount of electrical connections that have to mate between camera body and lens these days, I'd rather both were made by the same manufacturer.
Click to expand...

to be honest (and no offence) thats a little daft, take computers for example.. made up of different components from different manufacturers. or tvs.. theyll usually have parts from several companys.

interfaces should be standardised, either the connection will work or not (faulty item etc).
 
neil_g said:
interfaces should be standardised, either the connection will work or not (faulty item etc).
Click to expand...

Yes they should be.
Unfortunately, both Canon and Nikon keep theirs proprietary, and secret.
Sigma have had to reverse engineer the protocols used.
There are many lenses from Sigma which are not compatible with these cameras and need to be sent in for an out-of-warranty 'upgrade' to get their electronics changed to work.


However, with computers, most components you are correct have ratified standards. USB for example has information on how devices negotiate their speeds and voltages.
There are still devices which do not adhere to these standards, or, adhere to some of the more loosely confined parts of the standards, and will work on one computer, and not another. Take for example DDR memory, two manufacturers might have the same CAS timings etc. on paper, but one might pass ICTL, one might not.
 
I bought the canon 10-22 rather than the sigma and I've not been disappointed. So far I've had 4 shots published using this lens.

When comparing them both I just found the canon to focus so much quicker.
 
I thik unless you're a pro there's not much need to go for canon L glass when there's a load of other cheaper alternatives which are just as good. OK so some L's are reasonably priced in comparison to the alternatives (like the 70-200 f/4). If you're not in the market for L, it seems to me that low and even mid-range canon glass dosen't stand a chance against the competition. It's generally slower for the money or of questionable build. Take the sigma 50mm 1.4 for example - it's better than the canon 50mm 1.4. Better bokeh, better construction.

You would be foolish just to buy canon because of the name. Look around, read the reviews. Don't be a brand whore.

There are some real gems among the competition. people on here can usually point them out
 
bomberman said:
I thik unless you're a pro there's not much need to go for canon L glass when there's a load of other cheaper alternatives which are just as good. OK so some L's are reasonably priced in comparison to the alternatives (like the 70-200 f/4). If you're not in the market for L, it seems to me that low and even mid-range canon glass dosen't stand a chance against the competition. It's generally slower for the money or of questionable build. Take the sigma 50mm 1.4 for example - it's better than the canon 50mm 1.4. Better bokeh, better construction.

You would be foolish just to buy canon because of the name. Look around, read the reviews. Don't be a brand whore.

There are some real gems among the competition. people on here can usually point them out
Click to expand...

Please define pro. :D

Flippancy aside I do agree with your general points bomberman. Good points well made.

But that aside I still think you've got the consistency and quality of Canon over others..... :nuts:
 
bomberman said:
You would be foolish just to buy canon because of the name. Look around, read the reviews. Don't be a brand whore.

aye trying not to be one but its hard :puke:

There are some real gems among the competition. people on here can usually point them out


I have to face the truth in that most people will just send you L alterantives.
Click to expand...


In real life or here on forum I ask for a bit of helping hand in choosing between 2 low/reasonably budget lenses but I'll get "No buy this L lens, true costs 10x more you'll have to sell your body to afford it but its so much better". If I could afford L in the 1st place I wouldnt be asking for help :bang:.


and this Im afraid is pretty much a ferrari vs a ford ka. no comperision can be made really



StewartR said:
They have! It's the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 L IS USM.



Advantages over the Sigma:
- faster wide open at 300mm
- amazing build quality
- image stabilisation
- in a completely different league with regard to image quality

Disadvantages
- size (twice as long and 25% wider)
- weight (1670g vs 490g)
- price (£1900 vs £250)
Click to expand...
 
The thing that stops me from buying sigma(new not used) is the quality control issues. I don't want to buy a lens and then send it back for calibration or a replacement.

If buying used, then which ever lens satisfies my needs for a given budget :D
but so far, all 4 of my lenses have been canon.
 
Why limit yourself to one manufacturer? Surely it makes sense to buy what's best for you regardless of what the name plate says?

I have 4 Sigma primes, one Sigma zoom, one Tamron zoom, one Canon prime and two Canon zooms and I bought each because at the time I was convinced that they offered the best blend of image quality, performance and price.
 
existent said:
The thing that stops me from buying sigma(new not used) is the quality control issues. I don't want to buy a lens and then send it back for calibration or a replacement.

If buying used, then which ever lens satisfies my needs for a given budget :D
but so far, all 4 of my lenses have been canon.
Click to expand...

I have owned 1 sigma lens which has been spot on. I have owned 2 canon lenses. Neither i have got on with. One has just gone back.

Canon are as bad as the next company. (edited to add i realise this isnt exactly a large sample size)
 
I had a Sigma 28-300 for a few years, I sold it and have regretted it ever since as it was a good holiday lens.
 
Tricky69 said:
thats the bit that ALWAYS comes up, and makes me worry about sigma !
Click to expand...

I have 3 sigma lenses and they are all superb. But i have had to microfocus all three.
 
I had the opportunity to use both the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 over a weekend to see which I preferred... I bought the Sigma.

Hardly any difference IQ wise between them (maybe slightly better colour on the Canon). Better build quality goes to the Sigma, and better price goes to the Sigma. The Canon wasn't worth the extra IMO.
 
Sonsey said:
I had the opportunity to use both the Canon 10-22 and the Sigma 10-20 over a weekend to see which I preferred... I bought the Sigma.

Hardly any difference IQ wise between them (maybe slightly better colour on the Canon). Better build quality goes to the Sigma, and better price goes to the Sigma. The Canon wasn't worth the extra IMO.
Click to expand...

I tried both before I bought my UWA and thought the exact opposite!

I found the Canon had noticibly better IQ when stopped down and the Canon has much better build quality! Much faster and quieter focusing, which I know isnt really an issue with an UWA but together with the build quality made it feel a better overall product.

I bought the Canon as I thought it was the better option and I found one for only £100 more than the Sigma (new). It was worth the extra £100 as if I bought the Sigma I would have still wanted the Canon. Its not brand snobbery (in this case) as I wanted to give all options a go, but still the Canon came out on top.

I agree on looking around the market though, there are some cracking lenses out there and with Canon bodies especially, there is a lot of choice.
 
As like ODD JIM the much research im doing Canon UWA keeps coming on top on most occasions. Price is the killer but for hardly any difference with competitors its really not too much of an issue.

Sigma is a do or die thing. U either love it or hate it. In honesty it feels like russian rulette. Living on an island miles away from where I have to import these lenses from, its easier going where reviews of less known for bad copies brands. With sigma's reputations Id have me biting my nails to the bone until i try it. Sending it back would be a huge issue for me


Unfortunatley the little I read about Tokina seems the most to have Canon running for their money but again seems hardly anyone uses these lenses anyway
 
dunganick said:
I have owned 1 sigma lens which has been spot on. I have owned 2 canon lenses. Neither i have got on with. One has just gone back.

Canon are as bad as the next company. (edited to add i realise this isnt exactly a large sample size)
Click to expand...


I am not saying that other companies do not have problems, but when you browse through the forums, it is mostly the sigma with the focus issues...:cautious:
 
If you can see a major quality difference between a Canon 10-22 and a Sigma 10-20 you either have a bad lens or havent got enough to worry about.
 
Different lenses, different cars ......... Just pick the ones where it serves your purposes and one that can be accommodated in your finances. What's good about considering third party lenses is it gives us more choices on the level of performance & price of the lens you want.
 
I've got 2 canon lenses and 2 sigma lenses, very happy with all 4 of them although I was a bit put off by all the comments about the 'bad copies' from Sigma I'm very glad I went ahead and purchased them as they are both nice and sharp and have given me no problems at all. (y)

Tommy.
 
dcash29 said:
If you can see a major quality difference between a Canon 10-22 and a Sigma 10-20 you either have a bad lens or havent got enough to worry about.
Click to expand...

No one said major differences. Both lenses were good copies - nothing wrong with the Sigma copy wise. But if I'm spending £400 + on a lens its best to try them thoroughly (which in my case meant stopping down and testing for sharpness) and pick the best, which in this case was the Canon. But the Canon won me over on other areas as well, not just IQ.

My kit bag is full of Canon lenses (my 5th one will be 'delivered' at xmas!) but not because they are Canon lenses specifically, but because the Canon lenses suit me best in performance, price and build. Take the 55-250 IS for example. I dont know of any third party lens which is as good as this, in this range for the going price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top