lpodber

As an advanced amatuer or semi pro, what are others thoughts on using an original Nikor pro lens vs pro lens from after market manufacters

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

Hi lpodber, welcome to the forum!

I would love to have brand name for all the venues I shoot, but it is extremely expensive so I compromise with 3rd party lens.
I have some brand name "prime" lenses in the smaller sizes - and some brand name medium zooms. I have 3rd party in medium and larger zooms. I am pleased with all of them.

Here are some links to help you navigate the forum:
The Home Page is the gateway to the UHH Sections - this is where you subscribe to the various ones.

The FAQ's offer a wealth of information - please check it out.

Common Photographic Terms & Abbreviations used in the forum (not all inclusive though).

The Photography Forum Index

How to Post a Picture

The search link at the top of this page will let you search the forum.
TIP: use the advanced link to "sort to show most recent topics first" and select the section to search.

And some resources for your reference...

Looking forward to seeing some of your photos.

terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii

welcome, I have several Sigma, Tamron, and Nikon lenses, aftermarket is a nice way to save some cash and still have great lenses, also try used

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Only Nikkor lenses for me. Along with B+W filters
--Bob

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

It depends on which lens. The Nikon Nikkor lenses are generally great lenses and Nikon was originally an optics company that started building cameras before WW2. Tamron lenses are so-so lenses and have a good warranty and price point but not necessarily pro-quality build or results. Sigma and some others are very good also, so you need to compare lens by lens in the pro arena. Personally, I prefer Nikkor over everything else, although I do have a Tamron 10-24 lens that is JUST okay. It is a DX lens and it tends to fisheye at 10 mm. The Nikon version is also DX but is solid across the entire zoom and a better lens. The Tamron was a gift from my wife so I can't really do much about it, YET... lol

juicesqueezer Loc: Okeechobee, Florida

First off; Welcome! Bottom line, if you can afford it, go with the Nikon, if you have a Nikon camera, etc.
In saying this, I have had no problems with other lens companies, just feel that the manufacture's lenses will work the best with that camera.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Your an ADVANCED amatuer or SEMI PRO which is what exactly?
And you need to ask this question where you may get answers from weekend shooters only. Would it not make more sense if you really needed to ask this, to put the question to your SEMI PRO buddies. If I bought a Nikor 100mm at three times the price of a third party lens am I going to be honest enough to say "I was dumb I should have bought the Sigma". Aint gonna happen bro.

tomeveritt Loc: Fla. + Ga,NY,Va,Md,SC

B&H & Adorama have excellent reviews on Sigma vs Nikon lens. Read some reviews by photographers to get a feel for the differences... I selected several Sigmas, good results. You can seldom go wrong with Nikon. My favorite Sigma is the 17-70.

fudney Loc: Seymour, TN

I do not think any one company has a corner on design or quality. I am about to receive my first new baby lens, since I bought my camera, with two pretty good "kit: lenses. It is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 DX. I based my decision on, reviews of the lens. To do this you need to look at the good and bad reviews of the lens. Even though this lens was very well reviews it had it's detractors.

The lens is very sharp, but is prone to problems with Tokina's quality control. This seemed to be oft repeated. So I bought the lens new, from B&H, at the recommendation of many hogs, who view this company as very good or better. Otherwise I might have gone either used or gray market to save a few bucks.

Many reviewers rated this lens as better than the Nikon 10-24mm, which cost more and had a greater zoom range. Does this mean that I will buy all my future lenses from Tokina. No but I will buy this example of their work. A lot of folks here are buying Sigma and Tammron long telephotos and they love them. Not that the long Nikon's are inferior, but more because the Nikon's are priced like a good used car.

All this is to say that, buy carefully, as this is not a cheap hobby, or profession, but do not get caught into thinking that only the manufacturer of your camera can make a good lens. Nikon and Canon, I am sure have made some stinkers, somewhere in their history. I wish you well in your search, I had a lot of fun in mine, except for pulling the trigger on the purchase, that can put a knot in your panties!

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

As a Nikon shooter I normally buy only Nikon lenses. I say normally, because if I want/need it and Nikon doesn't make it, I will go elsewhere. Tamron was first to market with a 14/2.8 which I owned until Nikon released one, which has now been replaced by the 14-24 which is a fantastic lens. I just bought a Sigma 150-600 Sport and I am very pleased with it and have no plans to replace it. Sigma's new line of ART lenses are well regarded and many, including me, would love the 50/1.4, which just happens to cost twice as much as the Nikon version. You get what you pay for applies, but not everyone needs the absolute best, most robust lenses. It needs to be a case by case comparison today as some of the after market stuff is quite good, especially for the price. I tend to go for the faster lenses, F2.8 - 1.4, as I really do need them for my work, but, as I age, I can see more reasons for the F4, starting with their lighter weight. As an example, I wouldn't want to take my 300/2.8 hiking, but that new 300/F4 would be a great choice.

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Early on, I purchased a Tamron 17-50 for my Nikon D90. The Nikkor 17-55 seemed entirely too expensive. After using it for a month or so, I became disenchanted with it. Just wasn't satisfied.

Since then, I have methodically chosen which lenses I want, saved for them and purchased nothing but Nikkor. I don't regret doing this. I am very happy with each lens purchased and happy with my decision to go with Nikkor only.

I'm not stating there aren't good third-party lenses. I believe there are, but I'll buy Nikkor. Just the way I roll.

xxredbeardxx Loc: San Clemente CA.

I have the cheaper Nikon primes. 35mm and 50mm.
In general I think the newer Sigma lenses have
improved to the point where they are pretty much as good
or almost as good as the Nikon at half the price.

Good luck to you and hope to see some of your photos

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The really good ones are NOT half the price. Sigma seems to have morphed into making first class lenses. Quite a difference from 20 years ago. Yo DO get what you pay for.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Do your research on the focal lengths you are interested in. There is no general rule any more. Sigma has blitzed Nikon on a number of lenses, as has Tamron. Image quality is not the only factor to consider; Nikon simply doesn't make a lens that competes with the Tamron 150-600 lens.

xxredbeardxx Loc: San Clemente CA.

You said it much better than I did friend.
Your right. They are usually cheaper, but not
as much as they used to be and rightly so.

I just paid 1k for a Tamron lens.
the 150-600mm. I'm sure the one comparable to
it from Nikon would be much much more though.