I like lenses for the way they render an image. Almost all of OEM lenses are far too clinical for my needs. I actually prefer older glass for this reason.
I think you can answer your own question with a couple of hours of research. Pick several lens combinations from Nikon, Canon and Sony and compare with equivalent lens from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and others. Read the test reports and check prices from various sources. I think your answer will be there.
I shoot Sony now and while Sony has some great lens, they are also very expensive. I have lenses from Rokinon and Sigma for wide angle and macro respectively. Both were rated above equivalent Sony lens and were priced much lower. Both operate flawlessly with my camera and are recognized by the camera and Adobe Lightroom. Both produce great results.
I think this is often the case no matter what brand camera you are using. The big guys (Nikon, Canon, Sony) do not have a monopoly on lens technology. I look for the price and performance. If you can get the performance that is as good or better for less money, why not?
I buy second party lenses !!
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Fredrick wrote:
Why buy lenses from let’s say Tamron or Sigma, as opposed to OEM lenses from the camera manufacturer? Wouldn’t Nikon lenses for Nikon cameras or Canon lenses for Canon cameras, etc. be better in general than third party lenses?
If cost is the main issue, wouldn’t a used OEM lens in excellent condition be better in general than a new third party lens? I guess used third party lenses still beat out used OEM lenses cost wise.
I understand that Tamron and Sigma lenses are popular. Just curious as to why?
Why buy lenses from let’s say Tamron or Sigma, as ... (
show quote)
Interesting post, my take has always been this, "If a third party lenses costs the SAME as a OEM lens, folks would buy OEM hands down".
The only reason MOST third party lenses sell is because they are cheaper than the OEM counterpart. And you know, there is a GOOD reason they cost less, but some folks just don't get it.
for one thing Tamron is one of the largest Glass Lens makers in the world. It is possible and probable that Canon, Nikon and others are using the individual glass lenses to make the lenses.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Picture Taker wrote:
for one thing Tamron is one of the largest Glass Lens makers in the world. It is possible and probable that Canon, Nikon and others are using the individual glass lenses to make the lenses.
First, Tamron does not make it's own glass. PERIOD. Not open for discussion, they out source this.
Nikon, on the other hand, is one of two companies that produce their own glass from start to finish. FACT.
Comparable quality and features (in some cases better) for lower price.
1. Frequently the 3rd party is offering a lens that the OEM is not offering. For instance Sony is effectively no longer offering APS-C lenses leaving Sigma to do that job.
2. I found out that Sony has a significant ownership in Tamron. The result in at least one case is that the same lens (18-200 zoom) is offered by both companies. They are the same except for the branding. Of course the Tamron is cheaper.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
billnikon wrote:
Interesting post, my take has always been this, "If a third party lenses costs the SAME as a OEM lens, folks would buy OEM hands down".
The only reason MOST third party lenses sell is because they are cheaper than the OEM counterpart. And you know, there is a GOOD reason they cost less, but some folks just don't get it.
I know of a guy who used to post photos of a particular steam railroad; he was very proud of his D810, because at the time Nikon was the only maker with a 36mp DSLR. One day he posted a strangely ‘cropped’ photo, saying that was the best he could do .... he couldn’t back up any further. Since I had purchased an EF-S mount Sigma 10-20mm recently - which allowed me to capture views that had been unattainable to me before - I suggested that he check Sigma and Tamron - to which he replied that he would never mount anything other than a Nikon lens on his Nikon body. It was his decision to limit his choice that way.
According to Wikipedia...Tamron Co., Ltd. (株式会社タムロン Kabushiki-gaisha Tamuron) is a Japanese company manufacturing photographic lenses, optical components and commercial/industrial-use optics.
jeryh
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
If you bought one, especially one of the Sigma art line, you would have your answer.
Who actually makes the lenses? Do not know but many years ago canon glass was made by Hoya. It was the same with film. Kodak and a few others made their film. Other brands were made and labeled for whoever wanted them. 40 years ago the local dry cleaner started processing film. Within 6 months he was selling his own brand film.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Peterfiore wrote:
According to Wikipedia...Tamron Co., Ltd. (株式会社タムロン Kabushiki-gaisha Tamuron) is a Japanese company manufacturing photographic lenses, optical components and commercial/industrial-use optics.
You know, you can lead folks to water, but you just can't make um drink.
Tamron buys BLANKS, then grinds from there. NIKON on the other hand, produces their own blanks. And, as lens experts will tell you, the quality is in the BLANK.
Now that you know, don't you feel better.
I tested out both a Sigma and a Canon 100-400 lens before buying doing a hundred or so test shots with both. The Canon won out in focus clarity, but just by a hair. Canon was clearly better built. If saving money for other photography projects (more equipment, trips) is more important than that smidgen of improvement in image clarity, and ruggedness and meshing more seamlessly with your camera, then go for it. Life and photography is all about compromise.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.