Canon Lenses vs Sigma and Tamron

[shannon0813]

I have been reading other threads for a couple of hours but really haven't found the answers that I'm looking for, so I guess I'll start a new thread!

I am looking to expand my lense collection and am wondering what experience people have with the Sigma and Tamron lenses compared to the Canon brand. Obviously there is a price difference (that's why I'm considering the other brands) but what about quality?

I'm looking at the 10-22mm (Canon) vs the 10-20mm (Sigma) or the 10-24mm (Tamron).

I'm also looking at the 85mm f/1.8 (Canon) and i'm wondering if there are any cheaper alternatives out there?

Thank you so much in advance for your help - you folks on DPS are pretty amazing people for sharing your knowledge to people like me who don't have a clue!

[Elmo]

A couple of general statements.
The build of third party lenses will seldom be as good as the top of the line camera lenses, but will generally be better than the camera brand of equal price.

Generally: for wides and ultra wides Tokina does the best. Mid-range zooms are the domain of Tamron. Sigma does best at longer glass. There are some big exceptions to this generalized statement.

I do shoot mostly third party glass, and have had few problems if I chose carefully.

I recently sold off most of my Canon glass.

[Preeb]

And I'm just the opposite. I have nothing but Canon, despite the fact that most of my lenses could have been bought for less from other manufacturers. I've read enough to feel that I would just rather go with when I know is going to be good, instead of ordering something which may or may not have to be returned for one reason or another. I've bought 3 lenses brand new and one used and have had no issues or regrets.

[inkista]

Think it depends on the lens.

For the ultrawides you're looking at, they're all much of a muchness.

But the 85/1.8 USM is already a low-cost lens for what it is, and none of the 3rd party manufacturers could make a cheaper/better one. You'll note most of them don't even try. Sigma created an 85/1.4 instead, to make a cheaper 85/1.4 alternative for the Nikon shooters, and a faster one for the Canon shooters.

3rd party tends to slip in between the OEM offerings (i.e., different function), or they just make lower-cost alternatives, which do sometimes show up as being optically weaker. For some folks, the lower cost is worth the performance slip, for others not so much, so it's a personal choice which way you want to go.

I'm not a pro, but one of my most used lenses is a Sigma that I bought simply because at the time, Canon didn't offer a similar lens (8mm circular fisheye for full frame) and the price fit my budget. I'm very happy with it, and it's been a workhorse of a lens for me.

The one thing to keep in mind with 3rd party lenses is that the mount communication protocol with the camera has been reverse engineered. That means it'll work with the mount system as it stands at the time the lens is released. But if Canon in future changes that protocol, they'll only make sure their own lenses work with it, and it's a matter of chance if third parties will still operate properly. A lot of very old Sigma telephoto zooms no longer autofocus properly on the digital Canon mount, when Canon added all the EF-S/EXIF/digital stuff. Those lenses had to get "rechipped" in order to operate properly again, but many of them were so old, that Sigma no longer offered to do it.

So, you are weighing lower cost, possible lower performance, and possible future compatibility together into the equation of whether a 3rd party is "worth it" to you.

[shannon0813]

Thank you all so much for your responses!!!

I'm sure I'll end up with the Canon lenses - I'll just watch the sales and save up some cash until I can score them at a reasonable price.

Preeb - where did you find the used lense that you have? Is there any site that is more trustworthy for those types of purchases?

Inkista - I value your posts so much - often when I'm reading the forum I stop and read your posts because it always seems like you have some useful (and informative) thoughts to share! I'm so glad you took the time to give me your thoughts - much appreciated!

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by shannon0813

Thank you all so much for your responses!!!

I'm sure I'll end up with the Canon lenses - I'll just watch the sales and save up some cash until I can score them at a reasonable price.

Preeb - where did you find the used lense that you have? Is there any site that is more trustworthy for those types of purchases?

Inkista - I value your posts so much - often when I'm reading the forum I stop and read your posts because it always seems like you have some useful (and informative) thoughts to share! I'm so glad you took the time to give me your thoughts - much appreciated!

Shannon, I used Craig's List here in the US, and only bought from a local seller so that I could put the lens on my camera and test it first. I've both sold and bought (one lens each way), and have seen no reason to complain. I don't know if you have such an option up there in the Northwoods.

Canon also sells refurbished lenses for a price similar to what you will usually pay for used, and I've heard nothing but good things about that service. Amazon often has used lenses, but that can be a challenge because you can't try before you buy like I do when buying locally from Craig's.

[Krusty79]

I was also considering the Sigma 10-20. The reviews are pretty good, but some users have issues with the edge to edge sharpness and vignetting at the widest setting. When I read the reviews for the Canon 10-22, they all raved about it and said it is pretty much "L" series glass in an EF-S casing.

They are out of stock on it right now, but Canon has the refurbished 10-22s priced at $688 on their site - Canon Direct Store - Refurbished Lenses & Speedlites. So, I think I am going to continue to save for the Canon and spend the extra couple hundred on some glass that should last for decades and won't leave me wanting something better.

[shannon0813]

Originally Posted by Krusty79

I was also considering the Sigma 10-20. The reviews are pretty good, but some users have issues with the edge to edge sharpness and vignetting at the widest setting. When I read the reviews for the Canon 10-22, they all raved about it and said it is pretty much "L" series glass in an EF-S casing.

They are out of stock on it right now, but Canon has the refurbished 10-22s priced at $688 on their site - Canon Direct Store - Refurbished Lenses & Speedlites. So, I think I am going to continue to save for the Canon and spend the extra couple hundred on some glass that should last for decades and won't leave me wanting something better.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I've been researching more and all of the comparison reviews say to buy the Canon! One even said "i think they forgot the red ring!" haha

I also found the refurb on the Canon site so I will be watching for that to go back in stock and will save until then!

I DID end up buying the 85mm f/1.8 this afternoon for a great price that I found on B&H - so it all works out for now. My coworker lent me his 10-22mm for a week or two to "try it out" so I'll play with it until he demands it back and hopefully Canon will restock soon!

Thanks everyone for the help!

[Fletcho]

It's the constant question and eternal tradeoff: price vs quality.

Generally speaking, you get what you pay for with lenses. BUT, it also depends greatly on what you need it for.

I defer to the Canon lenses - love my 24-105 and 70-200 2.8 - but I also own the Sigma 10-20 and have found it to be a great lens. The build quality was outstanding. It simply feels like a good, substantial lens. Nothing cheap about it and I would recommend it. Would the Canon be as good? Probably. But for me, it's the least-used lens in my bag simply because I don't need the superwide angle enough. The biggest downside for the lens that I've found is distortion but Lightroom corrects a lot of that. You just need to be careful at the edges some. It is, however, acceptably sharp for me and I'm pretty darned picky.

On the 85 1.8 - I'm expecting one in the mail tomorrow. I needed the speed for some wrestling shots and - at $358 (B&H, no shipping costs) - it seemed like a good deal. For that little bit of money, I wouldn't hesitate.

I quibbled on the 70-200 2.8 because both tamron and sigma produce what seem to be competitive lenses in that range. But I've never looked back on the Canon version even though it's non-IS. Sharp. Sharp. Sharp.

Hope that helps.

[Krusty79]

Thanks for the info, Fletcho. I think the Sigma would also work for me, but since I shoot almost all landscapes and would probably use a 10-20 or 10-22 most of the time, I think I'll wait for the Canon. If I get impatient, I may still go for the Sigma.