Hard to trust you when my 3rd party lenses are giving me better results than Nikon's more expensive alternatives.
Change from Nikkor to Tamron? 24-70 has VR!
- Thread starter vizuel
- Start date
Hard to trust you when my 3rd party lenses are giving me better results than Nikon's more expensive alternatives.
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
I prefer to objectively evaluate each lens and purchase the one that best fit my needs. No need to have any specific prejudice for or against any make.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
hahahahahahahahaha :bsmilie:
Kenneth Chen
New Member
No offend I am not anti-Tamron. I try it before with my first Nikon film SLR in the 1980. I don't find it up to my expectation. Professional will prefer original to third party lens. You can some research on the internet by professional Nikon user their feedback and commence around the world.
Cheesecake
Senior Member
you're joking, right?
avsquare
Senior Member
Not bad. I see the effect of marketing is working on you. It's a good sign.
saberlancer
Senior Member
Kenneth Chen said:
Professionals are often the ones with least brand loyalty.. whatever works 'best', not even necessarily the 'Pro' lens, they will use..
Of course those sponsored not counted..lol
Most professionals buy what gets the job done at the best price. Because it gives best ROI. Many professionals have sold their Canon 85L or Nikon 85/1.4 and replace them with the Sigma 85/1.4. Many have also opted for the Sigma 50/1.4. And now every review from professionals are saying the Sigma 35/1.4 is a much better performer than the Canon, Nikon or even Carl Zeiss 35/1.4....
So I think you are very very misguided.
BTW, Carl Zeiss is 3rd party too you know...
avsquare
Senior Member
Precisely. Many misguided people just think that 3rd party are just Sigma/Tamron/Tokina (cos they weren't too good in the past) and also the new kid in town, Samyang. Often they forgot about Carl Zeiss which is also 3rd party, and the legendary 21mm would probably trash many of Canon/Nikon's primes in terms of build and performance at those expensive price points.
Anyways, I've gotten myself a copy of the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 via BnS. As many would have read, I think this will be Sigma's most successful lens. Performance and build is top notch and I do also think it it performs better than both Canon and Nikon's own.
Nikon's own 35mm probably had the last remaining advantage - the only 35mm prime that has weather sealing out of all the 35mm f/1.4 offered. But that's all. Sigma cost 50% of what Nikon asks.
Blur Shadow
Senior Member
Kenneth Chen said:
You last tried a Tamron lens in 1980 and that impression has been imbued in your mind since then? It has been over 30 years. A lot has changed since then. Toyota got a lot better, there are now low cost carriers, air conditioning is pretty standard in Singapore, China is slated to be the next biggest economy, a well-known party lost a GRC and a SMC, LKY is no longer the PM, your mobile phone has more computing power than 10 Macintosh computers...
So please. Do try a new perspective.
Plus, I won't dish third-party lens manufacturers like Carl Zeiss if I were you.
Last edited:
Kit
Senior Member
No wonder. You are still living in the 80s.......
LiverpoolMadman
Senior Member
If anyone planning to sell the tamron 24 70 2.8 vr. Please pm me. Thank you .
That's a sweeping statement. U read recent independent reviews on sigma 85 1.4, 35 1.4?
add to the list the tamron 90mm macro, one of the sharpest affordable lens ard... as verified by professionals ard the world too.
Last edited:
Cheesecake
Senior Member
i think he could be an OEM evangelist.
most believe that by going OEM, its the safest option.
honestly i think he is just trolling....
Hacker
Senior Member
Look here. Tamron beats Nikon, but narrowly:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...792/(lens2)/175/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/792
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Le...792/(lens2)/175/(brand2)/Nikkor/(camera2)/792
