Why do folks buy third party lenses? (Page 11): Agree that less expensive does not mean less quality. In some head to head comparisons, some of the Tamron or Sigma lenses have been...

Ferris Loc: South Carolina

Agree that less expensive does not mean less quality. In some head to head comparisons, some of the Tamron or Sigma lenses have been considered to be of equal or superior quality in certain parameters that may be important to an individual photographer’s needs.

wetreed

I think we can all agree that Tamron has become the leader of lens makers. This only makes sense,after all Tamron only makes lenses where as Nikon and Cannon make many different products. Tamron concentrates only on lens making which is why they are the undisputed leader in lens making. I am really happy I am able to clear this up for everyone.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

OEM for me (Sony)
They focus much faster...

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

JFCoupe wrote:

Tamron and Sigma lenses are less expensive that OE... (show quote)

Is that the same as 16MP vs 50MP, photographers can't tell the difference?

pego101

Sometimes they are better i guess.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

wetreed wrote:

I think we can all agree that Tamron has become the leader of lens makers. This only makes sense,after all Tamron only makes lenses where as Nikon and Cannon make many different products. Tamron concentrates only on lens making which is why they are the undisputed leader in lens making. I am really happy I am able to clear this up for everyone.

Actually we can't all agree on that. In fact, I'm guessing that very large number of people wouldn't agree on that. Some Tamron lenses are as good as or a bit better than some Sigma lenses, but then some Sigma lens are as good as or a bit better than some Tamron lenses. Its the same comparing Tamron to Canon or Nikon. What is the basis for your assumption?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

wetreed wrote:

I think we can all agree that Tamron has become the leader of lens makers. This only makes sense,after all Tamron only makes lenses where as Nikon and Cannon make many different products3.8. Tamron concentrates only on lens making which is why they are the undisputed leader in lens making. I am really happy I am able to clear this up for everyone.

Really now? Where exactly, did you get this idea? How is the new Tamron 400/2.8E??

SonyBug

Rongnongno wrote:

And that is how they started, offering stuff the 'big guys' did not. At first the quality was so-so 80/90s) but now I would be hard pressed to see any difference.

I was stuck on Nikon lenses when I had Nikon gear. But, switching to Sony left some voids in the lens portfolio, so I researched and bought a Tamron 28-80, which IMHO is superior to the GM Sony lens in the same range. Add to that a lessor cost, and I could not be happier.

nikonnate Loc: Woodbury MN

wetreed wrote:

Forgive me for being annoyingly presumptuous but I think we can all agree that Tamron has become the leader of lens makers. This only makes sense,after all Tamron only makes lenses where as Nikon and Cannon make many different products. Tamron concentrates only on lens making which is why they are the undisputed leader in lens making. I am really happy I am able to make up your minds for everyone.

Fixed it for you.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

puku8849 wrote:

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

The closest I come to a 'bragging' lens is my eight-element Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - but too few people today know what one is and can recognize it when they see it.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

rehess wrote:

The closest I come to a 'bragging' lens is my eight-element Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - but too few people today know what one is and can recognize it when they see it.

If this is it?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Asahi-Super-Takumar-50mm-f-1-4-Lens-w-Caps-Pentax-M42-Screw-Mount/153609262009?hash=item23c3d353b9:g:w7IAAOSwB4FdWf8J
It was quite common in it's time, not remarkable, just another 50mm 1.4 lens. Really not a bad lens, just not remarkable. And, this lens is well known.

wetreed

mwsilvers wrote:

Actually we can't all agree on that. In fact, I'm guessing that very large number of people wouldn't agree on that. Some Tamron lenses are as good as or a bit better than some Sigma lenses, but then some Sigma lens are as good as or a bit better than some Tamron lenses. Its the same comparing Tamron to Canon or Nikon. What is the basis for your assumption?

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.

Harry13

ORpilot wrote:

$$$$ is the main reason and second, Sometimes the 3rd party makes lenses that the camera manufactures don't make. For instance, For e-mount there is no Sony 150-600mm that Sigma makes. The closest thing Sony makes is the price of a used car vs an economy ticket to Alaska.

I shoot Canon and the only reason I would buy a non Canon lens is if I find one that I like in a length that Canon does not make. I believe that I have one Sigma (among maybe a dozen lens) but no others. When I took up photography again, I bought way too many lens. Years ago (in college) I made do with a Nikon 85mm. If (god forbid) my house burned and I lost all my lens, I would probably buy only a few, starting with a "nifty fifty" of course and adding a 70-300. At this point, I expect the 50 and the 70-300 would suffice, maybe with a 1.4 extender. I shoot mainly at bird dog and spaniel field trials these days and need a little reach once in a while. I'm mostly walking or riding a horse so I don't like to change lens much. Hmmm. maybe I should get fairly long lens, maybe an 28-400 or somesuch. That and the 50 for when I'm stationary should do the trick, esp since I already have a 50.

Gone would be all the lens that live in a big drawer in my desk. Btw, it's a great desk, I love it. It's fairly large and made of cherry wood in an L shape so it's a good place for lens to go to die, as many have. <g>

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

billnikon wrote:

If this is it?
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Asahi-Super-Takumar-50mm-f-1-4-Lens-w-Caps-Pentax-M42-Screw-Mount/153609262009?hash=item23c3d353b9:g:w7IAAOSwB4FdWf8J
It was quite common in it's time, not remarkable, just another 50mm 1.4 lens. Really not a bad lens, just not remarkable. And, this lens is well known.

That is the seven-element version - the followup. The eight-element version was the legendary "Planar-killer" - and apparently not well-known these days.
http://www.fogdog-photography.com/fogdog-blog/2017/4/15/the-planar-killer

From the ebay listing:

Sellers Notes wrote:

It has little dust specks internally and has some yellowing.

The seven-element version had a reputation for yellowing because they used a mildly radioactive glass. The eight-element version does not yellow because they used "better" - more expensive - glass.

starlifter Loc: Towson, MD

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".