What is everyone's take on the non-canon canon lenses (tamron, sigma, quantaray)??

tamrons for certain are usually as good image capture wise as an equivalent E series Canon jobbie. build quality comparably ok but general operation tends to be a little slower, clunkier and 'low rent'. I used to think that was ok but working with the 90mm macro - it has become a little frustrating.

I have a Canon 28-135mm IS, a Sigma 17-70mm with Macro lens and a Sigma 70-300mm with macro lens. I wish all my lenses were IS, but they cost more, of course, and Canon costs more than the others, but I really like my Sigma lenses a lot. The 70-300mm Sigma was around $200, but it does a fine job though I would love to have the more expensive Canon f/2.8, 70-200mm IS lens. ($1600-1700) The Sigma 17-70mm is great too for a $400 lens, even better I think than my Canon. If I were starting over, I think I would buy a nice DSLR with a reasonably priced starter lens and then save my money until I could afford one of the other Canon lenses that I really would like to have. Of course, I might be too old to push the shutter by then! lol

Thanks for your input, I think I want to get the 60mm macro first(canon) then upgrade the kit lens. I am happy for the moment though, I have not even begun to be able to notice the shortcomings of the lenses I have!

I think that the last Sigma series are top-lenses.
Link

I can't speak for all of the lenses, but i am a very impressed owner of a sigma 10-20 on the nikon mount. I would definitly recommend it. It is sharp and is a solid lens when it comes to construction. But not all third party lenses are the same i would imagine.