what's your brand in glass after Nikon

Hey...

 

just out of curiosity..

 

 

what's your second (and why not 3rd and 4rd) pick of lenses brand after Nikon.. and why!

 

 

Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, Vivitar..ect.!!?

 

 

even tho all my glass is Nikon now my second pick would be Tokina..

IMO the ATX pro line have the best built (in some cases even better than Nikon) and they are very good performers.

 

 

 

 

Juanjo

No second brand... after some attemps I decided not to spend on anything but some Nikkors anymore... (up to date...)

 

My other 35mm favourite brands are mainly Leica, Canon and vintage Zeiss, usually cheaper than new Nikkors.

Zeiss.

Lensbabies. :-)

I have three non Nikkor lenses. A Sigma 120 to 300 f/2.8 because Nikon does not make anything like it.

A Tamron 14 mm f/2.8 because it performed better then the Nikon 14 mm I tested it against. And a Tamron 300 mm f/2.8 because the price was so much better then the Nikon.

I do not really care who makes it as long as it does what it is supposed to do.

Is there a company I look at first. Yep its Nikon. If they don't make it I look else where

depends. i look more at performance and cost/benefit than simply marketing. with 3rd party lenses, each manufacturer has some gems and some dogs, but among the gems i would say are the tamron 17-50/2.8, tokina 12-24/4, sigma 50-150/2.8, sigma 30/1.4.

Nikkor and Zeiss

Some Tamron Adaptalls have been handy. I've used the same lenses on Canon, Olympus and now Nikon SLRs.

 

Zuiko. Very impressive optics, including on their P&S type cameras, film and digital.

 

Older Vivitar Series 1 lenses have been good values.

I don't buy third party lenses, not because I'm a snob, but because I've gotten burned too often by the "other" companies. I have a Tokina ATX 28-70 that's just falling apart. It still works but everything's loose and funky and the optics leave a lot to be desired. I've got no reason to use it. On the other hand, I had a manual focus Tokina 24-45 (I think) which has held together pretty well, but I gave it away to a friend because it was just collecting dust. I paid $50 for an ancient, 24mm nikkor that more than fills the gap.

 

Regarding camera companies, I think all of them make good lenses. Pentax, Canon, Ziess and Leica lenses are excellent. I haven't had a lot of experience with older, Minolta or Olympus glass but I imagine those companies make some winners as well.

Zeiss lenses are crazy expensive for a Manual Focus lens, for the same price as the Zeiss 85mm 1.4 you can get the Nikon 85mm 1.4D AF..

I'm not only rather buy a Nikon lens but also rather have a AF lens than a MF..

 

is really there glass much better than Nikon?

 

I had a friend with an 85mm 1.4 and 35mm 2 Zeiss and there pictures were good, but as good as a picture you can take with a good Nikon glass..!

I look at these lenses on a case-by-case basis. Brand loyalty? None.

 

I am rather unimpressed by Tamron's handling and build quality, but their 90mm macro looks way cool. I think Sigma's 10-

20 is awesome, I think their midrange consumer zooms are not so great. I LOVE the tokina build quality and the images

from my 11-16, but I wouldn't buy the 16-50 based on the bad stuff I've read about it.

I have 2 Tamrons...SP AF11-18mm F/4.5-5.6 Di II LD Aspherical (IF), SP AF200-500mm F/5-6.3 Di LD (IF) and the 3rd on the way SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF). I like them very much with no issues so far. I also have some older Sigmas that are just so so...they are slow and CA is very noticeable in both... Also have a couple of Nikkors (primes)... I like those as well..except I hate zooming with my feet.. Someday my boat will come in and I will be able to afford all Nikkor I can handle but until then I buy the best of what I can afford.

Most of the new Zeiss lenses seem to be quite a bit more contrasty and somewhat sharper than Nikkors typically at

wide apertures if you do a side by side comparison. Not all of them are "better" in every respect - itt depends on the

specific lens and what you're going to do with the lens. E.g. the 25mm ZF is not as sharp as the 24-70 Nikkor wide open

at a distance of 2m. At infinity or stopped down to f/8 the Zeiss is better. The 35mm and 50mm ZF lenses I have are

spectacularly sharp, here the advantage is considerable. On the other hand the 50/1.2 Nikkor is better than the Zeiss at f/1.4. The 100mm

f/2 ZF which I tested in a store produced higher contrast and better detail when focused close and when wide apertures are used -

compared to 105 mm AF-D Micro-Nikkor. At f/11 the difference was smaller. Despite the obvious optical superiority of the Zeiss 100mm, I

decided to go for the less expensive 105 VR which is closer to the Zeiss in performance than the 105 AF-D Micro and is nice for situations

where tripod use isn't possible.

 

Autofocus is convenient but if it results in optical compromises then maybe it's not so hot for situations where there is

no rush. On the other hand price and autofocus are also important considerations.

Nikon first, for all the usual reasons. But I prefer Sigma's 30/1.4 over Nikon's (um, since such a thing doesn't exist!). And Sigma's 10-20 has been a terrific tool for me so far. Very happy with every other Nikon prime and zoom I've got, and wouldn't do a thing differently. But if they aren't going to step up and fill certain niches, then they can't complain when we wander off the reservation.

Rodenstock.

 

 

Kent in SD

I have a couple MF AI Tokina lenses that I like quite alot...70-210 compact & 35-105...They are sharp, smooth, and the color & contrast is good.

There's no doubt whatsoever that the major manufacturers do make very fine lenses for their own cameras.

 

On occasion, however, the main surviving lens-only makers do come up with something good. It is just not very smart to restrict your choices blindly to only one manufacturer. It's worth checking reviews like those at Photozone.de or the reviews linked to at PixelPeeper, to make sure you're spending your money wisely.

 

At least Nikon doesn't have so much of a caste system as Canon lenses do! There you encounter not only "I only buy Canon lenses" , but also "I only buy Canon L lenses."

Nikon has always been my first preference for lenses, but due to the unavailability or non existence of a particular lens in the Nikkor range; I have acquired Vivitar Series 1 (35-85/2.8 and 70-210/3.5), Tamron (24/2.5), Tamron SP (17/3.5 and 300/2.8 LDIF), Voigtlander (12/5.6 and 40/2) and Olympus (24/3.5 Shift) lenses. I am more than satisfied with these lenses.

My only Non-Nikkor is the 10-20mm Sigma previously mentioned.

It really does work very well. The only thing I have a quirk about is the dull feeling finish.

I guess it help you from dropping the sucker, but it feels weird to me.

I was considering the 12-24 Nikon, but too much money considering I have the 18-200VR.

If Nikon made a wider Zoom, I would have saved up for that.

I held off on the 10.5mm as I felt it didn't offer enough flexibility.

I would have to say Sigma. At this point, I only have one Nikon lens, the 60mm AFS micro. From Sigma, I have the 10-20,

18-50 2.8, 50-150 2.8, and the 30mm 1.4. If I ever get enough money saved, I will probably get either the 100-300 f/4 or the

new 120-400, and maybe one of their fisheye's.

 

Sigma gets bashed around here quite a bit by a few people, and they may have reason, but I have been very happy with my

Sigma lenses so far.

To continue in the spirit of diversity rampant in this thread, I'd have to say:<br>

Computar, because your enlarging lens should be your best lens, and Ctein recommends it.

Kiron - also known as 'Lester Dine' esp. the 105mm f/2.8 Macro lens - fabulous quality and inexpensive.

Every time I go to third party lenses, it turns out badly. I have tried a few times over 50 years and I don`t try any more.

 

My Pentax, Nikkors, Leica M and R lenses have satisfied my needs. I`ll admit to three CV lenses, 12,15,24. I tried them before i bought them, and they are OK, but the Leica glass is better. I needed a screw mount 24 and Leica did not furnish a 12 or 15.

 

With the electronic couplings, you will get incompatability somewhere down the line. Then the savings will evaporate. I looked at some Tamrons, Sigmas, and never thought about a purchase. Mechanical construction does not impress me.

All of the third party (are there any second party?) lensmakers have flagship products. They include Tamron (17-50 and 90mm macro), Sigma (10-20 and 30mm), and Tokina (12-24, 100mm macro).

 

I am impressed with Sigma's long lens lineup. Yeah, too many of them are a slowish f/6.3 at the long end but they were quick to adopt fast autofocus (HSM) and stabalization (OS). The only Sigma I have ever used is their 300 f/2.8 and was very pleasantly surprised with the IQ.

 

I really like Tokina but they are a bit more frustrating. While their build quality and optics are excellent, they seem to be falling further behind the others by failing to offer AF-S equivalents much less stabalization.

 

In the end, this is more about maximizing a limited budget and trying to get the best bang for the buck, regardless of manufacturer because each has something to offer.

I have two Tokina lenses the AT-X 300 AF PRO (300 mm f/2.8) and the AT-X 287 AF PRO SV (28-70mm f/2.8) I use

almost on a daily bases for the last 5 years, for journalism, sports, commercial art. There D lenses. Their AF is not as fast

Nikkor but they are sharp and well made. And for what I paid for them they have more than paid for themselves.