Toronto Photography Meetup Group

I know alot of people purchase the tamron and sigma lenses because they are cheaper than buying glass from nikon and cannon. I was wondering how you guys determine when its better to buy glass from nikor or to buy a 3rd party glass.

After you buy Sigma or Tamron etc and realize that it is poor quality and very inconsistant in between the same lens, then that is when you will be determined to buy Nikon or Canon and not go back ever again

I have been quite successful with the tamron 17-50 2.8. It focuses fast and accurately in the dark (with assistance from a speed light) and the images have been sharp. If there is a particular lens you are after, I suggest you search the nikoncafe forums. Someone has bound to have tried it and done a comparison with the nikon equivalent.

Lenses that they approve over Nikon so far that I've been looking have been the Sigma 50 1.4 and 85 1.4.

I've also had and used a stellar Tamron 17-50 2.8 and loved it. I think there can be hit and miss issues with different models and/or batches more so than with Nikon or Canon.

But if you get a good one, it's very respectable and a lot cheaper too!

There are a few respectable third party lenses but you really do get what you pay for..

Scour the Internet review, get first hand experiences from other users. The 3rd party brands have come a long way in the past few years so it's not as simple as saying Nikon and Canon lenses are better than 3rd party ones. I can attest to the quality of the Tamron 28-75 2.8 lens - no complaints here.

i too had a tamron 17-50 2.8 when i was still shooting Sony Alpha. it's great but the colour i get with the canon 17-40 F4L is more natural. i tend to fix my photos shot with the tammy before but with the canon i don't have to.

It also depends on what you're using it for. Photography is my hobby and I am not making any money from it, so $$ is a big factor for me. If you've got the cash by all means. However I have tried/borrowed Canon L lenses and can see the value of having USM, better build, weatherproofing, etc if you're going to be using it for professional work. As for sharpness and other optical factors they are important to a point, as only you can decide whether you think paying extra $$ will get you that much better optical quality. Of course, there is also the advice to stop pixel peeping and measurebating and get out shooting instead.

That said, I have a mix of Canon and Sigma lenses. I didn't mind buying a used Sigma lens as they are cheaper than their Canon counterparts and also Sigma has a 10 year warranty on their EX lenses, so the one time I've had to send a Sigma in they didn't give me any trouble.

Tokina has some good lenses too. but yeah, lots of research.

check reviews online
its very lense specific
i had tamron 17-50 and 28-75 before they both performed great for the price
i really like the sigma 50 1.4 over the canon version (had 3 of them none focus as quick and accurate as the one sigma)

Depending on how comfortable you are without using stabilization or autofocus, there are those of us that adapt old manual glass to dslr`s.

Making such a blanket statement is pretty misleading. There are some third party manufacturers that are better than others. Additionally, some lenses within each manufacturer's lineup are better than others. Inconsistencies occur within the Nikon/Canon lineups as well. There are of course reasons why the Nikon/Canon lenses are more expensive, but it is prudent to do research on the lenses you are interested in, regardless of make.

Stating that all lenses produced by third party manufacturers are poor quality and inconsistent is simply false.

+1

Look at the repair reports on the IS failing on the Canon 17-55mm lens, which is a $1000+ lens.

As for third party manufacturer's it's very model specific which ones are good. Again, research will tell you when a third party offering is better than the OEM counterpart. As kenwood mentioned I've often seen the Sigma 50mm f1.4 described as being better than the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens, so I'd have no problem choosing that over the Canon.

I had the 17-55 before and the IS stopped working after a year. It costed about $200 and 3 weeks to repair.

I've had problems with Sigma in the past, but I don't think they make bad glass. I can also affirm that Tamron makes a very good product. I personally add to Seren Dipity's account of the 28-75 f.28. I have it too and its a good lens.

You can find a lot of info out there how these Third Party lens manufacturers need to reverse engineer firmware for Canon bodies since Canon doesn't like to share. I'm unsure if this is the same with Nikon.

For Canon bodies, this leads to a slight difference with using a Canon lens and not. They say that the autofocus is a little slow reacting and the focusing motor is too loud in comparison to Canon lenses. For me personally, are these a big deal? No. the Tamron focuses just fine. Is it louder than the Canon USM motor? sure it is, but I knew that going in. For me its no big deal at all. Its not like an extremely loud noise but for Video, i could see why people would mind. My requirements were the price, picture quality, f-stop and weight. Tamron fit all my requirements.

My personal comparison to the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L, is that its not worth for me to pay the extra 60% for this range of lens.

I'm probably going to grab a 17-50 Tamron soon too since I'm that impressed with Tamron lenses.

Put a red ring on anything and I'll buy it.

Pay up

Looks pink to me. No go.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kusoex/4887650253/" title="Fake L Lens EFS 18-55mm by kusoex, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4096/4887650253_4bdd59c3e1.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Fake L Lens EFS 18-55mm"></a>

I've owned a bit of everything ... Tokina and Sigma .... and never again. I'll stick with my Nikon gear.

That's AWESOME

LOL

Sell it on eBay! $600

Samyang?