addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1launch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Photography Meetup Group Message Board The Photography Meet Up Group Discussion Forum › Camera Lenses - are Canon and Nikon worth the extra money?

Camera Lenses - are Canon and Nikon worth the extra money?

A former member
Post #: 3
Thinking about getting some more lenses. Should I continue to get Canon or are Sigma or Tamron just as good?
Ryan E.
user 23023011
Madison, WI
Post #: 57
Oh boy, this is always a topic that unfortunately has no definitive answer. All I can recommend is to know your budget and know your needs. If you have the budget, I'd try and go with nikon lenses for my camera. Not saying the others(sigma, tamron) are worse, but that is simply my preference usually. However, that said I have a tamron macro & think it takes wonderful images.

It also depends on what lens(wide, normal telephoto) you are trying to compare to to 3rd party brands. One wide angle tamron may get rave reviews from many saying it is just as good as it nikon/canon counterpart. Then you could compare a telephoto sigma & it could get worse reviews compared to the nikon/canon.

Many of the reviews you may find online are very technical in the "issues" people find such as slight corner softness or maybe "slow focus" as examples even though in most real word circumstances, probably are not that big a deal for most of us unless you are a top level pro who accepts nothing but the most expensive.

I would also recommend trying to get your hands on a particular lens to try it in person(camera store) before buying if possible. I had actually purchased a nikon 80-200mm and a Sigma 70-200mm at the same time so I could compare them in real time, side by side & then returned the "loser." Again this is more a budget factor though.

Again, I cannot really answer for anyone, but myself, but hopefully this may help you in your decisions.
Ryan M.
Madison, WI
Post #: 6
Personally, I haven't had good luck with Sigma lenses. They just don't seem to have the quality of other lenses. I have one Tamron that's held up pretty well, but overall, I only use Canon lenses. Canon's "L" lenses are well made, hold their value and are of outstanding quality (if you can afford them). Some non-L Canon lenses are much better than others as well.

Any particular range or lenses you're looking at?
A former member
Post #: 7
Thinking about getting some more lenses. Should I continue to get Canon or are Sigma or Tamron just as good?
Over a large number of lens models, over a large number of years, it might be reasonable to say that the first party manufacturers provide, in general, a better product. A statement with this many qualifications is, however, of limited use.

Within each line of lenses you have the potential for standouts and losers. So, one cannot dismiss the third party manufacturers as some of their lenses are standouts.

The best thing to do is research. The two sources of high trust that come to mind immediately are:

A former member
Post #: 4
Although Sigma and Tamron lenses are good, to very good, it's important to remember image/build quality. . .a cheap lens may be center sharp, but the corners may be very soft, have a high degree of vignetting (1 or more stops darker on the edges than in the center), a distinct color cast, color fringing, significant distortion (does it render straight lines w/o pin-cushion or barrel distortion—particularly at the edges of the frame), and generally less than stellar image quality overall. Build quality is also an important consideration: does it have a plastic, or stainless steel lens mount, metal, or plastic lens barrel, are the lens elements glass, or molded plastic, is the auto focus motor silent (there's nothing more annoying than a loud/grainy AF lens), is the/will the AF system be compatible with present and future camera bodies, does the barrel extend when zooming—internal focus zooms remain compact and don't affect the balance when hand-holding.

A former member
Post #: 8
My first priority on buying lenses are compatability with the camera body.
I cannot use all the af points available on a sigma lens/canon body combination.
The sigma 150mm lens is very sharp. But focusing takes lot of time ( I assume this is due to compatibility with canon body). I heard similar complaints in internet.
I generally look for reviews in and photo quality in flickr before buying a lens. In flickr you have groups just for each lenses or camera body. You can get an idea of the lens quality there.
user 4392954
Madison, WI
Post #: 61
All my lenses are Canon L lenses. Sadly, I have dropped two of them on the hard payment (AF 70-200mm L IS F/2.8 and AF 24-70mm L F/2.8). I felt a sharp pain in my wallet each time and I was close to crying, but too many people around. The 70-200mm had a 1.4 Extender, the Extender got damaged and can't use it any more - the lens was ok. I had a UV filter (as I do with all my lenses and you should too) on the 24-70mm, it got the brunt of it. I had to pay $30 dollars at the Camera repair shop to get the filter off - The lens is in working conditions. At the end you get what you pay for. I have now a new "protocol" when I carry more than one lens. If you think you will be taking pictures for the rest of your life, as I do, get L lenses.
Ryan E.
user 23023011
Madison, WI
Post #: 70
While I agree a UV filter can protect the front element, they also degrade image quality a bit. May not be much for many to notice & heck they may not care. But just thought I'd throw that out there so everyone is aware of the possibility. Another option to the UV filter is to always keep the lens hood on if the lens has one. This way if it falls, the hood is more than likely the part that hits the pavement & are cheap to replace compared to the lens.
user 4392954
Madison, WI
Post #: 62
Ryan, I couldn't disagree with you more. Filters are a very good addition to your lens but they have to be as good as your lens: this is the UV filter on my Canon AF 85mm f/1.2L II USM http://www.bhphotovid...­
This filter will not degrade the image, Please, read this http://nevadawier.wor...­
A former member
Post #: 14
I'm with Alfredo on this.

I have heard some pro's argue that they spent $2K on a lens... why would they put mere window glass in front of it?

On the other hand, he spent $2K on a lens... why would he want wind blown debris or a set of keys in a backpack to scratch it?

As Alfredo says, choose a protective filter of high quality and there will be no degradation.

Except... If you put multiple filters on, such as leaving your UV filter on then putting a polarizing or color filter on, the added length and the layers of glass have the potential to cause unpleasant internal reflections (which could be pleasant if the reflections are what you're after).

So, if you have a protective filter and want an addition filter, you should remove the protective filter before putting on the other one.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy