Are you a brand snob?3rd party lenses
Posted 21 January 2013 - 10:38
My own experience with 3rd party lenses has been mixed. I've had some real dogs, but then I have also had some unexpected gems. One of the better ones I used in the past (and which I should have held onto) was the original Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AF F-mount which was pretty exotic. I had to sell it for economic reasons via an auctioneer who took a fair commission, but it still left me with a decent chunk of change. I think it sold for just under $2,000?
Then there is/was the Tamron 90mm 2.8 Macro, which I thought was superb as a portrait lens, with some great bokeh, but my copy has developed some kind of delamination of the front elements, so it sits as a paper weight now. I can't find a local agent who can fix the thing. Pity.
Some of the dogs I've used included anything that has had the Tokina name on it. In spite of some excellent build quality, I simply haven't ever had a Tokina lens that I liked. The last one I had I got as a part trade for something and that was the 20-35mm f/2.8. Really well made, but man, they may as well have put the bottoms of Coke bottles in there.
Other dogs were the original Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro. Very sharp but with horrible OOF rendition and auto focus that may as well not have existed. The newer Sigmas have all fallen into the pleasant category, particularly the telephotos, which is where one tends to notice lack of quality.
So, would you consider yourself a brand snob, or are you willing to try out non-OEM lenses on your Nikons? If you are adventurous tell us about your best (and worst) 3rd party experiences, or if you're not the adventurous type tell us why you only use OEM.
Added: my most recent 3rd party lens experience is the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 which I reviewed here last week. The lack of views on that review is what led me to ask this question.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 11:08
Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:20
I don't trust the likes of Tamron, Sigma, et al. You get what you pay for. If you drive a Porsche, you don't put 3rd party parts on it.
And the reasons for this avoidance?
I have some Zeiss lenses. They are wonderful.
Edited by vivionm, 21 January 2013 - 14:28 .
Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:26
As with all generalizations it is easy to point out exceptions, but I think that in general that rule holds true. Of course, lower prices have been a raison d’être for the non-OEM brands in the first place. All else being the same, you’d expect the OEM lens to work better, since the engineers don’t have to reverse–engineer wiring patterns, etc. But the reality is that the “off–brand” lenses are usually cheaper, and another reality is that we don’t always have the funds to buy the expensive brand. When the difference is in the build quality and not in the optics, it doesn’t always makes sense for Bart The Dilettante to pay double the price for a tank-like lens. As an amateur, I can afford to baby my equipment and I’m not tossing it with a ballistic arc in the back of a truck bed during a rain storm before driving 2 hours back home, or soaking it in seawater, etc. As those things are less of a concern to me, I have less problems using 3rd party lenses. The majority of my lenses is Nikon, at the same time when I look at what I want to buy, the majority of those is likely not going to be Nikon.
It's funny how I'm much more a brand snob when it comes to accessories like tripods, heads, and camera bags. Probably because the difference between a Chinese fantasy brand and “the real thing” is so much bigger.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:40
Edited by Akira, 21 January 2013 - 14:42 .
Posted 21 January 2013 - 14:54
I'm ok with the nikon's f/1.8 prices, the price range of the f/1.4 afs lenses is beyond what I'm willing to pay for a prime, so I'm considering the 28 and 85 nikon primes
I accept the high price on the f/2.8 zooms , or on the fast telephotos, so I'm saving for a good wide angle, I'm considering the 14-24 f/2.8 but the review of the sigma 12-24 is making me think twice
Posted 21 January 2013 - 15:56
Posted 21 January 2013 - 16:08
Posted 21 January 2013 - 16:22
Posted 21 January 2013 - 16:32
as for third party, i inherently distrust them (the ones which are cheaper are cheaper for a reason and it's not a lower corporate profit target) but will definitely try then if they other something not otherwise available and the online review community has uniformly good experiences.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 16:41
Posted 21 January 2013 - 17:43
Brand snob? Hardly.
Posted 21 January 2013 - 18:16
That's me, I am one of those votes. I have tried other brands years past, I won't bother with them again. I do read reviews on the Nikon consumer glass before I will buy it, but it will always be Nikon that I buy. Pro glass I just buy what I need knowing it will be quality Nikon lenses.
Nikon cameras & a few Nikkor lenses, dozen or so
Photo with an attitude!
Posted 21 January 2013 - 18:25
Edited by bjornthun, 21 January 2013 - 18:27 .
Posted 21 January 2013 - 18:42
An inapproriate term. If a Nikkor delivers what I need, then I don't have to change its mount to attach it to my camera. So I get it. If a third-party lens is better, and happens to have an "F" mount, then that is my preferred candidate as well.
Sometimes I have to replace the mount to get a lens to fit my "F" cameras. A hassle only if the lens is not worth the efforts.
Whatever brand a lens has, I think twice about replacing it if it breaks under field use. Nikkors are not exempt in that situation.
My most-sold photo ever was taken with a 100$ non-descript third party lens. Through an T2 adapter it fitted my Nikon.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users