CanoNikkor Lens Snobbery

[RustBeltRaw]

Despite the wide range of Canon/Nikkor lenses, there are some gaps in their ranges. Which is where the third-party manufacturers tend to aim. For instance, the closest thing Canon makes to Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 is a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, whose maximum aperture was too tight for my needs. Sigma makes an autofocus 10mm f/2.8 fisheye for APS-C, while Canon makes no APS-C fisheyes I'm aware of. Then there's the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, which has a significantly wider aperture than any other current-production wide zooms. And the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is an interesting zoom range that would tempt the heck out of me if I had the money for it.

...as far as I know all Sigma,Tamron,Tokina lenses are full frame lenses...

Incorrect, John. Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma all make APS-C lenses (links to each manufacturer's lens lineup).

Performance-wise, I think you'll find the gap is narrowing. Check out these (rather tiny) blur index charts from SLR Gear comparing single samples of the $4,000 Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus to the $950 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, both taken with a 1Ds mkIII. Zeiss left, Sigma right. Center performance is nearly identical, but there is a difference at the edges. Still, not bad for a $3,050 savings.



The main thing that's kept me away from some third-party lenses is autofocus speed. Particularly among their 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, AF speed just doesn't seem to match OEM. For an action shooter, that's critical, and it's one of the main reasons I use OEM primes with ultrasonic motors. Granted, no one has come up with an empirical test for AF performance yet (I suspect Roger Cicala of Lensrentals is on that), so this is a subjective opinion. Grain of salt recommended.

[DanK]

I try to decide based on the characteristics of individual lenses and reviews, but I have to admit that I no longer have any non-Canon lenses. When I switched to digital, the other brands seemed by and large to be a way to get reasonable quality at a considerably lower cost, but with tradeoffs. For example, the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and 28-75 are optically very good and quite inexpensive, but they have neither state-of-the art AF nor full-time manual focusing. I bought the 28-75 as a vastly cheaper alternative to the Canon 24-70 L, and I used it happily for years. However, things seem to be changing rapidly, with both Sigma and Tamron introducing lenses that are a big step up from their old ones. These are more expensive than their old ones but still cheaper than the Canon/Nikon alternatives. If I were in the market for a 24-70 now, I would almost certainly buy the Tamron, and if I wanted a 50mm prime and decided to accept the weight, I would probably buy the new Sigma that is just now being released.

[chauncey]

This is somewhat off topic, but...

when mastered and used properly, they can help you produce wonderful images that are just not possible with standard or telephoto lenses.

Cannot argue with the first part, but...would tend to argue the second part.
Were you to take me on a shoot and we shot the same scene/at the same time/side by side/same settings, with you using a WA glass and me using a longer lens and photo-merging/cropping my image to your FOV.
Then you post processing both the same way, doing all that...could you discern the difference?

To me, using that longer lens and blasting off a lot of shots, then merging them, is a whole lot easier that dealing with, the lens caused, image distortion. Caveat, take with a grain of salt as my "vast landscape" images have a tendency to suck big time.

[Donald]

Cannot argue with the first part, but...would tend to argue the second part.

William I know we discussed this in a PM, but I think it's helpful for all the members to see our discussion, because I do think it's relevant to the topic.

What I said in my PM to you was, "I was thinking in purely compositional terms and the ability to get in really close to a subject with a wide-angle or ultra-wide angle and still use the background as an integral part of the image is, as far as I'm aware, impossible with a standard lens. I'm happy to be corrected if wrong. If you want to take multiple images and merge them, than that might get you near to it. But why would you go to that bother when a good wide angle can do it in one frame?"

My point is that the artistic creativity that a WA or UWA allows is not something that can be replicated by merging a l;ot of shots taken with a longer lens.

For example, this. The front element of my Tokina 11-16 was about 6 inches from the closest bit of wood.

You may not like the image, but would, I think, have to agree that this image could never have been achieved by using a standard lens.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Brev00]

Chauncey,

If one is simply shooting a scene at distance I can see your point. Panoramas are often shot at more of a midrange fl then compiled. But, one benefit of a wide angle lens is the ability to get some foreground detail right up close and have the rest of the image drop off dramatically into the distance. I am not sure if you can get this effect from compiling long range shots. I do not shoot seascapes but I love viewing them and enjoying the way the near rocks or beach or whatever is recorded so sharply then the pier or cliffs or whatever move off in the distance. So moody. Often, the entire scene is clear. There is often little to no detail at the edges so issues with distortion appear minimal and/or easily corrected. Or cropped away. Personally, I would rather get the scene pretty close to what I want in one shot than have to connect a bunch. Of course, if I ever tried, I might enjoy the process.

Edit: Wow! Just posted this a smidge after Donald's very nice illustration of my point.

[Mike Buckley]

Were you to take me on a shoot and we shot the same scene/at the same time/side by side/same settings, with you using a WA glass and me using a longer lens and photo-merging/cropping my image to your FOV.
Then you post processing both the same way, doing all that...could you discern the difference?

If Donald was using a variable neutral density filter set at about 6 to 10 stops as he often does, I'm reasonably confident that we could tell the difference between his image and your composite.

[JR1]

In tests Sigma often out perform Canon and Nikon, quality and price considered, I have Canon/Nikon and Sigma lenses, and the most used are my Sigma 6-16 and 150-500

[ajohnw]

Despite the wide range of Canon/Nikkor lenses, there are some gaps in their ranges. Which is where the third-party manufacturers tend to aim. For instance, the closest thing Canon makes to Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 is a 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, whose maximum aperture was too tight for my needs. Sigma makes an autofocus 10mm f/2.8 fisheye for APS-C, while Canon makes no APS-C fisheyes I'm aware of. Then there's the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, which has a significantly wider aperture than any other current-production wide zooms. And the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is an interesting zoom range that would tempt the heck out of me if I had the money for it.


Incorrect, John. Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma all make APS-C lenses (links to each manufacturer's lens lineup).

Performance-wise, I think you'll find the gap is narrowing. Check out these (rather tiny) blur index charts from SLR Gear comparing single samples of the $4,000 Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus to the $950 Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art, both taken with a 1Ds mkIII. Zeiss left, Sigma right. Center performance is nearly identical, but there is a difference at the edges. Still, not bad for a $3,050 savings.



The main thing that's kept me away from some third-party lenses is autofocus speed. Particularly among their 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses, AF speed just doesn't seem to match OEM. For an action shooter, that's critical, and it's one of the main reasons I use OEM primes with ultrasonic motors. Granted, no one has come up with an empirical test for AF performance yet (I suspect Roger Cicala of Lensrentals is on that), so this is a subjective opinion. Grain of salt recommended.

Interesting Lex. I hadn't looked for some time hence the feeling that Sigma and Tokina were full frame lenses. Maybe some models are or just the tests I have looked at. When I bought the Nikon I decided to stick with Nikon lenses mainly because of the price of a kit and resale prices if I decide to get out of APS all together. I'm trying a 4/3 camera for a real viewfinder on the odd occasions I really need it. e-620 used and had taken 221 shots.

It's interest to see Zeiss mentioned. Can't do this on Nikon as different cameras are used for the test but these are all on a 5D. They are pretty typical of the companies.

Canon
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...0f14ff?start=1

Believe it or not the extra vignetting wide open can help when the lens is stopped down.

Zeiss
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...4eosff?start=1

Is it better than the Canon ? Debatable. BUT IT'S ZEISS

Sigma
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/52...4eosff?start=1

To me the resolution behaviour is a typical example of Sigma. Is it better than either of the above - no. Would some one notice - probably if they looked close enough on this lens in particular.

Turns out that the same set is available on Nikon - D3x. Results are the same except for the Nikon 50mm F1.4. Nikon do make some absolute crackers. Olympus did too on film, and 4/3 and m 4/3 actually. Zeiss,Nikon and Olympus all make microscopes. Cameras are reckoned to help support that area. Canon's optical design capabilities seem to be better than Sigma, maybe it's a cost effect, maybe they don't want to be better. The world of optics in these areas is a bit of a cozy club. Nikon also seem to favour high central resolution on some lenses. The Sigma m 4/3 lenses seem to head this way too.

My beef with them all in some ways is the lack of a decent range of high quality F4 lenses to suit the sensor size.

Me well if some one is interested in tests may as well give them plenty of consideration before spending money.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

...discovered what to me is a guiding principle: each lens is different....

That sums it up. With the information that's available nowadays (assuming one knows how to use it) well informed decisions can be made.

As Colin often points out, for the VAST majority of shooters, the differences in similar focal range lenses nowadays are not perceptible. And with the complexities introduced with firmware etc. nowadays, it is definitely the most trouble free route to simply buy OEM and not look back. A couple of things finally turned my head in a different direction.

In the past couple of years I've started printing a lot of large prints, some on metal which is unforgiving. I also purchased two high resolution cameras. A combination of those two things led me to becoming very critical of my raw image quality. Consequently I decided to replace my Nikon 16-85 DX format that I had been happy with for years shooting on the bodies I had at the time and never printing larger than 11x17in. Likewise I've got a full frame 24-85 that is fine for walkaround shooting but won't stand scrutiny for fine work. And once I started doing some thorough research it became evident that turning a blind eye to the possibilities is self limiting. One example is the relatively new Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art which is widely acknowledged as the sharpest, best color rendering 35mm currently on the market.

All that said, I'm a gear head and enjoy tinkering with stuff so don't mind the process of looking/evaluating equipment. For anyone not bent (or warped) that way and who don't make huge prints, it's hard to go wrong simply buying OEM gear and spending your time shooting and getting familiar with it.

[Shadowman]

If you are a Canon/Nikon or other camera user and you use a third party lens which develops focusing issues, who do you turn to for assistance, the lens manufacturer or the camera manufacturer?

[Manfred M]

As another long-time ultra-wide angle (UWA) shooter; my view very much mirrors what both Donald and Larry have written.

The critical (and most difficult) aspect in shooting with an UWA lens is to get a well balanced foreground, mid-ground and background into the image. THis is where most inexperienced UWA fail and end up with a shot with lots of ground and sky and little of interest in the image. The real challange in setting up a shot like Donald's is that when one is so close to the foreground object, changing the camera position by just a few cm/inches or degrees can be the difference between a really compelling image and one that is quite ordinary.

As for shooting panos versus using a UWA; these are two totally different objective. To create a pano equivilent, means throwing away a lot of the image (usually foreground and background). If the resolution of the final work one can get away with it, but generally a UWA is not the right choice of lens.

One final thought. I love using a UWA for interior work. There is no way that the pano approach can be made for this type of photography.

[NorthernFocus]

...My point is that the artistic creativity that a WA or UWA allows is not something that can be replicated by merging a l;ot of shots taken with a longer lens...

Yes, that's the difference. I do a good bit of stitching and it's great but definitely not the same compositionally as using a wider lens. I'd say the stitched variety more closely resembles what we see/perceive with the human eye. But the very reason that images shot with UWA lenses are so appealing is due to the artistic effect that provides a different perspective on a scene.

[rpcrowe]

I own three non-Canon lenses...

12-24mm f/4 Tokina which I love...

28mm f/1.8 Sigma which due to Sigma's reverse engineering cannot be used on any camera newer than the Canon 10D...

Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF SP (not the Di model) which is a very nice lens but which I am having problems with when mounted on my Canon 7D although it seems to work fine on my 40D camera. The lens had worked great on my previous 10D and 30D cameras as well as the 40D. Lately, I have experienced exposure problems when shooting with that lens on my 7D in AV, TV or P exposure modes; so I use it in manual exposure mode...

It is not snobbish to like my Canon lenses better because they work on all of my Canon cameras from the D60 (not 60D) which I have had converted to full-time infra red to my 7D. I have a Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens which was among the first EOS lenses sold by Canon and that lens works just fine on all my cameras...

[Brev00]

If you are a Canon/Nikon or other camera user and you use a third party lens which develops focusing issues, who do you turn to for assistance, the lens manufacturer or the camera manufacturer?

A few months back I sent in my Sigma 17-70 for what I thought would be a repair. I was getting more left frame softness than could be afttributed to dof differences. It turned out that Sigma did an af data adjustment which struck me as a fine tuning of my lens to the specific camera I use. Should have done it when I bought it: a remarkable improvement.

[Manfred M]

28mm f/1.8 Sigma which due to Sigma's reverse engineering cannot be used on any camera newer than the Canon 10D...

To me, this is the real risk / issue with any third party lenses. They are likely to work on the camera that they were purchased for, but because they were reverese engineered, there is no guarantee that they will work on future cameras that we buy. This is especially true for lenses that have gone out of production.

Nikon, Canon, Sony (including the Minolta lenses) have continued to work on newer bodies.

[Shadowman]

A few months back I sent in my Sigma 17-70 for what I thought would be a repair. I was getting more left frame softness than could be afttributed to dof differences. It turned out that Sigma did an af data adjustment which struck me as a fine tuning of my lens to the specific camera I use. Should have done it when I bought it: a remarkable improvement.

Larry,

Did Sigma ask for your specific camera model prior to the adjustment?

[PhotomanJohn]

If you are a Canon/Nikon or other camera user and you use a third party lens which develops focusing issues, who do you turn to for assistance, the lens manufacturer or the camera manufacturer?

As already pointed out, one needs to send the lens and sometimes the camera to the lens manufacturer. I have been told by many that the third-party manufacturers often provide this service for free just to insure happy customers.

One thing that I think was an excellent idea by Sigma is to allow the user to re-flash their newer lenses to solve focus and other issues along with firmware upgrades that may become necessary as the camera manufacturers make changes. Sigma will even change the mounts on their newer lenses for a nominal fee if you change camera brands.

With the quality of their lenses continually improving and providing service as mentioned above, the list of reasons for not buying their lenses has become very short.

John

[Brev00]

Larry,

Did Sigma ask for your specific camera model prior to the adjustment?

Yes, they did. They asked for that specific piece of information. They did not call the fix a 'repair', just an af data adjustment. They adjusted the lens to my camera which was free under warranty by the way.

[jcuknz]

Perhaps it is inverted snobbery becuase I have a Panasonic body and a Leica lens

[chauncey]

but would, I think, have to agree that this image could never have been achieved by using a standard lens.

Donald, I hang my head in embarrassed shame. But, I would submit that, with that particular image and most of your others...you have managed to use that distortion as an enhancement to your images. That is something that never occurred to me. Point taken and thanks for the lesson!