Do you use 3rd party lenses?

[glennyong]

oh well.. for me.. telezooms all go for sigma, and nikon primes and mid telezooms till 85mm.

 

[synapseman]

Well for me, my prints rarely go beyond 4R, and my web images are all 640*480, and photography is a hobby, not my ricebowl, so price considerations always come first.

I can't tell the difference between a very good lens, and a very, very, very, very, very good lens (output quality-wise), so even though I can believe marquee lenses are superior, the price diff is not justified for my personal needs.

(Having said that, I won't buy the absolute cheapest lens I can find. Some lenses DO have some build-quality issues.)

 

[erictan8888]

think no harm using 3rd party lense if can have good quality and save $$

 

[sORe-EyEz]

i got 2 2nd-hand 'lelong' $$ Tamron w/ me. i got 19-200mm zoom range under $700!:vhappy: :vhappy:

i dun blow my pics beyond super 8R, so i m not sure about image quality differences. de origin kit lense now kept as back-up. dun think i can get similiar zoom range close 2 such a $$ from 2nd-hand 1st party lenses...

so far did not recover any investment costs but am already v happy w/ wad i got. i dun wanna spend 2 much jus in case i change system. Panasonic FZ30 (12x zoom 3rd party Leica on Panasonic) mayb??;p

 

[Nikonian Foo]

"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."

Anyone here owns a "whizz bang bells and whistles camera" and shoots with pinhole adapter?:bsmilie:

 

[ParkertR]

im on a full sigma ex dg setup no problems so far. they're just as good to me... im not too picky. they get the job done and customers are happy; im satisfied.

 

[Witness]

well...a year ago i posted on the thread tt i tink some are pretty good...

buten lately i find myself moving back towards the originals....

 

[Chiang]

i use 3rd party lenses 28-105 tamron

now looking at 28-300 hehehehe tamron too cause it in my budget , but i need to train up my skill professionally to take good photos.

a uphill tasks for me

 

[ortega]

yes I do
nothing wrong with them, cheap and good for a poor man like me

I have Tokina 17mm, Tokina 28-70mm and Tokina 80-200mm

They have never let me down before

 

[Tupi Guy]

yes I do
nothing wrong with them, cheap and good for a poor man like me

I have Tokina 17mm, Tokina 28-70mm and Tokina 80-200mm

They have never let me down before

I have the 28-70 too. It wonderfuless and it never let me down too
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[ortega]

I forgot to mention that they are all F2.8 lenses
how to afford 1st party

tokina: cheap and good

 

[blive]

Just saw the thread.

I only have Nikon lenses, cause all comes with the original package, and have not bought any lenses yet. Only today intending to go to MS to buy the Nikon 50mm f1.8. E-quote at $175 (incl GST)....;p

Edit:- MS got no stock, so went to CP to buy at $174.3(incl GST)...

 

[lsisaxon]

duh..everybody knows that sigma is not original :bsmilie:

or whatever lah...just buy a lens u like n shoot happily

If someone happens to be using the Sigma body, then Sigma lens should be 1st party, right?

 

[lsisaxon]

So U mean canon body can use sigma lenses, sigma body cannot use canon lenses? :think:

Izzit because sigma body has it's own type of mount?

Well, Sigma was originally a 3rd party lenses maker, then they started to make their own bodies with their own mount. Tokina and Tamron remained as just 3rd party lens maker.

I do not know the history of these companies very well but the 3rd party lens makers as I know that make F-mount lenses in the order I heard them are Vivitar, Soligor, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Cosina. At one point in time, the french lens maker which is renown for making Cine lenses, Angenieux, was also making lenses which can be used for Nikon and Canon.

There are also M42 lenses made by many other companies like Carl Zeiss Jena (previously separated from Carl Zeiss because of the split Germany, now reconciled with Carl Zeiss) which can be mounted on many other cameras with an adapter.

 

[lsisaxon]

it is said that the difference between 1st party and 3rd party lens can be pretty distinct when a picture is blown up. heard it gets more grainy, and its not the film thats making it grainy. not sure how true is it though..

It is true. Many years ago, I had a Practica BX body and was using the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses and compared the 135/2.8 with Nikon's and I found that once the picture is blown up, the resolution is terrible and some regions come out more grainy than the same shot with the Nikon.

 

[lsisaxon]

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.

There were some 'news' some time back that to lower manufacturing costs, Leica contracted Sigma to manufacture some of their lenses. By doing so, Sigma has obtained their technology and some time later, Sigma came up with their own EX series lenses. Before this, Tokina was reputed to have better lenses among the 3 better known 3rd party lens makers. Tamron lenses were known to have it's multicoating easily peeled off.

Personally, I do find that the colours and sharpness rendered by the Sigma EX series lenses to be quite good.

 

[sriram]

There were some 'news' some time back that to lower manufacturing costs, Leica contracted Sigma to manufacture some of their lenses. By doing so, Sigma has obtained their technology and some time later, Sigma came up with their own EX series lenses. Before this, Tokina was reputed to have better lenses among the 3 better known 3rd party lens makers. Tamron lenses were known to have it's multicoating easily peeled off.

There were some stories that the leica 28-70 was made by sigma, but under much stricter QC/mfg tolerances. I've also come across and heard many stories that these sigma made lenses sucked! Whether or not they sucked, I don't see how sigma would be able to make their EX lenses to the same strict spec but at a much lower cost. The economies of scale just don't work that way, unless they sell a bajillion lenses.

That said, I've had less than average results from the tokina's I've used. Though the build was usually solid, the optics were mediocre. I quite liked the results from tamron's newer 28-75/2.8's. I have a cheap sigma 70-300 DG which produces excellent results for the price. So yes, if there's good and cheap third party lenses, I'd go for it. I even posted a thread on that here:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=168026
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=170054

I'd never spend thousands on something like the sigma 300-800, 120-300 etc not knowing whether it will work on a new camera 2 yrs from now, and suppose they say it's not supported any more, that's a $10,000 paperweight. If you think sigma's newer lenses are free from compatibility problems, just look at the number of new lenses which misbehave with the D200. No thanks.

 

[lsisaxon]

There were some stories that the leica 28-70 was made by sigma, but under much stricter QC/mfg tolerances. I've also come across and heard many stories that these sigma made lenses sucked! Whether or not they sucked, I don't see how sigma would be able to make their EX lenses to the same strict spec but at a much lower cost. The economies of scale just don't work that way, unless they sell a bajillion lenses.

I don't see why not. By making lenses for Leica, you would be limiting the number of lenses to the number of Leica users. By making lenses for Canon, Nikon, Minolta and their own SD-series DSLR, it's a vast market out there. Once you set up the line, you just need to churn lenses. In fact the economies works better. However, I am sure the optics are not ground to the perfection that Leica would have required, but sufficient to meet the needs of DSLR users.

Of course if these 3rd party lenses costs nearly the same price as the original, I would go for the original. The Sigma 12-24/4.5-5.6 EX DG is a good example of why I would go for this lens instead of the Nikon 12-24/4 DX. 1) It cost a fraction, 2) I can use it on full frame film.

 

[ricohflex]

There were some 'news' some time back that to lower manufacturing costs, Leica contracted Sigma to manufacture some of their lenses. By doing so, Sigma has obtained their technology and some time later, Sigma came up with their own EX series lenses.

It is a fact that the lens is a Sigma design.
There are 2 versions.
The 1990 and the 1997 versions.
The 1990 version is weak in the 28mm focal length.
The 1997 version improved this. 11 elements.
Pin cushion distortion is high.

Both of the above 28 to 70 R lenses are below the performance of Leica's 1997 Solms design 35 to 70mm f4. This better lens was desgned in Germany but built in Japan. 8 elements.

 

[ricohflex]

I'd never spend thousands on something like the sigma 300-800, 120-300 etc not knowing whether it will work on a new camera 2 yrs from now, and suppose they say it's not supported any more, that's a $10,000 paperweight. If you think sigma's newer lenses are free from compatibility problems, just look at the number of new lenses which misbehave with the D200. No thanks.

Agree.
It is impossible for Sigma to be 100% compatible in AF lenses.
They may be sued for copyright infringement.

Even if compatibility is not an issue, I may spend only <$400 for any new Sigma lens. If 2nd hand, make that <$300. I don't care whether it is Sigma APO or super long zoom or superwide. In my book, Sigma 2nd hand lenses can never cross the $300 barrier even if mint.

The long term quality is the issue.

I really like the Tamron concept of Adaptall2.