Do you use 3rd party lenses?

[erwinx]

Why should there be a difference between film and digital when answering the question as to whether lenses make a difference? Shouldn't it be what the final output is? The fact that u can see defects on a microscope (i used a microscope to view some slides of Fujichrome 100Pro and Ektachrome 100 and after seeing the Ektachrome grain, converted permanently to Fuji ), or at 100% view in photoshop doesn't mean u can seem them in the final output, film or digital.

If the final output is going to be the screen (resized appropriately, say to 700x520 (for picture of the week contest), then the type of lens you have doesn't seem to matter much. If the final output is going to be a print of say 4x6, then if theres no difference for a film SLR, I would guess that there would be no difference for a digital SLR as well.

 

[StreetShooter]

Actually, I think that a good lens matters less for digital than for film.

With digital, you can always (easily and conveniently) correct for distortions and lack of sharpness in the lens. Of course you can do the same for film by scanning and then working on it digitally, but you do lose a lot of information in the scanning process.

I would say the disadvantage of third party lenses would not be in the optical quality department, but in the existence of operating incompatibilities (eg sometimes AF does not work with new cameras).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by erwinx

If the final output is going to be the screen (resized appropriately, say to 700x520 (for picture of the week contest), then the type of lens you have doesn't seem to matter much. If the final output is going to be a print of say 4x6, then if theres no difference for a film SLR, I would guess that there would be no difference for a digital SLR as well.

well the nature of digital is that u will inevitably do some form of post processing, and you are more exposed to the realities of lens quality than wat a normal film user would be. that was the point i was trying to make. Because of that, the average user will be elevated to a higher level of awareness of lens differences, and will consequently be more critical, and that might certainly influence buying habits. (this applies to consumer digicams as well, btw. )

Now instead of reading magazines on lens tests and trying to understand MTF charts, the average digital user can see for himself / herself the difference, something which the film user cannot do without good equipment, or will not do.

But on the practical level, u're absolutely right of course - if one is only shooting for web use, or only making 4 x 6 prints, then the original vs third party lens debate is moot. Esp for web use, after the image is resized and compressed, u can no longer make judgements on lens quality.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Actually, I think that a good lens matters less for digital than for film.

With digital, you can always (easily and conveniently) correct for distortions and lack of sharpness in the lens. Of course you can do the same for film by scanning and then working on it digitally, but you do lose a lot of information in the scanning process.

I would say the disadvantage of third party lenses would not be in the optical quality department, but in the existence of operating incompatibilities (eg sometimes AF does not work with new cameras).

but u can't sharpen an image produced by a poor lens to the same level of sharpness as one that was produced by a great lens. (this is independent of whether it's original or third party lens) Plus, the loss of contrast and different rendering of colors for the poorer lenses (both original and third party) is a potential pain to correct.

and of course, there's also those bright coloured flares and the loss of contrast due to flaring.....

 

[YSLee]

Originally posted by ckiang


If I am not wrong, there ARE "L" loupes by Canon. Or so I read.

That's easy, get a 50mm f/1.0 L and use it as a loupe.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by YSLee


That's easy, get a 50mm f/1.0 L and use it as a loupe.

A bit .... er... BIG right? ;p Besides, even a Schneider won't cost that much. ;p

Regards
CK

 

[mpenza]

Originally posted by StreetShooter
Actually, I think that a good lens matters less for digital than for film.

I just read an article which said that digital slrs show up any defects on lens more prominently.....

 

[Wai]

Sony F707 with Carl Zeiss len = 3rd party??

 

[Kit]

Well, I certainly don't mind having Carl Zeiss lenses on my Canon.............

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Kit
Well, I certainly don't mind having Carl Zeiss lenses on my Canon.............

There are adaptors for that purpose right? Though you lose AF and all. Seriously, do you think Zeiss lens are really that much sharper than the Canon L and primes?

Hmm... idea for another poll.

Regards
CK

 

[kraterz]

From my experience with third party lenses, most of them have not performed as well as my OEM lenses. I've used some Sigmas, a Tamron and a Tokina. The only 3rd party lens which comes anywhere close to my OEM lenses is the Tamron 90/2.8 macro. I've not had excellent results with the Sigma 28-70/2.8, 15-30 EX DG and some Tokina zooms. They are OK but my OEM lenses are just better, AND they offer USM.

 

[nhyone]

Originally posted by Red Dawn
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!

I believe there will be a difference. Not just sharpness, but also color saturation. If you really can't see a difference, change to a better lab.

Of course, lenses perform better stopped down, so if you always use conservative apertures (f/8 to f/11), the performance can be close enough.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by nhyone
I believe there will be a difference. Not just sharpness, but also color saturation. If you really can't see a difference, change to a better lab.

Actually, I'd struggle very very hard to believe it's possible to tell sharpness difference on a 6x4" print. Nor saturation. The fact is different lenses render different saturation levels to start with anyway, and frankly, I highly doubt that professional lenses in particular are specifically designed to produce more saturated images. After all saturation is a very subjective thing, more is not always better. Also, no matter how good your lab, there is also a good amount of variation between their own printing on a day to day basis. Certainly as much as a difference in lens would make. It certainly does not make more difference than the difference that would be had from changing from a poor lab to a good lab for the sake of it anyway.

 

[Trevor_Tan]

Originally posted by ckiang

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).

CK

For this case, it may not only due to the lens, the flim also play a important part here. Even could be the process of the print at the developer. In another words a lot of factor can cos that differ in quality.
Personnally, I just find that third party or not, wasn't really a real problem. And to buy which lens will depend on your budget and needs. With a original is of cause good, but without one don't mean that you can't take good pictures.

 

[pker88]

but is hoya's filters good enough?

 

[klein]

just to side track a bit.

can i check with u guys have the carl zeiss lens manufacturer close down? cause the guy who was selling the lens told me it was so no more carl zeiss lens. but i was wondering how the other camera have it when its already closed..

any one can help verfiy?

 

[sammedia]

Hi,

Just for sharing, hope no offence. For the past few years I have use 3rd party lenses but I have found out a few problem:

A. All my lenses were all well kept in a dry case when unuse, after 2-3 years of usage, my Sigma Apo 80-200mm F2.8, Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical and Tokina ATX 28-70mm F2.8 inside the glass element are being "FOG". No point to send in for services as to replace the "FOG" glass element will cost almost as much as buying a new lenese.

B. As the same time, my Org. Nokin 85mm F1.8 and Micro 60mm lens althought have been use more than 10 years,both are still in fine and good shape. All my lenses are kept in the same dry case but only the org. Nikon lenses manage to last without any glass element "FOG" problem.

C. Althought 3rd party lenses are cheap and good, but really no resale value after all. Most of the second hand camera shop will not take in any 3rd party lenses due to the easy glass element "FOG" problem and the glass coating of such lenese will not last that long due to the weather condition here. Most of this band like Sigma(Most easy to have glass element "FOG" problem), Tokina,Tamrom(Can last longer without having such glass element "FOG" problem compare to others) will only last for 3-4 years at most if you really take good care of it. This is the feedback they give me.

D. Neverless for a start, if your $$$ no enough, 3rd party lenses are still a good choice as results of those Pro. type 3rd party lenses are still not too far away compare to Org. one when it is in it band new or good condition.; in terms of colour, sharpness. For the amount of $$$ you save compare to buying Org. lenese, I would say it is still worth if you dont mind it can't last for more than 3-4 years. At least my 17-35mm f2.8-4 EX Aspherical and Tokina ATX 28-70mm F2.8 have serve me for the past 3 years and I have already earn back the money to cover my cost.

E. If you are not going to make any money out of this hobby, I would suggest people to save up more $$$ to buy Org. lenses as in terms of:

1. Can serve you longer and more lasting if you take good care of it. Most of my friends org. lenese have last them for more than 10 years.

2. Resale value of Org. lenses are much better if happens that you give out this hobby half way. If you dont belief, try to push your 3rd party lenses to those second hand camera shops, most of them will not buy in at all due to the glass element "FOG" and not lasting problem. Before my 3rd party lenses have such problem, I have already try to sell them off, but fail to do so. The joke part is, only after when the problem come, than only I manage to sell them off to K13 at a very very low price(around $50-80 per piece) for them to be use as spare parts.

Best regards,
Sam :bsmilie:

 

[TME]

I use 3rd party lens. To me still ok lor.... I also have original Minoltas... they seem to be better but that is subjective since all my lenses are at different focal lengths and f-stop ranges..... . For me the $$$ is the deciding factor unless the quality of the glass of the 3rd party equivalent is really that bad....

 

[justdoit]

of coz I use 3rd party lense.

They are more economical, that doesn't mean they have no quality.
Maybe some user feel lose of face to use a lens which the manufacturer doesn't produce camera body.

For example you compare a Tokina ATX 28-70mm to equivalent same price Canon lens. Tokina is so much better than that.
Everything you purchase will cost you money. Regardless of the brand, I always compare the price and quality to other brands.

The 3rd party lenses I am using now are Tokina, Carl Zeiss.
original lens is Canon.

 

[Prismatic]

Good lens makes a difference only you are view your pictures BIG.
Around 6 by 4... feet. I like to view my slides on a projector, when a picture is that big, all the imprefections and little tiny details you can't see otherwise shows through.

Anyway, you need a good projector lense too. Leica Super Planar, no less.