Why do folks buy third party lenses? (Page 12): Cost is the most common reason cited. I know that Sigma makes some great lenses, usually in their ART series. I have three Sigma ART...

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

starlifter wrote:

For me it was cost. I just moved to a D810 from a D7200. I had to replace some lenses. I had a Nikkor 18-200 on the D7200 most of the time. My sigma 150-600C was ok but I got a Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2 and a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2, both for a little more than one of the nikkor equivalents. The primary reason was cost but the imagine quality is nice too. I just posted some sigma pics under " Sigma ssharpness".

Cost is the most common reason cited. I know that Sigma makes some great lenses, usually in their ART series. I have three Sigma ART lenses and one, the 50, is far superior to any of Nikon's versions (and also at least twice as expensive). Can't say I'm a big fan of Tamron, but I have not used any G2 lenses which I understand are quite good, so I really have now basis to comment on those. I can say that both Tamron and Sigma have improved their offerings. Best of luck.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

wetreed wrote:

I base my conclusion on Years of experience, extensive research, testing different lenses in the field . I stand by my statements and ask that people reading this keep an open mind and do not swallow the big corporations cool aid.

But, its your conclusion only. And I stand by what I said. Tamron and Sigma are more or less on par, with Sigma leading a bit based on professional and end user comparative reviews, as well as MY personal experience owning a number of current Sigma and Tamron lenses. If you can recommend a Tamron lens covering the 18-35mm range or wider with a constant maximum aperture of f/1.8, sharp as a tack from edge to edge wide open, minimal distortions, built like a tank with super fast and completely quiet auto focus like me Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 ART lens, Id love to hear about it.

art pear Loc: North Dakota

You buy them because most of them are very good lenses.

Bill P

Everybody has made some dud lenses. Remember the Nikon 43-86? Don't forget that Canon has had some problems making superior wide angles. And how about some super zoom kit lenses? Some Sigmas are really really good, some are dogs.

And why not some love for Tokina?

wetreed

mwsilvers wrote:

But, its your conclusion only. And I stand by what... (show quote)

Of course it’s my conclusion, that is why I posted it. The whole point of my post was to express my conclusion. Should I be posting someone’s else’s conclusion?

ricardo00

Fredrick wrote:

Why buy lenses from let’s say Tamron or Sigma, as ... (show quote)

I assume after 12 pages of responses, you got your answer? I too have bought 3rd party lenses, mostly as some have indicated because there were no comparable Nikon lens (new or used) for any price. Whether they are better or not is irrelevant, they serve my purpose for now (it is possible that Nikon will make it impossible to use them in the future I can't say). They are the amount of weight and focal length that I want for now.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

wetreed wrote:

Of course it’s my conclusion, that is why I posted it. The whole point of my post was to express my conclusion. Should I be posting someone’s else’s conclusion?

The problem was that you preceded your opinion with the words "I think we can all agree that"

pedroho

IMHO
The computer has played a very important part with the lenses design these days.
Some of the range offered nowadays have been just a dream in the film days.

during the good old film days, yes, we can distinguish the difference in quality thru the prints, but in this digital days, one can hardly notice the difference in quality from the cheap monitor which the general public is using, let alone the tiny monitor woth the cell phone.

Therefore, why spend that extra money?

pedroho

IMHO
The computer has played a very important part with the lenses design these days.
Some of the range offered nowadays have been just a dream in the film days.

during the good old film days, yes, we can distinguish the difference in quality thru the prints, but in this digital days, one can hardly notice the difference in quality from the cheap monitor which the general public is using, let alone the tiny monitor woth the cell phone.

Therefore, why spend that extra money?

wetreed

rehess wrote:

The problem was that you preceded your opinion with the words "I think we can all agree that"

It’s your problem not mine. I never mentioned a problem. I explained how I came to my conclusions. They are very well thought out, but you don’t have to like them. Try not to be so angry. Will be a happier person.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

wetreed wrote:

It’s your problem not mine. I never mentioned a problem. I explained how I came to my conclusions. They are very well thought out, but you don’t have to like them. Try not to be so angry. Will be a happier person.

No, the "we all agree" statement is FALSE!!!

dick ranez

I think that both Sigma and Tamron have significantly improved build quality over the last five years. Tokina is another one, although with a limited selection. Rokinon/Samyung/etc. etc make several excellent lenses at a difficult price to beat. Several of them were production sites for OEM lenses - perhaps how they can make automatic lenses of their own. Cosina makes excellent lenses - particularly the ones labeled Voigtlander for the Leica rangefinder and no one can question the quality of Zeiss manual lenses for either Nikon or Sony (made by Cosina?). It will be interesting to watch Panasonic and Sigma approach the L alliance when nearly every offering will be compared to Leica. Got to be a tough business these days.

wetreed

rehess wrote:

No, the "we all agree" statement is FALSE!!!

The statement is correct. I do think we can all agree.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

wetreed wrote:

The statement is correct. I do think we can all agree.

You can see from the responses that we don't agree, so your thinking has nothing to do with reality.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I have the Nikkor 43-86 (often dubbed the worst Nikon lens ever made) and I could never figure out why. An interesting thing about that lens is the push/pull zoom which keeps the lens parfocal through the zoom range. This is quite useful in shooting video as you can zoom in and out without having to refocus.People spend thousands of dollars on parfocal manual focus "cine" zoom lenes for video, and here's one that can be had for less than $50 on ebay.

Attached are two video frames at the ends of the zoom range, unprocessed, shot wide open at f3.5.

Bill P wrote:

Everybody has made some dud lenses. Remember the Nikon 43-86? Don't forget that Canon has had some problems making superior wide angles. And how about some super zoom kit lenses? Some Sigmas are really really good, some are dogs.

And why not some love for Tokina?

(Download)