First party or 3rd party or adapted lenses?

Just a curious post. Maybe for the majority out there, they stick to first party lenses. One could get stuff that are more pro or something cheaper also. If you had to decide, would most of your lenses be first party brands or 3rd party brands or would they be adapted lenses using an adapter? Would you be comfortable either way?

 

 

For myself personally, with a dSLR there are enough choices I don't really need to use adapters and I don't shoot in any specific ways. With mirrorless in the future for travel, putting on a dSLR lens on a mirrorless defeats the purpose of it being compact.

 

If one is shooting more manually slower .. maybe they might be OK. DXO does list some very sharp lenses from 3rd party manufacturers. I've read that the ergonomics and focus ability might not be that well however.

 

Cheers :)

With very few exceptions, I stick with native lenses for a camera. That means Nikkors on my Nikons, Zeiss on my Hasselblad, Leitz on my Leica, and of course native lenses on every other system.

 

With that said, I prefer Canon rangefinder bodies to their Leica LTM counterparts, so I tend to use Leitz lenses on Canons when I'm in a rangefinder mood. The little Canon 50mm 1.8 is a real gem, though, and it's also seen some time on my IIIc.

 

Back when I shot manual focus Canons, I was rather fond of my Vivitar Series 1 35-85 2.8 Varifocal. I'd have one in Nikon mount if they didn't bring more than I want to pay(although the little 24-85 3.5-4.5 VR I use all the time beats it in almost every way). I also have a neat little Vivitar zoom in Nikon mount with built in autofocus, although it's a bit buggy.

 

Some of the Sigma ART lenses do interest me, but they are also definitely on the pricey end of 3rd party glass. Still, by all accounts, they are worth it.

I'll nearly always go with Nikkors for my Nikon bodies. That said I have found some third party lenses to be excellent. My Tamron 28-75/2.8 gives excellent results and just runs and runs. I have to admit though that most of mine are older manual focus lenses, I've bought a few newer ones the last year but I learned photography doing my own and generally prefer it that way.

 

Rick H.

Nikkors and Sigmas for my Nikon DSLRs. Used (manual focus) adapted lenses on Sony mirrorless but eventually ended up with native ones.

If budget were not a concern I'd probably not use many 3rd party lenses nor any adapted lenses but alas my budget is not unlimited. So I'll adapt a really nice old lens to a newer body. And there were/are some high quality 3rd party lenses so I see no reason to not use them.

Though I have several lens modules for my Ricoh GXR, I have the Leica Module and a Nikon adapter as well. It is for fun, not necessity, that I use old Leica and film Nikon lenses on the mirrorless. Some combinations are smaller than the OEM lenses.

One of the reasons I've stuck with Nikon is that I have a lot of older lenses that fit newer bodies, so in my case it's mostly first party lenses, though I have a couple of older third party ones. No adapters needed.

One of the reasons I switched from Nikon to Canon EOS in 2004-5, was that I could use almost all of my non-AI Nikkor lenses on them in stop-down mode, but with full metering, with cheap adapters.

Canon also takes M42 (Praktica mount), Exakta, and many other mounts (that is, except for the older Canon FD-mount, where optics are needed in the adapter).

 

I have a bunch of older mirror-reflex lenses and my long-time favorite, the PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 that are just as convenient on Canon EOS as on the original bodies they were made for.

Older manual or new electronic lens?

 

One issue with the new lenses is how the camera and lens communicate. If that interface spec is not released to the lens mfg, the lens mfg has to reverse engineer it. And that is not as easy as reverse engineering a manual/mechanical lens.

 

So for a manual lens, no problems going with 3rd party, though I would rather stick to the camera mfg.

But, there are screwy things like the focusing and aperture ring not turning in the same direction as the camera mfg lens, that sometimes makes 3rd party lenses a PiA to use. Been there, done that, did not like it.

 

For electronic lenses, I would rather stick to camera mfg.

The only exception would be the brands where the mfg has released the interface specs to the lens mfg.

I use the same brand lenses on the cameras. They look better that way.

I believe in being inclusive, which means being open to new possibilities, when it comes to system cameras. If I am using a fixed lens camera, such as a phone (or some other integrated camera), then of course it is not a relevant concept.

 

I have said before that integrated cameras like the RX10 are the future of press photography. The only downside is that you don't have any choices when it come to lenses, but that is why we have system cameras. But to some people it doesn't matter much, as they seem to want to stick with original manufacturers' lenses for some reason.

KG

 

If the zoom ring on your primary lens goes from infinity -> min, and your secondary lens goes from min -> infinity, it is very confusing when you are working fast, and very easy to turn the zoom ring in the wrong direction. This is muscle memory, and when the lenses go in different directions, you cannot use muscle memory properly. This is most important in any fast moving action; sport and following kids. When you shoot FAST, you do not want to have to THINK about which way to turn the zoom ring, you want your hand to just turn it. This is like driving 2 cars. #1 has the gas pedal under your right foot, and #2 has it under your left foot. Shifting between these cars would be quite confusing.

 

This is the same issue with the focusing ring and aperture ring on manual lenses.

You want these to turn in the same direction on all your lenses.

 

If you are a casual/slow shooter, then it may not make a difference that the rings do not turn in the same direction, as you don't loose anything by having to switch directions.

Optical quality is one thing, but build quality may be the ultimate decider. Even in the early 2000's, Sigma had good optics but unreliable mechanicals. Perhaps that's changed, but I haven't returned for another look. For many years, up to the present I relied strictly on native lenses. Not all of my current set are made by Sony, but Zeiss is hardly an off-brand. If there were a lens I needed for a special purpose, not for routine use, I would consider a lesser brand, such as a 14 mm or shorter lens.

Although I generally prefer native lenses, I've found some 3rd party lenses over the years which cost less, were more versatile, and provided at least as good results. Now that I spend a lot of time with micro 4/3 bodies, I can use them all via adapters.

The main reason that I (nearly always) used original manufacturers' brand products (as well as lenses also including batteries, speedlites etc) was because if there was ever an issue (e.g. a functional issue), that 'fault' could never be dismissed by the fine print concerning "third party compatibility": I considered paying more for the branded item was a business expense and a worthwhile expense to ensure no hassles should there ever be a problem.

 

It's not nearly such an issue now, since now my cameras are not my main source of income.

 

WW

I have more Canon L lenses, but there are three good Sigma lenses and a Tamron lens in my collection. The Canon's will hold their resale value better to the point that a newer Mark II or Mark III version comes out that improves on IQ. The third party lenses give good IQ and can be more affordable. But if money were no object I'd have all those expensive Canon L lenses. ;) I am satisfied with the Sigmas and Tamron, so far they are doing a good job for me. I doubt anyone will know what lens I used if I don't tell them. Edited April 3, 2018 by Mark Keefer

The main reason that I (nearly always) used original manufacturers' brand products (as well as lenses also including batteries, speedlites etc) was because if there was ever an issue (e.g. a functional issue), that 'fault' could never be dismissed by the fine print concerning "third party compatibility": I considered paying more for the branded item was a business expense and a worthwhile expense to ensure no hassles should there ever be a problem.

 

It's not nearly such an issue now, since now my cameras are not my main source of income.

 

WW

 

This is a BIG consideration and a difference between a commercial user and a hobby user. The commercial user does not have time to fuss about troubleshooting why two pieces of gear do not work right together. Whereas, as a hobbyist, I can spend hours or days doing that.

If you are a casual/slow shooter, then it may not make a difference that the rings do not turn in the same direction, as you don't loose anything by having to switch directions.

 

Fun trivia question-Nikon made one manual focus lens on which the focus ring rotated in the opposite direction of the "normal" Nikon direction. What lens is it?

 

BTW, the muscle memory thing does trip me up. I was a long time Canon user, and many things on Nikons are reversed. The focus and aperture rings move in the opposite direction, the shutter speed dials are opposite, and the lenses mount in opposite directions. On modern "control wheel" cameras, the front wheel is primary on Canons and the rear wheel is primary on Nikons(although this can usually be changed if you prefer).

 

Now, my Hasselblad trips me up when I change lenses since they lock/unlock in the same direction as most other makers. When I first bought my Bronica SQ-A, it threw me off because the directions are the same as Nikon. With the Hasselblad, I'm back to clockwise on, counter-clockwise off.

 

Going back to the original question, though-we have "1st party" and "3rd party" lenses-what would constitute a "second party" lens? I'm talking out my rear end, but I'd suggest that a 2nd party lens is one that is native to the mount and "blessed" by the camera maker, but not made by the camera maker. Things like Zeiss lenses on Hasselblads would be an example of that.

Fun trivia question-Nikon made one manual focus lens on which the focus ring rotated in the opposite direction of the "normal" Nikon direction. What lens is it?

45mm Nikkor GN.

what would constitute a "second party" lens?

One made by you!

First party: the OEM (or one authorized by the OEM)

Second party: you

Third party: anybody else

Until this thread I have not seen or hears anyone refer to "1st party" lenses; and certainly not to "2nd party" ones.

it is very confusing when you are working fast, and very easy to turn the zoom ring in the wrong direction

I have that issue with my Sigma 24-105 in Nikon mount and it does trip me up again and again. But so did using manual-focus M-mount lenses on a Sony A7.

Edited April 4, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

I shoot film with Nikon cameras using Nikkor lenses exclusively. Way back when, I bought a Vivitar Series 1 90mm macro lens. It was nice and sharp, but it had a slight but obvious purplish cast to the slide film I remember shooting with it. It definitely didn't match my Nikkors, so I sold it and never bought any other 3rd party lenses.

I have often wondered about this and how significant it is. I have often gone to the internet since it is my friend to get reviews and ratings and reviews. For every positive thing thing I read about anything I find an equally negative report or opinion. Many of the issues have no t been that significant. And fortunately most of the time I am not that savvy to notice the difference. Personally I find as the price goes up the law of diminishing returns comes into play. If it works for you and you enjoy it go for it. If you do not like it you can always buy a different one.

DM

Many things are subjective and personal.

Example1. The direction the zoom/focusing/aperture ring turns. For some of us that work FAST, it is very important to have them turning in the same direction on ALL lenses. But for the majority of photographers, it probably makes no difference at all.

Example2. There are some that WANT the Nikon, Canon or Leica name on the lens. And some WANT that white Canon L lens. Yes it is all about looks and status.

Example3. Nikon's 43-86 zoom has the reputation of being Nikon's worst lens. I used two of them for MANY years, and I liked them. The only reason I am not using it is that I replace it with the longer zoom range 35-105, or I would still be using it.

 

Then you have the really top end 3rd party lens that matches or beats the manufacturers lens.

Example. There are some that will buy the Zeiss lenses with a Nikon mount, to shoot Zeiss glass.

And in this case, you are NOT saving money, as the Zeiss lenses are EXPENSIVE.

 

There is a variation of this question.

That is to use older manual camera manufacturer lenses.

Example. For macro lens, my options are the Nikon AF macro, Tamron AF macro, or an OLD manual Nikon lens.

I went with an old manual Nikon 55mm micro lens. Good optics, and way cheaper than either current AF option, and it does the job.

 

Even camera manufacturers goof.

The latest Nikon 70-200 zoom put the zoom ring at the front of the lens. Who's dumb idea was that? It is NOT ergonomic. The zoom ring belongs back near the center of gravity of the lens+camera, where your left/support hand is. With a front zoom ring, you force the right hand to support more of the camera and lens weight, because the left hand is out at the front of the lens and in front of the CG. Or are they expecting everyone to be shooting from a monopod?

Gary, I agree with all of that. I do not think that what you said excludes much of what I said. I am not that savvy and that Is good luck for me so I can enjoy because I do not know what I am missing.

Back when I was a teenager the only additional lens I could afford was second party.

That one, a Focal (Kmart branded), left a bad taste in my mouth.

As a result 97% of the old photos I took were with the Pentax 50mm that came with the camera.

Then when auto focus went mainstream and film faded, the lenses I had dreamed of as a kid came down in price and my income had gone up.

Pentax and Nikon glass for those respective cameras.

Back when I was a teenager the only additional lens I could afford was second party.

That one, a Focal (Kmart branded), left a bad taste in my mouth.

As a result 97% of the old photos I took were with the Pentax 50mm that came with the camera.

Then when auto focus went mainstream and film faded, the lenses I had dreamed of as a kid came down in price and my income had gone up.

Pentax and Nikon glass for those respective cameras.

 

Dang, I keep forgetting this one.

If you cannot afford a new Nikon/Canon lens, then you are forced into a secondary and affordable option.

• 3rd party lens (although some of these 3rd party lenses today are NOT cheap)
  
  • When I was in high school we bought Vivitar or Soligor lenses, cuz most of us could not afford to buy the camera brand lenses. We made do as best as we could with our limited funds. It was good enough. Yearbook and newspaper pictures are not big, and printing is not NatGeo or Life quality.
     
    
  • Sometimes there is very little choice.
    
    • Example, for a Canon crop camera like the T5 and T7i. Unlike Nikon, Canon does not make a low price 35mm f/1.8 lens. Their 35mm lens is $550. The only low cost option that I could find was a Youngnuo at about $90, which is comparatively cheap enough to take a chance. And it has decent reviews.
      

    [*]There are good 3rd party brands and poor ones. Check the reviews.

     

    [*]YOU need to do your research on the company and the specific lens.

    • Example, Sigma has some good lenses, but the 50-100 has several review of inconsistent focusing accuracy that I would not get that lens, until the focusing accuracy issue is resolved and they put VR/IS on the lens.
      

  [*]Used camera brand lens.

   

  • Buying a used camera brand lens can drop the cost to that of a 3rd party lens or less. But it is used and comes with a risk.
     
    
  • With non electronic lenses, I have no problem buying a used lens, and I have many used lenses on my various film and dslr cameras.
     
    
    • Caution, it can be difficult to manually focus a manual lens on a dslr, as the camera optics was made for an autofocus lens. So a manual focus lens is not my first option for an AF camera.
      
    • CAUTION. Some older lenses will NOT fit on current cameras, even if the mount is the same. Nikon specifically, you NEED to check the compatibility charts. You could damage the lens or camera by mounting a lens that is not compatible with your camera.
       
      
    • With Nikon cameras not all cameras will AF the older mechanical AF lenses. Check the compatibililty charts.
      

    [*]I am more hesitant on the electronic lenses, as that is one more thing to fail. Especially motors of any type in the lens; auto focus, manual focus, stabilization, aperture, etc. The used discount needs to be sufficient to offset a possible expensive repair.

    • For Nikon electronic lenses, I will not buy a non US lens, as Nikon USA will not repair non US lenses. So if it fails, it becomes junk, unless you can find an independent tech who will repair it.
      

Finally, if you do not use that lens often, consider renting it. That would be a lot cheaper than buying.

 

As MO said,

You do what you need to do to fit your budget.

Then later when you can afford to, you can upgrade to better lenses.