mike_willis1 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I was reviewing my lenses and thought about a few that I am going to buy early this year, but after thinking further about this, I remembered the thread here about the Zeiss lenses and thought - What other non-Nikon lens are out there that are even better than the Nikon offerings? Very interested in seeing what others think of the other brands, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I think anything other than Nikon is a better performer. Only there is no collection/resale value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eskoi.pohjanpalo Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Vivek, please prove your comment or is it only vague thinking, while you are saying: "I think..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 "I think anything other than Nikon is a better performer." Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcofrancardi Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hi Vivek. You want to stir the soup, right? You know such a generic comment is only provocative... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterh Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Perhaps the question is so vague that Vivek got startled to think vague too .-P Mike anything more specific? You seem to think about 35mm format or the digital equivalent? Or in more general terms like including 4x5 enlarging lenses or microscopy? Cheers Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_loza Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Folks, buckle you seat belts: Here comes the ride... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Q from Mike: " Very interested in seeing what others think of the other brands, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc...." What the hell do i have "prove"?! Lighten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Folks, put it this way, comments made in this thread should not be taken seriously, ok? Well, except for this very post, of course. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Add this one to that serious post, Shun. Day in and day out, the so called Nikon die-hards come and discuss Tamron or Tokina vs Nikon and settle on everything except Nikon, unless it is used or from eBay. Proof is in the postings. I will be happy to see it proven wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 The discussions regarding Sigma, Tokina and Tamron generally revolve around the question, "Are Nikon lenses worth twice as much as...?" Subsequent threads are often to the effect of, "I love my Sigma/Tokina/Tamron." The conundrum of any forum is that the exceptions get more coverage than the norm. If you have a Nikon lens, what is there to discuss, except to compare it with another Nikon lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_sevigny Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Nobody is going to "prove" anything here, at least not to the satisfaction of people who have contrary opinions. That said, I buy Nikon lenses because they're made by the same company that makes the cameras I buy. Common sense indicates that there will be fewer compatibility problems. Maybe that's not true. I don't know. It's been a long time since I've used a lens by any other company. Also, I bought a couple of Tokina "pro" lenses a few years back. They were fine. A little softer than Nikon glass maybe, but otherwise, I was able to use them to take good pictures. What I really didn't like was that they seemed poorly constructed. I have 20-year- old Nikkor lenses that are still in great shape. But my five year old Tokina lenses rattle and shake like maracas. Just my opinion, based on my own experiences, of course. In the end, does it really matter that much if you have the "best" lens? Anything you buy today is better than what was available 30 or 40 years ago. And you can take fantastic pictures with almost any lens and almost any camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaius1 Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Tamron's 28-75/2.8 is pretty good, I used to own one when I was in the Canon system. In Nikon, I got the genuine 28-70/2.8 AF-S, tho'. Reasons: AF-S (hence full-time manual override), weather sealing and overall higher build quality (these are more for peace of mind, I don't want to have to worry about babying my equipment when I should be getting the shot) and proven better value-holding if/when I sell it. I dare say the last point will be even truer for Zeiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_ Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I have not 'seen' or used a Sigm 105mm f2 lens, same goes for a Tokina 135 f2 lens. Both Nikkor lenses work fine; the glass is great; and the images crisp. If you are happy with a 35-80mm lens, it would not matter who makes one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prince_alfie Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Those are called Zeiss ZF lenses. Not out yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 If you're satisfied with generalizations, Nikon lenses are generally better than third party lenses. But there are so many specific exceptions that generalizations fall apart. Cosina makes some excellent lenses in various mounts, including the Nikon SLR mount, under the Voigtlander name. Cosina will also have a hand in the Zeiss branded lenses in the Nikon mount. According to technically oriented tests and user reports there are some excellent lenses from Tokina, Tamron and Sigma. And there are some dogs. As with everything you have to evaluate it on a case by case basis. Keep in mind also that not all Nikkors are created equal. And the dictum "You get what you pay for" isn't as simple as it seems. The humble and inexpensive 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor is significantly sharper than the 18-70/3.5-4.5DX AF-S and 24-120/3.5-5.6 VR AF-S Nikkors, which cost hundreds more. That doesn't make the zooms bad lenses. They're very good lenses and much more versatile than a prime. But getting a zoom that equals or betters a prime can cost upward of $1,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 There are great lenses within all brands including Nikon. Nikon lens lineup has a higher percentage of great/very good lenses compared to 3rd party brand lineups. I have had the oppty to use Tamron 90/2.8 AF macro lens and I think that lens is one of the sharpest I've used. I have heard great things about Sigma 150/2.8 Macro and Vivitar 90 AIS Macro. I ordered Tokina 100mm/f2.8 M100 AT-X Pro D macro lens which I believe is very good. I'll get it tomorrow and will perform a head-to-head with 105/4 AIS Micro. One last word regarding brands vis-a-vis quality. I have been lucky that I have had opportunity to know a few great photographers. They evaluated lenses based on their individual qualities/merits and not on their brands. I have seen people who *always* buy 3rd party because they want cheap stuff and they think Nikon is generally overpriced. I have also seen people who *always* buy Nikon (the brand-snobs) and maintain the firm belief that "only Nikon makes the best lenses". Either kind consistently get mediocre shots at best. All this from my limited experience (with those kinds of photographers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_miller Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Well, Lex and Arnab have nailed it. Many third party lenses are "OK for the money" until you try to sell them or trade them. The third party lenses that I really like just for their quality are the Tamrom 90mm f2.5 and the Voigtlander 90mm f3.5. All the rest of my lenses are Nikkors, but maybe I'll take a look at a 50mm ZF. The Tamron is very sharp, has excellent saturation, and it has a very forgiving and perhaps even a unique OOF rendition within the close-up and macro ranges. While it gives a unique character to head and shouulder portraits, I really don't like it for landscapes. The Voigtlander is extermely sharp, extremely saturated, very accurate, and it focuses close. I "believe in it" for everything except portraits and macro. I'm fairly sure that the Nikon 85mm f1.4 AFD is better for portraits, but that the Voigtlander is better for everything else. However, since I've never shot with an 85mmm f1.4, I'm guessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Geez, on my Nikon bodies, I do use Nikkor lenses exclusively. What do I need to do so that I don't "consistently get mediocre shots at best"? Generally speaking, I hate generalizations. :-) Arnab, as I pointed out earlier, don't take any post in this thread too seriously, including this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 That makes you a "brand snob" as well. Go out get yourself something without a Nikon logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 I tried a Vivitar 70-210mm zoom back in the 1908s. It was so cheap and flimsy that I returned it the next day. The next experience was with a 200mm f/3.5 Vivitar. It was solid and decent, but the focus went the wrong way. The fit and finish was not comparable to a Nikkor. My last experience with Vivitar was a 100mm Macro lens. It seemed OK, but the focus was still the wrong way, and the focus ring was quite stiff to turn also.<p>I briefly had a Hoya 135mm close focusing lens. It was quite nice, but the focal length was redundant with my 70-180 Micro-Nikkor.<p>As for 3rd party lenses that are better than Nikkors, I am intrigued to try the Zeiss ZF 50 f/1.4 to see if it can replace my 50 f/1.2 and 50 f/1.8 Nikkors. Nikkor 50mm lenses are quite sharp, but their bokeh leaves a lot to be desired.<p>The Schneider 28mm f/2.8 PC is supposed to be better than the Nikkor 28mm f/3.5 PC. But at the price of $1900 for the Schneider vs $900 (gray market) for the Nikkor, there has got to be some improvements besides lens speed alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Vivek, your first statement is one of reverse brand snobbery. According to what you've said, I should replace all of my Nikkors with a Quantaray or Arsat lens, because they're all "better" than my Nikkors. Clearly, the generalization is false. Some 3rd party lenses are better than Nikkors, but not all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter k Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hi Mike, the Sigma 24mm f:2.8 manual focus lens is rated by photodo at 4.0 while the Nikon 24mm f: 2.8 manual focus is rated as 3.9. I don't know if I could tell the difference.I have the Sigma and it takes very very good pictures Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Peter - how easily does the Sigma flare? The weakness of the Nikkor 24 f/2.8 is its tendency to flare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted January 30, 2006 Share Posted January 30, 2006 Which one of the first statements, Robert: This "I think anything other than Nikon is a better performer." or this "Only there is no collection/resale value." Or together? To a question: "Very interested in seeing what others think of the other brands, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, etc.... " Just whom did I call "brand snobbers" or "non brand snobbers"? I did not recommend that you or anyone should get rid of anything or accumulate anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now