Thread: Which Lens - Factory or aftermarket ?

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.

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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 ?

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.

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

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 $$

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.