Why do folks buy third party lenses? (Page 14): Your not confusing getting very nicely bent with being refreshed are you? :sm24:...

Abo

jcboy3 wrote:

I’ve never gotten a bottle of Coke that came with a glass of Lagavulin.

Your not confusing getting very nicely bent with being refreshed are you?

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

wetreed wrote:

I don’t even know what a troll is. I do understand that some people might have a difficult time accepting that Tamron is taking over the top spot in lens superiority.

Tamron has made some good lenses lately, but Sigma--by far--has been turning out absolutely stellar performers in categories which they alone offer lenses. Also, Tamron lenses end to have high levels of latitudinal chromatic aberration, and fairly anachronistic focusing mechanisms on many models.

Abo

puku8849 wrote:

If you want a better lens & even more bragging rights buy Zeiss.

I used a Zeiss Jena on my Nikon FM to capture my Avatar to the left;
Far Faster than Fastest Ayrton Senna Piloting McLaren.

It was challenging, with slowish film, slowish manual focus lens, poor light, rain,
totally manual camera, and being perched up a gum tree.

It wasn't bad, but I'm pretty sure some of Nikons glass
is better than the Zeiss Jennazoom I was using at the time.

Just avoid Nikons 24-120mm, some of them are soft.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

kymarto wrote:

Tamron has made some good lenses lately, but Sigma--by far--has been turning out absolutely stellar performers in categories which they alone offer lenses. Also, Tamron lenses end to have high levels of latitudinal chromatic aberration, and fairly anachronistic focusing mechanisms on many models.

You must be wrong, because he says "we can all agree" that Tamron is the best lens manufacturer today. Since that's what he believes it must be true, correct?

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

kymarto wrote:

Tamron has made some good lenses lately, but Sigma--by far--has been turning out absolutely stellar performers in categories which they alone offer lenses. Also, Tamron lenses end to have high levels of latitudinal chromatic aberration, and fairly anachronistic focusing mechanisms on many models.

Owning some current lenses from both brands I completely agree.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

mwsilvers wrote:

You must be wrong, because he says "we can all agree" that Tamron is the best lens manufacturer today. Since that's what he believes it must be true, correct?

I clearly am not part of the phantom "silent majority" ;)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

kymarto wrote:

I clearly am not part of the phantom "silent majority" ;)

No one has ever accused me of being silent.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

Personally I believe that Canon and NIkon lenses are way over priced. I can't afford them. All my lenses are used and a couple came from KEH. The others I found at the Deseret Industries Thrift Shop. You'd be surprised at what people give away as useless. I find that the third party lenses work well for me. I ain't got no complaints. (:

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Rongnongno wrote:

Being less expensive does not mean of lesser quality.

r

Very true. I really wanted to own the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, but even a used one would be at least $800. I first tried the Tamron 17-50, and was not thrilled. AF wasn’t as snappy as I would have liked and the colors seemed “off”. I took similar shots with that lens and with my Nikon 70-300 f4.5-5.6G and the colors from the Tamron just looked “flat”.

As soon as I returned from our trip, I exchanged the Tamron for the Sigma. I had bought the Tamron because it was less money than the Sigma. But, the Sigma, at $389, was STILL a fourth the cost of a new Nikon. Now, the Sigma is going for $289.

Tack-sharp lens with a really fast AF. I’m very happy with the Sigma. Would I STILL like to have the Nikon? Of course. It’s built like a tank. But with the Sigma, if I drop it and the lens elements shatter into smithereens, I won’t think twice about buying another.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Bigmike1 wrote:

Personally I believe that Canon and NIkon lenses are way over priced. I can't afford them. All my lenses are used and a couple came from KEH. The others I found at the Deseret Industries Thrift Shop. You'd be surprised at what people give away as useless. I find that the third party lenses work well for me. I ain't got no complaints. (:

I can't afford some of them either, but overpriced is a relative term. If you could afford them they might not seem so overpriced.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

mwsilvers wrote:

I can't afford some of them either, but overpriced is a relative term. If you could afford them they might not seem so overpriced.

Leave my relatives out of it. They think I'm nuts.

Bill_de Loc: US

DaveO wrote:

Leave my relatives out of it. They think I'm nuts.

Obviously you have some observant and intelligent relatives!

---

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Bill_de wrote:

Obviously you have some observant and intelligent relatives!

---

My wife heads the list!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

DaveO wrote:

Leave my relatives out of it. They think I'm nuts.

Bill P

mwsilvers wrote:

I can't afford some of them either, but overpriced is a relative term. If you could afford them they might not seem so overpriced.

You're getting close!

It is wrong and uninformed to say the manufacturer's lenses are overpriced. The correct statement is they are beyond your means.

You could make the statement that they are overpriced only if you are privy to all the processes and materials involved in making the nikon and canon lenses, AND the Tamron and Sigma lenses. Is the lower cost the result of lower cost labor, which could lead to poor assembly and more sample variation and lower durability, or is the design compromised, more plastic and less metal? These are questions that none of us can answer because we don't have the information or the education to interpret it.