Do you use 3rd party lenses?
- Thread starter ckiang
- Start date
No, 3rd party lenses are NOT necessarily crap but I use and buy only original lenses whenever possible. 
Originally posted by Edmund
No, 3rd party lenses are NOT necessarily crap but I use and buy only original lenses whenever possible.
Incorporated your answer into the poll.
Regards
CK
How about:
I only use 3rd party lenses. They may not be as good as original lenses but they are cheaper and good enough.
I only use 3rd party lenses. They are better than original lenses.
I don't use lenses. I spent too much on my whizz bang bells and whistles camera so I can't afford a similar lens full of bells and whistles so I rather not use a cheap lens, 3rd party or original.
I only use 3rd party lenses. They may not be as good as original lenses but they are cheaper and good enough.
I only use 3rd party lenses. They are better than original lenses.
I don't use lenses. I spent too much on my whizz bang bells and whistles camera so I can't afford a similar lens full of bells and whistles so I rather not use a cheap lens, 3rd party or original.
Oi, I was joking lah... at least for one or two of them! Now the poll is very wordy leh...
And BTW, anyone have trouble loading the smilie today? Along with three others in the top two rows...
And BTW, anyone have trouble loading the
smilie today? Along with three others in the top two rows...
SO you must be one of those that say 3rd party len are crap...:angry:Originally posted by AdamGoi
I'm a sucker for originals
Hey! Dun any how say hor; just say that I'm just someone who siao original...used to hear from a friend who knew a guy who siao Giordano and guess wat...from head to toe; inside to outside...all Giordano!
Originally posted by AdamGoi
Hey! Dun any how say hor; just say that I'm just someone who siao original...used to hear from a friend who knew a guy who siao Giordano and guess wat...from head to toe; inside to outside...all Giordano!
Hahaha... relax lah just joking only lah!
Sigma's 2 SLRs are the SA7 and SA9. I believe FotoGuide should have them.
The other popular makers are : Tokina, Tamron, and Cosina. The not-so-popular ones include Vivitar, Koboron.
Regards
CK
Hi
i hate to say this, cos it will make me sound like i'm some kind of anti-film freak (which i am not), but if u're a film user, and u know u only print 4 x 6 most of the time, then it doesn't matter whether u use original or third party lenses, top of the line "L" or "AFS" lens or third party consumer grade models - most of the time u wouldn't be able to see the difference!
The top of the line lenses have high resolving power which is only apparent when u start to make bigger prints, beyond 8 x 10. otherwise, that top of the line "L" lens and the top of the line third party lens will produce pics with very little visible difference with small prints.
Besides, how many film users actually use GOOD loupes to examine their images? Unless u have "L" class loupes ;P, everything will appear good enough to u.
Conversely, in digital, u're constantly staring at the pictures in Photoshop 100% (and that's far more than any loupe can go), and at that size (maybe equivalent to a 20 x 30 print?), u see EVERYTHING - all the defects, softness, optical flaws, chromatic abberations etc etc.......magnify that to 200% and u can really see which lens can resolve more.......
so naturally u will want to gravitate to a better lens. Also, it's much easier to print 8 x 10s at home for digital prints, and i believe pple tend to do more of that compared to film.............
agree?
i hate to say this, cos it will make me sound like i'm some kind of anti-film freak (which i am not
), but if u're a film user, and u know u only print 4 x 6 most of the time, then it doesn't matter whether u use original or third party lenses, top of the line "L" or "AFS" lens or third party consumer grade models - most of the time u wouldn't be able to see the difference!The top of the line lenses have high resolving power which is only apparent when u start to make bigger prints, beyond 8 x 10. otherwise, that top of the line "L" lens and the top of the line third party lens will produce pics with very little visible difference with small prints.
Besides, how many film users actually use GOOD loupes to examine their images? Unless u have "L" class loupes ;P, everything will appear good enough to u.
Conversely, in digital, u're constantly staring at the pictures in Photoshop 100% (and that's far more than any loupe can go), and at that size (maybe equivalent to a 20 x 30 print?), u see EVERYTHING - all the defects, softness, optical flaws, chromatic abberations etc etc.......magnify that to 200% and u can really see which lens can resolve more.......
so naturally u will want to gravitate to a better lens. Also, it's much easier to print 8 x 10s at home for digital prints, and i believe pple tend to do more of that compared to film.............
agree?
Originally posted by Red Dawn
Hi
i hate to say this, cos it will make me sound like i'm some kind of anti-film freak (which i am not
The top of the line lenses have high resolving power which is only apparent when u start to make bigger prints, beyond 8 x 10. otherwise, that top of the line "L" lens and the top of the line third party lens will produce pics with very little visible difference with small prints.
Besides, how many film users actually use GOOD loupes to examine their images? Unless u have "L" class loupes ;P, everything will appear good enough to u.
Conversely, in digital, u're constantly staring at the pictures in Photoshop 100% (and that's far more than any loupe can go), and at that size (maybe equivalent to a 20 x 30 print?), u see EVERYTHING - all the defects, softness, optical flaws, chromatic abberations etc etc.......magnify that to 200% and u can really see which lens can resolve more.......
so naturally u will want to gravitate to a better lens. Also, it's much easier to print 8 x 10s at home for digital prints, and i believe pple tend to do more of that compared to film.............
agree?
If I am not wrong, there ARE "L" loupes by Canon. Or so I read.
Actually, there are noticeable differences between 4R prints made of a neg shot with a 3rd party lens and one shot with quality glass. I experienced that myself during my sis's wedding - I had handed over my FE with Tamron 35-70 f3.5 to the official photog, who had a F5 + AFS 28-70 f2.8D ED-IF, for my family portriat. So he shot one on the F5, one on the FE. When the prints came back, the difference is amazing 28-70 AFS one is so much sharper (at that price, it better be).
Yup, you are right. At 100% on screen, a 3mp file is roughly 20x30". More than any loupe can magnify. You see everything, all the flaws of the lens, all the sharpness (or lack thereof). And the lack of grain does not help to hide any artifacts.
Maybe that's why good quality glass is more critical in the high end digital SLRs.Regards
CK
Similar threads
