Is there a significant quality difference between lenses made by Canon and those made by Sigma or Tamron? Specifically, I have been looking at the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM: but if the Sigma or Tamaron equivalent lenses offer similar quality I would love to save a few thousand dollars.

  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Have you considered simply renting them, so you can see the difference between a Canon Great White and the 3rd party alternatives? Not to mention how huge these lenses are IRL? Everybody's definition of "significant quality difference" varies. \$\endgroup\$
    – inkista
    Jan 22, 2016 at 22:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've used the Sigma 300 before and was very pleased with the images I made. The size of the lens is not a big concern as I will always have it on at least a monopod. I was just asking if anyone has used more than just one of the brands and thought there was an actual difference. \$\endgroup\$
    – Jon
    Jan 22, 2016 at 22:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ You will have to be more specific. There are significant differences but there are just as much difference between lenses of a single company. \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Jan 22, 2016 at 23:41
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The new Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 Sports is only a couple of hundred bucks more than the Sigma 300mm f/2.8 that is an almost decade old design. I'd be surprised if the older lens has noticeably better IQ than the newer Global Vision zoom. Sigma has really upped their game in the past five years or so. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Jan 22, 2016 at 23:44


Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.