DSLRUsers.com

I'm looking into a couple of new lenses and the issue of the 'alternative' brands has come up. This must be an age old debate...
Sigma vs Tamron vs Nikon/Canon

Some people claim that you pay a substantial premium just for the brand name - the alternatives are just as good
Some say that the glass quality in the 'good' brands is incomparable.
Some say that the variability of individual units of the same type of lens is much greater with the cheaper brands.

Much of this business is quite subjective - one man's sharp is another woman's soft - and quantifying 'nice bokeh' or 'excellent colour rendering' for the average punter is exceptionally tough.

As an example:
Canon 24-70 2.8L = $1800
Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG = $650.
Some users (http://www.fredmiranda.com) claim the differences are big, many users suggest the difference is minimal.

How do Sigma/Tamron cut corners to make cheaper lenses?
Does higher cost mean higher quality?
What determines whether people buy genuine or 'alternative'?

/robboh dons flameproof suit and sits back to watch the fireworks

The age old debate. Some people swear by off-brand and cant see the point in paying the premium for the branded. Others just swear at the offbrands

Ive seen amazing photographs taken with off-brand lenses and I take some very crumby ones myself with branded lenses

I think at the end of the day, all the manufactures have their good 'uns and their lemons. In the cheaper price-brackets, to me, the branded lenses usually seem to have slightly better build quality than their off-brand counterparts. Once you get up into the 'pro' orientated ranges for the off-brands, there often doesnt seem to be a huge price difference and arguably little quality difference (optical or build) either.

One thing that you didnt mention is resale value. The branded lenses generally gain a better % of their original price if you are selling.

I'm a big fan of 3rd party lenses. If I was buying now I'd be really tempted by the Sigma 80-400OS, but since I have the 70-200IS I'm not. I expect non-Canon lenses to focus slower, be more cheaply built and softer. Also lower contrast and often less saturated colours. But then, I expect Canon lenses to cost a lot mroe, and for the money I want better lenses!

FWIW, my collection: kit lens, Sigma 12-24, Sigma 18-50/2.6, Canon 50/1.4, Canon 70-200IS. I'm happy with the two Sigma lenses, overall they're a little better than I expected for the money.

In some ways I'd like to be able to go pure Brand X, but the combination of pricing and slow release of new lenses makes that hard. I bought a 300D when they first got to Oz, and then fairly quickly bought a Sigma 12-24 because there was just nothing from Canon that came close. I also bought an 18-50/2.8 for much the same reasons (you noticed the 17-40 vs 18-50 discussion I'm sure )

The 18-50 is not working well on my 30D, it keeps giving me an Err99, but it's fine on my 300D and a friends 350D. I'm tossing up selling it and buying the new 17-50IS when that comes out vs posting it back to the US for repair. Kennedy's were totally unhelpful when I asked if I could pay them to fix it. So the downside of off-brand lenses is that you may have problems down the track, especially if you buy a new camera as Canon keep tweaking their lens comms (partly to make this happen, I suspect).

The pricing is a big issue - $US499 for my Sigma 18-50 is close to $AUS1000 incl delivery and GST but the Canon is likely to be at least twice that when it gets here. Depending on what you want, the Sigma 10-20 is $700 while the Canon 10-22 is $1000. Likewise, the Sigma 70-200/2.8 is $1200 and the Canon is $1900 (prices from http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au).

Mitchell,

There's a lot more to this question than just the issues that you've raised.

Yes, you pay a premium for the name, but it's not simply the name that you're paying for.

Consider the issue of build quality, for instance.

I've dropped cameras, lenses, everything. In my (30 years' or so) experience, Nikon keeps working even after being dropped.

Not too many other brands do. Many need a trip to the repair shop. Others need a trip to the junkyard, and a replacement purchase.

Nikon gear, as noted above, keeps on working. And I'm not simply talking about the old, super solid stuff either: I've seen a current model 18-70 D70 Kit lens dropped onto a roadway from a top shirt pocket, and it sufferred zero damage.

By way of contrast, A mid -80s canon body and lens, dropped about 3 feet onto carpet required a trip to the repair shop.

So qhile I'm not suggesting that you may wish to drop your equipment, it does, from time to time, happen, and that then raises the question of how many times you might want to but that one piece of gear.

I don't know about you, but I only want to buy it once, and I want to buy the one that I want to use and keep. I find it's far less expensive to pay a tad more for the Nikkor glass in the first instance than to buy X, then Y, then eventually buy the Nikkor I was looking at first of all.

And, as a more practical example, I've lost count of, for instance, the number of people on these forums who have, in deciding between the Bigma and the Nikkor 80-400, opted to buy the Bigma, and then went and bought the Nikkor shortly thereafter. Within months.

You tell me which is the less expensive route.

I'm a big fan of lenses,

buy what you like and get out and use it.

if you are not happy with the results change it.

Way to many people get hung up on lens and quality and technical details rather than going out and making photographs.

I buy what I can afford, I use it till it breaks, then I get it repaired or buy a new one.

I don’t purchase lenses on the premise that if I drop them I don’t want them to break I purchase lenses to take photographs - end of story.

Over the past 46 years I have used Nikon, Canon, Cosina, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Olympus, Zeiss and many more.

The sharpest lens I have ever used was a Cosina back in the early 70’s. The only lens I have ever broken was a Nikon (cracked the casing but it still worked).

The only camera in all of those years that had to go back was the Nikon D1 for a sensor clean (prior to the DIY system that now prevails).

I have seen literally thousands of photographs taken with Nikon lenses that are pure crap (taken some myself) and conversely I have seen thousands of great photos - but this also applies to all makes of both cameras and lenses.

I think you will all agree that the final end result, the photograph, is far more important than the ’gear’ that you use

Gary, are you suggesting that Mitchell should get rid of all his fragile Canon gear and get rugged Nikon gear?

Mitchell, I think this depends on a lens by lens basis, there are no hard and fast rules anymore. There are some good lenses in 3rd party lenses and some dogs in original equipment. As an example I would say all 70-300 4-5.6 seem ordinary (which doesn't mean you cant get a good photo, just harder), whilst some lenses like the Sigma 70-200 seem excellent.

In the past some brands were always excellent, some crap. Many original equipment manufacturers have prostituted their name producing crap, some 3rd parties make lenses you cant even buy as original equipment.

My best advice is ask here before a purchase and research thoroughly. You will find most photographers are happy to share their experiences with different lenses.