Do you use 3rd party lenses?

[Yappy]

Some reviews claim that 3rd lenses are better..?

 

[zac08]

Some reviews claim that 3rd lenses are better..?

There are some brands which are better in terms of image quality, but in terms of compatibility issues and controls, I always have the belief that the original brand is more superior.

 

[zac08]

That said, I do have 3rd party lenses and I got them for the lower price and not too bad image quality.

After-all, I paid abt $500 for a 28-75 f2.8 lens when the next original option is more than $2000 away... :sweat:

This is the strongest point for those who are tight on budget.

 

[scenar]

Haha i'm broke now. This is all within 1.5 years as well, and im 20 yrs old and a student........hahah so broke.

Also my bodies went from a 400D -> 40D -> 5D -> 5d2 + 1d3

wow.. u r a very rich student~!! :bigeyes:
U prob hv more gear than some photogs who make a living doing photography

 

[.Hack]

That said, I do have 3rd party lenses and I got them for the lower price and not too bad image quality.

After-all, I paid abt $500 for a 28-75 f2.8 lens when the next original option is more than $2000 away... :sweat:

This is the strongest point for those who are tight on budget.

Same reason as me getting the 17-50 f2.8.
New $600+, Nikon's 17-55 $2000+.

 

[Omega23]

Same reason as me getting the 17-50 f2.8.
New $600+, Nikon's 17-55 $2000+.

Can buy 4 of the 17-50.. at least when it drop on the floor you are not scare of the expensive repair cost of the 17-55 and u can buy another copy of the 17-50 anytime... IQ wise both are very alike except nikkor has better build, heavier and more contrasty color.. else the tamron is lighter and more neutral in color.

The rest like Tokina 11-16, sigma 30 F1.4, sigma 50 F1.4 are all proven better then the original makers interm of IQ.

 

[.Hack]

Can buy 4 of the 17-50.. at least when it drop on the floor you are not scare of the expensive repair cost of the 17-55 and u can buy another copy of the 17-50 anytime... IQ wise both are very alike except nikkor has better build, heavier and more contrasty color.. else the tamron is lighter and more neutral in color.

The rest like Tokina 11-16, sigma 30 F1.4, sigma 50 F1.4 are all proven better then the original makers interm of IQ.

I would say, to each his own.
Some people will think it's worth it to pay for the original.
For me, i can't justify myself to pay 4 times the price (in the case of Tamron 17-50 and Nikon 17-55).
I would rather use the remaining money to get other glasses.

 

[Entity]

Great lenses listed here, they fit the bill for wide aperture junkies who like lenses with solid build and good image quality. They happen to be at the same price point or higher than the Nikon/ Canon originals though...wonder if the 3rd party manufacturers made a pact with the "originals" to develop great lenses at only at certain focal lengths, while keeping the prices (and sometimes quality) of other lenses lower so they do not compete for the same clientele as the incumbents. :sweat:

The rest like Tokina 11-16, sigma 30 F1.4, sigma 50 F1.4 are all proven better then the original makers interm of IQ.

 

[mikha]

That said, I do have 3rd party lenses and I got them for the lower price and not too bad image quality.

After-all, I paid abt $500 for a 28-75 f2.8 lens when the next original option is more than $2000 away... :sweat:

This is the strongest point for those who are tight on budget.

this is exactly what I am thinking now

i would rather spend 500$ for 3rd party than maybe almost 2k$ for 2nd hand original brand

 

[Snoweagle]

this is exactly what I am thinking now

i would rather spend 500$ for 3rd party than maybe almost 2k$ for 2nd hand original brand

Agree. As long as it works for u.

 

[DonnyDan]

I prefer Nikon than third party lens =) But Tokina 11-16, Tamron 90 Macro and Sigma 150 Macro is an excellent lens worth investing. I wonder how many people facing Sigma lens common problem like exterior skin peel and back/ front focusing.

 

[acerpic]

Used mainly Nikon lenses, unless the 3rd party lens are very good. For example, Tokina 11-16 and voigtlander 58 SLII.

 

[TBSOO]

I use both tamron and sony lens

 

[ovaltinemilo]

I think some Tamron lens are quite good...price more competitive than original...

 

[Anthony Lee]

I sold one original zoom lens and use the money to buy 6 non-original primes, 24f2.8, 35f2, 50f3.5macro, 50f1.4, 100f2.8 & 200f4. The best is I know they will last me the next 20 years without any service problem.

 

[egnaro]

Tamron 180mm F3.5 Macro VS Canon 180mm L F3.5 Macro

Definitely go for Tamron for the price and image quality.

Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 HSM vs Canon 24-70mm F2.8 USM L

I prefer Sigma for the weight and price.

 

[arjunsinha]

I am using Sigma 10-20mm for more than a year now and love the value for money associated with it...I also used Nikkor 10-24mm but didnt like it...

The main reason we go for 3rd party lens is becoz of low price and good quality..Sigma is my choice... Even Tokina 11-16mm is highly praised compared to its counterparts in Canon or Nikon.

 

[jiez1981]

I used to own the tamron 17-50mm and 90mm macro. Must say they are really good.

 

[Anson]

I sold one original zoom lens and use the money to buy 6 non-original primes, 24f2.8, 35f2, 50f3.5macro, 50f1.4, 100f2.8 & 200f4. The best is I know they will last me the next 20 years without any service problem.

Curious... are those AF or MF primes?

 

[niwdehos]

my drycab is totally filled and i need to sell...

Contax 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.8, 58 2
Carl Zeiss ZE 50 1.4
Sigma 50 1.4, 24-70 2.8
Takumar 50 1.4
Zuiko 55 1.2
Voigtlander 40 2, 58 1.4
Nikkor 35 2, 55 1.2, 105 2.5, 35-105 3.5-4.5
Rolleinar 135 2.8
Yashica 135 2.8
Hellios 58 2
Leica 50 2

Mostly MF lenses & I think that's about it all...