puku8849

Indeed. e.g. Nikkor 43-86 zoom.

maxlieberman Loc: 19027

Not only are the 3rd party lenses often less expensive, they are often better, as well. The British photographic magazines often compare lenses of a similar type from both third parties and camera manufactures, and the third party lenses fare very well against the others.

saidel42 Loc: NJ

I agree with all of the above...$$$$ and quality. I have the Tamron 150-600 for birding and the only drawback is the ability to focus very fast on the fly, but I suspect that would be a problem with an equivalent OEM lens. I could never have afforded anything close to an OEM lens of the same length. Of course I'd like something faster than 5.6 but ... not at Nikon prices.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I can only speak in my behalf so here are my comments about your concerns.

I only and strictly buy Nikon lenses for my cameras. I have nothing against third party lenses and I have used an occasional one in the past, like Tokina lenses. You said it clear and loud, OEM lenses were manufactured for their cameras.
Today it is not that difficult to find excellent third party lenses and let me remind you that Zeiss and Leica manufacture lenses for other cameras. Those lenses in many cases are more expensive than OEM lenses.

In general people go to those lenses, like in the case of Tamron 18-400 because no OEM has anything similar and the owners find the lens very convenient. Quality wise many of the third party lenses are of exceptional good quality although it is known some of them had incompatibility issues and surely will have more incompatibility issues in the future.

The value of third party lenses as you very well know depends on the lens. In the second hand market they loose value compared to OEM. Many of them are very affordable, specially in the used market.

JeffDavidson Loc: Originally Detroit Now Los Angeles

Cost is a major factor. The 3rd party are often excellent. Both Nikon and Canon have various quality lenses. A big difference is the material used and element/group configurations.
Another big difference with 3rd party lenses is their ability to physically work as well as the OEM's i.e. speed and accuracy of focusing.

Buy what works for you and you are satisfied with.

manofhg Loc: Knoxville, TN

I bought a Sigma 20 mm f/1.4 art lens for my Canon 5DIII and I really like it. Don't know if it was a better price, but it probably wasn't higher. It was recommended to me by a pro (I ain't no pro). I do have other OEM lenses that are excellent, but there are many good 3rd party lenses these days. There are also many Youtube vids that compare lenses, so a little research could make the result an OEM one time and a 3rd party another.

JFleming Loc: Belchertown, Ma

Interesting to note that both Nikon and Canon have produced some "$$$ bombs" over the years... I was always a Nikon purist but have in some cases, found that Sigma and Tamron out perform the big name.

John

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

As others have stated, it's the money. But many friends of mine have purchased 3rd party lenses only use them for a time and then sell them for 1/2 what they paid and then purchase an OEM lens. OEM lenses are designed for use on their respective bodies. They are usually compatible and don't have some of the quirks that some 3rd party lenses display such as slow focus, hunting focus, or simply not tack sharp. I've even seen some 3rd party lenses say they are 600mm, but when I compare the images taken with an OEM lens of the same focal length the subject doesn't look as close as the same subject taken by an OEM lens. I don't know why other than to say that maybe they fudge a little on the written specs???

I hear a lot of complaints about 3rd party lenses. That's the bottom line. But there are some people that swear by them. I have a feeling that those that swear by them simply have not had an opportunity to try an OEM lens of equal specs.

I can say that some OEM lenses aren't that good too. A lot of people rag on "kit" lenses as being inferior in image quality etc. Truth be told, most kit lenses are very good and take high quality images. Camera manufacturers make these kit lenses to help people get started in photography without having to spend a fortune. Yes, they are made from lighter weight plastics and usually have variable apertures, but when the light isn't bad this makes little difference and great results are frequent in the right hands.

I remember trying out an OEM Canon 85mm lens that was brand new and pretty expensive. I couldn't believe how slow it focused. If I had bought it I would have taken it back right away. It was awful.

Paradise Pirate Loc: Cape Coral, FL

I attended Florida Council of Camera Clubs (FCCC) this year and got a loaner Tamron 150-600 G2 Nikon mount for the night. I was sold when I hand held a few landscape shots and pressed the BB focus, the lens
VC was rock solid, no tremor of focus area. Add a coupon and show price I couldn't refuse the price.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Simply put its risk vs reward. Assuming there is an OEM used lens and third party exact lens at the same price. There is risk with the used lens. No warranty for the used vs new. If something goes wrong the used lens could end up costing more. Pro vs Amatuer. A pro who makes their living with a lens is willingly risk getting a return on their money with what the lens will make for them. Amertuer may not be willing to risk the outlay of capital for something they don’t make money(reward) with. What is the real difference in third party vs OEM quality? Again risk vs reward. Does having the absolute clearest sharpest image that can only be determined by computers neccesary or are you satisfied with the quality your eye can see? Is risking more money worth the return to the individual?
What if the OEM lens is only 10% better in quality but 75% more in price. Does risking the additional money justify the reward? Each individual has their own view of their risk vs reward. BTW there are a lot of third party lenses that arguably exceed OEM IQ.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I can only speak on my behalf so here are my comments about your concerns.

I only and strictly use Nikon lenses for my cameras. I have nothing against third party lenses and I have used an occasional one in the past, like the Tokina brand. You said it clear and loud, OEM lenses were manufactured for their cameras and they worked as they are supposed to.
Today it is not that difficult to find excellent third party lenses and let me remind you that Zeiss and Leica manufacture lenses for other cameras. Those lenses in many cases are more expensive than OEM lenses.

In general people go to those lenses, like in the case of Tamron 18-400 because no OEM has anything similar and the owners find the lens very convenient. Quality wise many of the third party lenses are of exceptional good quality although it is known some of them have incompatibility issues and surely will have more incompatibility issues in the future as new features are incorporated into the new cameras.

The value of third party lenses as you very well know depends on the lens. In the second hand market they loose value compared to OEM. Many of them are very affordable, specially in the used market. These are some of the reasons I know I am sure there are others.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Sigma is currently making prime lenses and a few zooms that outperform the Canon and Nikon counter parts. Just a fact.

Canon's 50mm f/1.4 is not even on the same playing field as the Sigma Art 50/1.4, the 105mm f/1.4 is sharper than the 85mm f/1.2L and has a higher quality out of focus, the Sigma 135 f/1.8 blows the socks off of the Canon 135mm f/2L.....

rwoodvira

I have been shooting for a long time. When I was shooting film, I had a Nikon - 2 of my best lenses were a 24-105 Tamron SP and a 90mm Series 1 Vivitar macro. I switched to Canon when I went digital - my Canon lenses were good, but my best walk-around glass was a Sigma 17-70 and a 100-400. I later switched to Sony, but kept both lenses and now I can use my Series 1 90 again.

I love Sony glass, but I'm retired now and buying takes more thought. If anything some of the 3rd party manufacturers have really upped their game. I just bought the Tamron 17-28 and so far I'm delighted with it. Are there comprises - yes, like the comparable 16-35 gives more choices, but the image quality is really up there. I religiously read the reviews of the lenses by reviews I have found to be good and then make my own judgments. Often the warranty for the other mfg. is better; Tamron I believe is 5 years; Sony is 1.
My next lens will be an AF macro, as much as I like the Series 1. I was going to look at the SIgma, but all reports are that the Sony 90 is one of the best made.

So, I guess my best advice is to ignore the manufacturer's hype, listen to the reviews that you trust and if you find a lens that works go for it. You may be able to save a few buck to use towards more stuff.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Many readons.
Money is one.
In the case of a 150-600mm many OEM do not make one.
I bought an excellent Rokinon fisheye lens for a fraction of the Canon, yes money was a reason as well as it is not a frequently used lens and hard to justify spending hundreds to over a thousand on such a lens.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Why not?
If the 3rd party lens does what the user needs, why not?