what's your brand in glass after Nikon

Rodenstock, then Zeiss, then Fuji, the Schneider - but not really what the OP is looking for.

 

If I were to put third-party glass on a Nikon body I would consider Zeiss and Voigtlander.

Canon

 

Steven

I have Nikon, Tamron, and Tokina. J Sevigny, I also have the Tokina ATX-Pro 28-70mm f2.6 lens. I have used this lens for years and it is built like a tank. Optically it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever seen. It does have more chromatic aberrations than I would like but these are correctable with Photoshop and Capture. It is the lens I reach for when shooting portraits.

I love my Sigma 10-20. I think it has outstanding color and I have nothing but good experiences with it. I looked

at the Nikon that is close but in the end the extra range of the Sigma, the color, and the price, just made it

the lens for me in the situations it is called for.

 

I am mixed on the Tamron 28-200 that I used to have. It took fine pictures for the money and I used it for 15

years (it was a first gen) but am much happier with my Nikon 18-200 VR. The Nikon is obviously miles ahead in

terms of technology and IMHO gives great images in terms of bang for the buck. Obviously there are a lot of folks

that do not like this lens but on my D300 I can take the 18-200 and fell confident that I can get a decent photo

in almost any situation. I never felt that confident with the Tamron even though it did an OK job most of the time.

Sigma 10-20mm , Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 ,Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 , Tamron 28-75mm 2.8-- --- No complaints !!! -raf

Nice crystal rocks glass (2) with two large ice cubes and a 18 year old bottle of Macallan shared with a dear friend of mine who is a dedicated Canon and very fine shooter. Oh, let's add a couple of Drew Estate Naturals. Ahh, with jazz in the background and our wives putzing around, we would each shoot into the back of our property, which is forest.

 

Other than that, is there really any other glass than Nikon??? Or, Canon?

 

No.

Zeiss only.

It depends. Sigma (150, 105), Tamron (sp90) for macro, although I prefer Sigma. Tokina 12-24/4, 11-16/2.8) for wide angle. I never tried Vivitar. Would like to try out Zeiss though.

 

- sergey

My only non-Nikor is a 12-24 Tokina. Love it & saved nearly $500 over the Nikon. But otherwise I stick with Nikon.

Sigma 30mm f1.4

If Nikon would make a 1.4 wide angle prime lens at a decent price I'd buy in heart beat.

I have used this lens for a couple assignments this week because exactly what I needed - wide and fast.

The only two third-party lenses that I use on my Nikons areTokina AT-X Pro. One is a 12-24 f/4 and the other is a 100mm f/2.8 macro.

 

Very satisfied with both and the 12-24 really seemed like a no-brainer given the savings over the Nikkor with virtually the same performance.

I have the 12-24 Tokina that I use on my D300 and love it--especially since I paid a lot less for it than for the Nikkor 12-24. I also have a MF Tokina 80-200 f2.8 zoom that produces great images and a Kiron MF ai f4 80-200 macro zoom.

 

One lens I originally got to use on a D100 that produces excellent results is a Promaster (Tamron) 28-105mm zoom.

 

I like Nikkor but I'll use whatever works and what I can afford.

Interesting thread. Unfortunately, my ability to create compelling images is the limiting factor for my photographic talents rather than the brand or the price of my lenses.

 

That said, I do like my Tamron 28-70 f2.8. Can't tell the difference between that lens and similar Nikon glass.

Tokina is my 2nd choice. I have the 12-24 f4 and the 28-70 2.8 pro lens. Both have been great preformers and are very sharp and very well built and half the price of Nikon.

I shoot a Nikon D300 and use the Nikkor 18-200 and the 105 f/2.8. I also have the Sigma 10-20 which is fantastic. I've

never owned Tamron, but I think it's important not to get persuaded by marketing. Most of us would be very hard

pressed to really see the difference between manufacturers (assuming the same lens). I would almost bet the bank that

if someone shot a gorgeous photo with a Sigma or Tamron and posted on here claiming it to be a Nikkor prime f/2.8 that

no one would suspect anything different. There are many professionals out there traveling all over the world shooting for

Nat Geo, using other than Nikon and Canon lenses.

 

Nikon makes amazing glass, no doubt, but really one needs to determine the price/value ratio. If price isn't an issue,

then why not shoot with the best lens you can? But if budget is an issue, then try to get the features you want (image

stabilization, quality glass, f/2.8 or f/4, etc) and worry less about the brand name slapped on the side. I think so long as

your looking at the top manufacturers, i.e. Nikon, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron, you'll be safe with the build quality. That

said, there are definite differences between a Nikon 105 f/2.8 and a Sigma 150 f.28 in build quality (I own the Nikon 105,

but seriously considered the 150 by sigma) - but again, it's the cost/value ratio.

Despite what everybody says about Sigmas, I own equal number of Nikkors and Sigmas. I even use 18-50 f/2.8 and

10-20mm, as my two primary lenses. I may be lucky guy, but I picked good copies on my first attempt.

I've shot with many brands and Nikon glass is my first choice for all formats. I've enjoyed Schneider, Zeiss, Rodenstock, Sinar, Bronica, Mamiya, Tokina, Vivitar Series 1, Tamron, Sigma, and Kodak Ektar. Every manufacturer has it's gems and it's dogs. You can't say company X is all good and company Y is all bad, it's just not the case in my experience. But overall I prefer Nikon over everything else I've used. Zeiss is overpriced in my opinion.

 

Great photos have been taken with average lenses. David Hamilton's gorgeous photos of young girls taken in the 1970s were made with ordinary Minolta cameras and lenses. I'd rather take a great photo with an average lens than an average photo with a great lens.

Nothing. Nikon/Nikkor glass only for me.

Dave:

 

I totally agree with your comment on Zeiss being overpriced.

I'm not sure this counts, but back in my film days, I was using the Hasselblad system and upon entering the digital age, I was relunctant to give up the MF format, especially because of the superb lens. I was using the Zeiss Sonar 180mm f4, Zeiss Planar 80mm f2.8 and the massive Zeiss Distagon 40mm f4. Anyway, I finally discovered quite by accident that there are adapters that will allow the Hasselblad lenses to be mounted on my D700. It's on the way, so I have yet to test the combos out, but according to research, it should work very well in terms of sheer IQ, although it works only in manual mode which is fine for me when doing studio work.

 

Has anyone tried this combo? I know it's impractical as far as buying from scratch, but seeing that the Hassy lens were sitting in my closet, this seems to be a nice way to "bring them back to life!" Thoughts?

 

Tuarreg

I never used MF lenses on a 35mm or DSLR camera, but I`m pretty skeptical about it. Hassy lenses are big and heavy, with slow max. apertures and no metering benefits. It makes not worth it to use on a small format camera, thought.

 

I really doubt than e.g. a Distagon 40/4 could bring anything that a 50/1.8 AFD could not. It`s also more than two stops slower. I wonder if the Planar or Sonnar have something interesting to offer, bokeh or whatever.

 

Anyway, I surely would buy that adapter just for the fun.

<i>I totally agree with your comment on Zeiss being overpriced.</i>

<p>

Obviously these are specialty items, not intended for the mass market. If you don't see the difference due to

technique or shooting conditions, then they are perhaps overpriced - though where I live, Zeiss lenses are

similarly priced to new manual focus Nikkors, and between those two, the Zeiss are superior in sharpness though

in practical shooting situations the difference is often less than in a rigorous test. Japanese glass are

dumped into the U. S. market (priced lower than anywhere else), whereas Zeiss glass are priced in the USA about

the same as in Europe (although many of them are made in Japan, but the company pricing policy is more favorable

to European customers). I always wonder about the reasons for this but I suppose it's one of those curiosities in

world politics and ages back to the second world war.<p>

For me, there are distinct gaps in the current Nikkor lineup, and Zeiss lenses fill in some of these gaps. I

intend to get some more, ie. the 18mm and the 100mm. I do use Nikkors, new and old but I don't like the wobbly

kind where the barrel shakes around and makes rattling and squeaking sounds as you focus and you never get a

feeling of

confidence when operating the lens. The extra sharpness of the ZF lenses is a bonus which is sometimes useful and

sometimes not. For example, I like my 85mm f/1.4 AF-D Nikkor precisely the way it is, but never liked the 50/1.4

Nikkor much. Today the Nikon user has more options than ever before, which is great.

I've tried most off brands and found them to be inferior both mechanically and optically.

I will buy a used Nikkor over an off brand, and I have many times. I even prefer Nikon filters.

it is not the maker, it is the lens. any maker can make a dud lens, that upon using or reviews is determined that it is a bad performing lens. rpt any maker.

 

the best way to go is that if you are interested in a lens, look for reviews done by websites that you trust and see what they say. base your decision on objective evidence not a maker's label.

 

i have a $110 zoom lens that is equal in performance to a $1100 zoom lens by a name maker. in a photo magazine the 2 lenses were tested in different reviews, in comparing the numbers they were identical. the magazine flatout stated that they did not know why the cheap lens was being sold at that super low price. they mentioned that it should have a price at least 5 times higher. i wouod not have known that if i didn't read the reviews. i bought the lens, and still use it. it produces excellant images.

... Why don`t tell us which lenses are these? :))