Which Lens - Factory or aftermarket ?

[DeanoH]

A friend of mine has just upgraded her Panasonic Lumix and bought a Canon EOS 70D.
My advice prior to purchase was check the specs and reviews but stick to Canon or Nikon (sorry Pentax users), go and have a play and buy the one that 'feels' the best.
Apart from the slightly 'bizarre' AF system it uses (may be a good thing but I'm a bit conservative and like to go with proven technology) the 70D appears to be a quality camera, as I'd expect from Canon. I'm a Nikon user and not really 'au fait' with Canon products. She bought the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens as a play lens whilst she considers what real lens(s) to buy.

My friend takes her photography seriously, realises lens(s) are 'the pointy end of the stick', and whilst after good value for money also wants quality gear and isn't afraid to pay for it. Upgrade path is also important.
The type of photos she takes are of a general nature and she is looking to get more involved with nature and particularly bird photography.

To this end I suggested Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM (effective 38-168mm)as her 'day to day ' lens and, weight permitting, Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM (effective 160-640mm) for avian work.

So far so good, expensive but good glass, suitable for the job and any other Canon camera including full frame possibility somewhere down the track.

My friend mentioned that she'd read good write ups on a Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM lens that might be a good thing and was considering this lens. The thing that really surprised me though was the cost.............................it's more than the Canon L series lens of the same spec. How can this be ? My view of aftermarket lenses has always been 'they're the ones you buy when you can't afford the 'real thing' :confused: Is the Sigma lens really better than the 'holy grail' L series Canon lens or merely just more expensive ?

My other concern is will an aftermarket lens be fully compatible (as opposed to working) with the Canon EOS 70D and its AF system ?

Deano :)

[Slunnie]

For me, I went down the path of a 28-70 f2.8 L as a base lense and a 70-200 f2.8 L for zoom. I was also recommended the 10-22 f3.5-4.5 for wider photos by an automotive magazine journalist and although its not L glass due to the way wide angle distorts at 10mm it is most certainly is way up there for being my favourite lens if its not the one. These lenses all give high quality optics with L-glass quality and they are all usable. They are also at the reasonably affordable end of the spectrum for L-glass so you dont actually mind getting them out and using them without breaking into a sweat.

Just to add a bit more, these lenses have good apertures and so the speeds from the lenses make them more usable when the light levels drop and the shutter speeds slow down.

[slug_burner]

DP Review has the Sigma up with the L lens. As many of the comments on the review say unless the Sigma is much better than the Canon L why would you bother.

Does the Sigma have IS?

[DeanoH]

Thanks Slunnie, my sister has the 70-200 f2.8L IS on her 1D Mk4 which she uses for bird photography and although its fairly short, especially on the 1D format she reckons it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. She has an area on her property with a 2 acre dam at the bottom of a heavily wooded gully which is gloomy as hell and this lens suits perfectly. I'll check the weight of your 28-70mm f2.8, not too heavy for day to day use ?

Hi SB and thanks for your response. Yes the sigma specs show this lens as having an Optical Stabiliser but how compatible with the Canon 70D I don't know. Hong Kong price from e-shop has the Sigma 24-105mm at $973 and the Canon L series 24-105mm at $819. Strange.

As I said earlier I'm a Nikon user and not particularly knowledgeable on the vagaries of Canon BUT I've a fair bit of respect for their lenses, particularly their L series lenses (even though I'm not a fan of push-pull zoom).
What I'm having trouble with is why would you pay 20% more for an aftermarket lens when you can have the 'real thing' and L series to boot heaps cheaper ?

Deano :)

[loanrangie]

I bought a Sigma 17-70mm 2./4 lens after selling my 24-85mm canon lens, i found the Canon a little sharper but the Sigma was a lot cheaper than the Canon 17-85mm which i had read mixed reviews on.
My trusty 100-300m Canon USM barely gets used but is a good lens when i do need the extra length.
I would also look at Tamron and Tokina lenses.

[Slunnie]

Thanks Slunnie, my sister has the 70-200 f2.8L IS on her 1D Mk4 which she uses for bird photography and although its fairly short, especially on the 1D format she reckons it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. She has an area on her property with a 2 acre dam at the bottom of a heavily wooded gully which is gloomy as hell and this lens suits perfectly. I'll check the weight of your 28-70mm f2.8, not too heavy for day to day use ?

snip

As I said earlier I'm a Nikon user and not particularly knowledgeable on the vagaries of Canon BUT I've a fair bit of respect for their lenses, particularly their L series lenses (even though I'm not a fan of push-pull zoom).

snip

Deano :)

I have to apologise, the lense is 24-70 f2.8 L USM (not 28-70). To be honest, for day to day abuse I just use a pocket camera or the phone and just stick them in my pocket, but for touring trips etc when using the DSLR its fine, but whats fine to me may/may not be fine for your sister. I'm typically vehicle based or carrying the camera bag anyway. For a walk through the olgas I'd probably just take the pocket camera rather than the DSLR.

I may be misinterpreting, but all of my Canon lenses are twist if manual focussing or zooming rather than push-pull.

[MLD]

I concur that the 70 - 200 F2.8 L IS is the ducks nuts. It's expensive but the reward of the photos make the monetary outlay become a distant concern.

I was running around with the 18-55 F2.8 IS for many years. It's a great lens for ordinary photography. I have numerous publishable quality photos from that lens. For the $800 odd dollars they are asking now the 18-55mm is a smashing lens. Santa was good enough to give me the 24-70 F2.8 L for Xmas. The glass is a league above the 18-55mm lens. I stepped up to the L series lens primarily because the dust was getting into the 18-55mm lens when 4wd'ing and after several cleaning expenses I had paid the equivalent of the 18-55mm lens a second time.

The options you posted in the OP were f4 or slower lenses. The low light qualities of the lower F stop (2.8 or lower) and a quality higher ISO filter will pay dividends in spades. I strongly recommend paying the extra money for the lower F stop.

Also be careful about the F stop rating. The L series lenses and the 18-55 and equivalent quality lenses are fixed F2.8. Some of the higher F stop lenses are variable and the lower F stop is achievable on certain settings. The hyphen in the F stop rating is the give away for a variable F stop.

As for weigh, a SLR with quality glass will be heavy. There is no escaping that drawback. I like the weight in my hand but it does, at times, become a beast of burden.

As for the Q about aftermarket. The Tamron lens had a decent write up about the glass but there was complaint about the compatibility with the AF, a noisy AF motor and some other compatibility problems. I didn't venture down that route so I can't comment on the aftermarket products.

The money and the picture quality is in the glass. Save and spend wisely. MLD

[blitz]

interesting question; yes I also thought that third party lenses were what you bought if you couldn't afford the manufacturers lens, in general that still hold true AFAIA.

I hummed and hared over new lenses as all of mine died from to many years in the tropics and the humidity. I looked very closely at all the 70 - 200 f2.8's out there and in the end bought Nikons 80-200 f2.8 same glass just without the bling. Must say I'm as happy as a pig in the proverbial with it. The general lens is much harder to decide on, I really want the 24 - 70 f2.8 but Hogan's ghost it's damned expensive. I grabbed a very cheap 28-80 plastic Nikon off of the last of the cheap film cameras - while it's not as good as the top spec one it's pretty damned good none the less, and massively lighter.

in the wide angle Tokina get very good reviews and is cheaper, at this point in time it is probably the one I will go with when the time comes to fork out the hard earned $$

[Slunnie]

Oh, for cost when I bought them I bought through online stores in HK via Ebay. The prices then were significatly cheaper than locally and their sales/ratings were excellent.

I've also got Tamron lenses, and in comparison to L glass, the Tamron are appaling. Once you've had L glass there is no turning back.

[blitz]

Oh, for cost when I bought them I bought through online stores in HK via Ebay. The prices then were significatly cheaper than locally and their sales/ratings were excellent.

I've also got Tamron lenses, and in comparison to L glass, the Tamron are appaling. Once you've had L glass there is no turning back.

I go through DWI it has an Australian outlet - probably just a warehouse, but it means Australian warranty and they are at worst 30% cheaper than the shops at best up to and sometimes over 50% cheaper.

Yes I have had Tamron lenses and as I have become a better photographer they just don't cut it.

[dullbird]

Mmmmm Blitz I think you get their warranty not the manufactures warranty

or is that what you meant.

[blitz]

Mmmmm Blitz I think you get their warranty not the manufactures warranty

or is that what you meant.

good question?
I have bought quite a bit of stuff through them memory cards and stuff other than the actual cameras and lenses, I have had some stuff die on me (not the Nikon stuff) sent it back and had it replaced no problems, so more than likely their warranty

[DeanoH]

Thanks all for the input. It's a big responsibility when giving a friend advice that can cost them several thousand dollars. You really need to keep personal bias (ie. Nikon vs Canon) out of the equation and explain the reasoning behind your advice. So thanks again all for your input.

My friend is now down to two choices for her 'day to day' lens. Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II USM or Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM.

Regardless of the cost my advice was that they are both excellent lenses and allayed her concern re no IS on the 24-70 as a/. at this short a lens not really an issue and b/. there's a whole stop of shutter speed to compensate if need be. I summed it up by saying that the f2.8 is a far superior lens (hence 3-4 times the cost) and that as she progresses with her photography she will reach a limitation with the f4 lens but probably not with the f2.8 lens, or if she does she'll need to sell the house to get a better one ;).

I wait with baited breath for her decision. :)

Deano :)

[blitz]

good advice and rationale

[WhiteD3]

I've got the Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM and 10-22mm. The 24-105 is a great all-around lens.

I've had a Sigma 10-20mm and IMHO it is a better lens than the comparable Canon. Having said that both the Canons are the same diameter so I only need one set of filters, etc.

All my gear has come from DWI and while I expect there could be some issues with warranty, I did save significant $$ in buying from DWI. Savings vs risk..........

[Ausfree]

I have bought most of my camera gear through DWI and I understand they have a twelve month Australian warranty. I have never had to claim on the warranty so I can't vouch for how good it is, but I should imagine a firm as large as DWI would not offer such a warranty if they can't honour it:)

[DeanoH]

My friend bit the bullet and bought the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II USM and is playing with it at the moment. Initially she had an issue re clarity when cropping. Have now set her the camera to max quality JPEG plus RAW capture so she can sample and compare though I was a bit disappointed with the quality of the Canon 'high' JPEG quality. It may be just me but I thought the 'high' JPEG quality of our Nikons was significantly better.
I was unable to view the Canon RAW images on my PC using ACDsee Pro 5 as it couldn't view the proprietary Canon RAW format. I'll see if I can download a suitable plug in for it.

Deano :)

[WhiteD3]

I was unable to view the Canon RAW images on my PC using ACDsee Pro 5 as it couldn't view the proprietary Canon RAW format. I'll see if I can download a suitable plug in for it.

Deano :)

Image browser will do it for you.

Canon (http://support-au.canon.com.au/P/search'model=EOS+70D&menu=download&filter=0&start=0)

Should be on the disk that came with the camera.

[amatol]

My friend takes her photography seriously, realises lens(s) are 'the pointy end of the stick', and whilst after good value for money also wants quality gear and isn't afraid to pay for it. Upgrade path is also important.
The type of photos she takes are of a general nature and she is looking to get more involved with nature and particularly bird photography.

To this end I suggested Canon 24-105 f4 L IS USM (effective 38-168mm)as her 'day to day ' lens and, weight permitting, Canon EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM (effective 160-640mm) for avian work.

So far so good, expensive but good glass, suitable for the job and any other Canon camera including full frame possibility somewhere down the track.



If your friend REALLy wants to photograph birds I would strongly suggest a MINIMUM 400mm focal length. On a 70D, your friend will have a field of view similar to a 640mm lens due to the camera's crop sensor. For the first five years I actually used the 300/4L IS USM with matching Canon converters. I would never buy off brand converters or lenses. I am a Canon snob.

The 100-400 Canon is OK for birds and obviously covers a larger range with fields of view, but the 400/5.6L USM (no image stabilization) will give far better overall performance with image quality and autofocus. For most other nature photography she can get away with:

17-40mm f/4L USM (landscape)
50mm f/1.8 normal lens, not bad for 150 bucks.
100mm macro (as the name says)
70-200/4L USM with or without IS. You don't need f/2.8 for nature photography really. The extra stop is fine great in low light, but you can get away without it.

Shoot me a pm if you want more info.

[MLD]

My friend bit the bullet and bought the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II USM and is playing with it at the moment. Initially she had an issue re clarity when cropping. Have now set her the camera to max quality JPEG plus RAW capture so she can sample and compare though I was a bit disappointed with the quality of the Canon 'high' JPEG quality. It may be just me but I thought the 'high' JPEG quality of our Nikons was significantly better.
I was unable to view the Canon RAW images on my PC using ACDsee Pro 5 as it couldn't view the proprietary Canon RAW format. I'll see if I can download a suitable plug in for it.

Deano :)

Congrats to your friend, great lens for glass quality. The lens won't be the shortcoming of her photography. It should provide years and years of service.

Now having played with mine for the xmas period I do have a complaint about the speed of the autofocus on the 24-70 F2.8 L. I find it takes a few attempts to zero in on the first shot at that focal length. Can be a pain when you are shooting impromptu shots or action shots and rely on the autofocus to do its work before the scene changes. That complaint aside i'm chuffed with the image quality.

I no longer bother shooting in dual formats. I shoot in RAW and if necessary convert to jpeg in post processing. It will slow down the capture and storage time of the camera (maybe not noticeable in 99% of situations).

I'm a fan of Adobe lightroom for post processing. Intuitive workflow and has above average sophisticated algorithms for auto correction when tinkering. It has the codecs to read Canon RAW.

happy photography, MLD

[amatol]

Initially she had an issue re clarity when cropping.


Generally it is best to try and do as little cropping as possible. Especially with APS-C sensors that are not the same with regards to quality as an APS-H (now discontinued) or full frame sensors. One of the reasons is that the manufacturers try to cram more and more pixels into a small area, which creates problems with pixel size and dynamic range etc. etc... If you crop an APS-C image in half and especially if your original image was of a mediocre quality, the half-size image will look very bad.



Have now set her the camera to max quality JPEG plus RAW capture so she can sample and compare though I was a bit disappointed with the quality of the Canon 'high' JPEG quality. It may be just me but I thought the 'high' JPEG quality of our Nikons was significantly better.


The reason jpegs may look bad is also how your friend sets the camera up. After all, the camera processes the image internally, rather than you or her later on a computer.

Get her to read the manual and understand what each preset option can do. Contrast, saturation, etc... The reason most people who are pretty serious shoot RAW files is that they have far more control over final image quality. Compare the file sizes. Your RAW should be nearly three times the size (in megabytes) of your highest, finest, jpeg. That means that much more data to work with. But digital is not the panacea for poor exposure skills. You may or may not have heard things like: Ah, if I get it right in camera I can fix it in Photoshop later. This is the biggest garbage statement one can say in my opinion. To get the best image quality, one must learn how to expose in digital world, that is; use the histogram on the camera and understand how the image is recorded. The proper exposure technique will ensure the recording of the maximum number of high-quality pixels and also minimize or totally eliminate dreaded digital noise. The below link is to a blog entry I wrote some time ago about digital exposure and what I do to minimize noise. While the post is about using high ISOs and noise in relation to that, the crux is still relevant to all ISO values.

A MATTER OF LIGHT » Minimizing noise when shooting at high ISOs. (http://www.amatteroflight.com/wordpress/?p=417)

In essence, I always shoot RAW and convert to jpeg before I post them on my web gallery or other digital media. I even send large, fine, jpegs to clients rather than bulky TIFF or PSD (Photoshop Document) files.



I was unable to view the Canon RAW images on my PC using ACDsee Pro 5 as it couldn't view the proprietary Canon RAW format. I'll see if I can download a suitable plug in for it.

Deano :)

Digital Photo Professional should've been included with your friend's camera on a CD. If not, she can download it from the net. Just google DPP download or something like that and bingo.

[Grant052]

G'day, I have a Nikon D90 which I love. Last year I bought a reasonably expensive aftermarket lens (Sigma) which, with the benefit of hindsight, I shouldn't have; yeah, I should've forked out the extra for a Nikon lens at the outset. Long story short, I sold the Sigma for about half of what I paid (it was only three months old) and bought a Nikon. Guess what? No problems. My excursion into the aftermarket options left me with a very sour taste being significantly out-of-pocket, with an understanding that you're better off with the genuine article. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who swear by aftermarket lenses and are very happy with their purchases, it's just not for me.

[dullbird]

I would go Nikon all the way if I could afford it.....every time I have saved up to get the 28-70 something on my car blows up :D

or my horse needs a saddle

or something!!!

3 times I started t o save for the bloody lens and then gave up.

I really would liike to try again.

saying that though I have a Tokina 12-24 and it is a very nice little wide angle lens and I have read reviews where people that had the Nikon sold their lens to purchase this one because they felt the image quality was better

[amatol]

G'day, I have a Nikon D90 which I love. Last year I bought a reasonably expensive aftermarket lens (Sigma) which, with the benefit of hindsight, I shouldn't have; yeah, I should've forked out the extra for a Nikon lens at the outset. Long story short, I sold the Sigma for about half of what I paid (it was only three months old) and bought a Nikon. Guess what? No problems. My excursion into the aftermarket options left me with a very sour taste being significantly out-of-pocket, with an understanding that you're better off with the genuine article. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who swear by aftermarket lenses and are very happy with their purchases, it's just not for me.

Hm. I just sold a very expensive Sigma lens on E-bay on behalf of a friend (he has no E-bay feedback history to warrant selling something like that anyway) and he got 30% of what he paid for the lens two years ago. Then even less as the paypal and ebay fees will be around 380 bucks! It cost him just over 10k for that lens at the time. So they don't seem to hold much value, not at the big end anyway.