John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

I would guess buying OEM or Third-Party would depend on what you read on ‘lens review’ sites. There is no reason to believe that Third-Party are automatically inferior.

Bill 45

Thank you.

ButchS Loc: Spokane, WA

The easy answer is that third-party lenses are frequently less expensive. And some of them are actually very good. I referred to the Tokina ATX series for example. In some cases, third-party lens makers make lenses that the OEM does not make. Here I would point out the lenses from Lensbaby. And, third-party vendors are not always cheap lenses. I’d like to point out that Zeiss makes a complete series of lenses for the Fuji X mount. And they ain’t cheep.

JeffinMass Loc: MA

Sometimes the OEM manufacturers put out lenses the others don't. An example are the Sigma ART lenses. Other times the focal length may be longer on the OEM equivalent. Putting all that aside if the majors put out ART lenses they would cost so much more. In the long run the major PRO lenses like Canon are made out of metal and last longer. Particularly if they fell. IMO.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

1. Lower price. For example, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm ultrawide sells for $600. A Nikon AF-S 10-24mm DX lens costs almost $900. A Sigma 10-20mm DC lens can be bought for under $300.

2. OEM lens may not be available. For example, there are no OEM Perspective Control/Tilt-Shift lenses for Sony. But Schneider makes them. No one but Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8, either! Canon only offers eight lenses for their M-series mirrorless cameras, two primes and six zooms. The longest available Canon EF-M focal length is 200mm. Samyang/Rokinon, Venus Optics Laowa, Meike and others offer a number of different lenses in M-mount, including some ultra fast f/1.2, fisheye, macro and up to 300mm telephoto lenses, none of which Canon offers. And I have a 60mm f/2 Tamron macro lens... Canon doesn't make any macro lenses with faster than f/2.8 aperture. Neither does Nikon.

3. Better warranty... Canon and Nikon lenses have a one year warranty (extended may be avail. at add'l cost). Tamron warrants their lenses for six years.

Quality and general performance of "third party" lenses aren't necessarily less than OEM, either. For example, Zeiss makes a few lenses in Nikon and Canon mount that easily rival the build and image quality of any OEM lenses from those manufacturers.

Competition from third party lenses is generally a good thing, too. Before Canon offered their first EF-S lens in 2004 (and only an 18-55mm, at that), Tokina, Tamron and Sigma were already offering "crop only" lenses. A couple years ago, affordable ultrawide third party lenses for crop cameras no doubt pushed Canon to offer their sub-$300 10-18mm IS STM.... which is also lighter, smaller and the first lens of this type to have images stabilization. More recently Nikon followed suit with their own AF-P 10-20mm VR DX lens for around $300.

I buy the lens I can afford that best does the job I need it to do. I could care less who made it, so long as it works and holds up well. If it's a Canon L-series, that's great. But if it doesn't have a red stripe or even the Canon name on it, so what if it does what I want from a lens?

One risk of buying a third party lens is future compatibility. All the camera manufacturers have their own, patented, proprietary systems. They do the best they can to keep those compatible over time. For example, every Canon EF lens ever made works just fine on every Canon EOS camera ever made. It's a pretty good bet that will be the case in the future, too. This isn't necessarily the case with a third party lens made for use on EOS cameras. Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have to reverse engineer things like autofocus and aperture control mechanisms, as well as how those interface with the camera electronically. And they have to do this without impinging upon patents. As a result, a Sigma lens that works on yesterday and today's Canon EOS camera may or may not work on a future EOS camera. For example, there's no guarantee that a Sigma lens will work, should Canon make a change such as introducing a new autofocus system using new technology. Canon will insure their own cameras and lenses work together.... but Sigma lenses aren't their concern. In fact, they may be competitive, so Canon has no obligation to make the camera work with an older Sigma lens. There have been third party compatibility issues, usually between older third party lenses and newer cameras.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Very simple. Usually they are cheaper. Many people who look at third party are price sensitive. But recently, especially with Tamron's G2 series and Sigma's Sport and Art series - the lenses rival and sometimes exceed the performance of OEM lenses. And are still a little cheaper. And it yet other cases - the OEM mfgrs do not offer a truly competing product at all.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

The Sigma 15mm to 30mm zoom is a wide angle but can also do closeups. The pic of my yard shot at 17mm was a wide angle shot. I even said "First shot is wide angle 17mm on an FX sensor."

There's no way you can get that shot with a 24mm lens unless you shoot two vertical shots and stitch them together as a pano.

By the way I bought my D7000 second hand, my Kodak 14N Full Frame second hand and the Sigma lens second hand, so I don't get your point. Also if your film cameras are like mine they are sitting in the closet unused. The whole point of digital is no waiting, unlimited shots for free. You say you could do the same with your cameras and lenses, but have you posted any pics with those cameras and lenses?

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

Yep, price is the reason.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I have the Sigma 20mm 1.4 Art and it is amazing, I don't know why anyone would want to pay an additional $1000 to have the red ring for a lens that just does not measure up.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Many of the Canon L series are not made of metal, in fact unless they are White, they are probably made of a composite. Having said that I generally buy lenses based on Image Quality, and often even the Canon L series does not perform better than some of the newer offerings from the 3rd party manufacturers, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina often offer the best value proposition and sometimes flat out the best performance.

Bill Emmett Loc: Bow, New Hampshire

At the time of my last third party lens, I needed a lens with low light, a 24-70mm, and with IS. I shoot Canon, and Canon did not have a EF 24-70mm f2.8L IS lens in its lineup. So, I chose Tamrons SP 24-70mm
f2.8 VR USM lens. The image quality was, and is still great. I've used it on my old 7D, 7D Mark II, and now my 5D Mark IV. I sent it in to Tamron once for a upgrade in software. Actually it's on my camera today for some train shots in Lincoln, NH. Other 3rd party lenses are Tamron SP 150-600mm. Again Canon did not have that f value.

B

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Nikon glass is designed and manufactured for Nikon bodies—that is as “safe” as possible. Logically, I realize third parties lenses designed for Nikon are equally “safe”; but because they are not designed, and manufactured by Nikon, or have the name Nikon stamped on them, they are less “safe”.
I would not say, nor did I mean to say that third party lenses are “unsafe”.
Further, I think I did indicate that I have considered third party lenses, and used the word “yet” intentionally.
As I review this response, I understand my reasons for buying only Nikon glass is tenuous.

Bill P

[quote=Kmgw9v]No doubt, I could be missing something, but it is is safe.

Oh my, as we getting into that kind of foolishness like the aftermarket vs. OEM battery stuff?

tdozier3 Loc: Northern Illinois

More bang for the buck

Ratskinner Loc: Copalis Beach WA

I got burned by Sigma. Never again.