Better lenses than Nikon?

[darrengold]

I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 with a Nikon lens cap to protect the front element. Lovely sharp pictures.

 

Problem solved ;)

 

Regards.

[lex_jenkins]

I suppose the notion of resale value is a legitimate concern for some folks if they need to upgrade occasionally, whether due to professional concerns (need the fastest aperture, fastest AF, etc.), or a desire for the latest and greatest for personal reasons.

 

But I suspect that many of us who aren't allergic to third party lenses don't consider resale value. We just plan to use 'em 'til they're worn to a nub.

[jonas_yip1]

My Ukranian 35mm/2.8 Tilt/Shift is far better than the Nikon equivalent.

 

j

[steve_levine]

Dating back to 1970, all of my vintage 3rd party glass, now sits in my file cabinet of lost and broken souls. My vintage Nikkors, are all still in everyday use. Your move.

[photo5]

Can someone contact the list owner and kick Vivek off? He's a troll and I'm getting sick of it.

 

Nikon rules.

 

Dave

[Robert_Lai]

Vivek: "I think anything other than Nikon is a better performer." <p>That's the type of generalization that bothers people.

[douglas_green1]

For my Nikon cameras, I use mostly Nikkor lenses, but certainly not ALL Nikkor glass. In each case where I use 3rd party lenses, it's because they were the best I could get for anything close to the price I paid:

 

I use a Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 Macro which, IMHO, is MUCH better ergonomically, and at least equal optically compared to the Micro Nikkors in the 105mm range, and I personally like the added speed.

 

I use a Tokina 100-300mm f4.0 ATX zoom which I paid a pittance for ($125 for a near mint lens of the 'bay). It's better than the older 300mm f4.5 Nikkor-H that I had, and which I sold when I got this zoom, for roughly the same amount. I don't use long zooms like this very much, so it would not be worth it to me to spend the $600-1000 that I would have to lay out for anything that might actually be better and also provide a similar zoom range.

 

I use a Tokina 17mm f3.5 wide angle lens which I also paid under $150 for. This too is a focal length that I used rarely (at least with full frame FILM cameras) I could see myself using it much more with DX-sensor type cameras. So long as it was an only occassional use lens, I couldn't rationalize an expensive optic for a slight improvement in optical performance. I'll re-visit this if I find that it doesn't satisfy me in the digital domain.

 

I use Nikkor prime glass in the 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 50mm, 105mm and 180mm focal lengths, although I find I'm often torn between using my 105 f2.5 and the aforementioned 90mm Tamron Macro. Similarly, I often have a tough choice between my 100-300mm Tokina Zoom and my 180mm f2.8 Nikkor. But these overlaps often help me when I am carrying both a film and a digital camera, or two different film cameras at one time and need to shoot rapidly.

 

I also have several inexpensive zooms in the shorter ranges, from 28mm up to around 135mm but I tend not to use them much.

[vivek iyer]

To those who are bothered-

 

Take the 9:26 post as to why "I think..".

[roto]

A bit late, due to the time zone difference...

 

However, hewre are my (a bit too serious) $0.02: since I got the photography bug, I have owned three non-Nikon lenses: a Sigma 75-300/3.5-5.6 APO Macro Super, a Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM EX, and a Tokina 28-80/2.8 ATX Pro.

 

I can't say anything of the first lens: it performs more or less like any zoom of its class. Sharp and contrasty for the price. I haven't used it in a veeeery long time, however. It's light never touched a Velvia, me thinks.

 

The second is a wonderful lens, extremely sharp. A bit of vignetting wide open, but nothing objectionable or unusual with these lenses. At a par with or even better then, from this point of view, the Nikon 70-200/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR (or whatever it's called). The lens had however one problem: strong front focus with the F5. Nikon refused to look into the problem and Sigma couldn't fix it. In the end I sold the lens at a loss and bought Nikon's VR lens.

 

Tokina 28-80/2.8 ATX PRO. A dog. Soft from f/2.8 to f/4. Useable between f/5.6 to f/8-11. Mechanically quite nice. Other exemplars tested were as bad as mine or worse. HUGE CA problem. The lens is not useable with the D2x. A shame for Tokina.

 

So... three lenses, three different results. Optically, I think the latest Sigmas (I heard from reliable sources) are quite good but, as someone observed, compatibility and used value can be a problem.

 

I will however no more buy a Tokina. I was so disappointed by the lens I bought that I lost any faith in the company. Pity.

 

Roberto

 

P.S.

Thinking about the 70-200/2.8 VR: the first was repaired because there was a small bity of plastic inside that moved around and interfered with the VR mechanism. Then, a few months ago, I got another one from Nikon because my first lens was unacceptably soft on the left side of the picture (I realized the problem when I got the D2x: before I never noticed the problem - the camera is a lens killer). This one, in turn, seems to have a problem with AFS: sometimes it gets stuck and you have to unstuck it by turning the MF ring. Back to Nikon next week.

 

Take your conclusions.

 

Lenses are finicky things, sometimes.

[ilkka_nissila]

It seems you've had some bad luck with the 70-200 Nikon. I've had a lens which didn't actually work as it should. My 70-200 is also softer on the left side than center or right but I don't really believe they'll be able to do anything to it that'll last. That's one of the things that is not so nice about complex zooms.

[lex_jenkins]

Dave, Vivek is not a troll. He's more of a gremlin or gnome. He's just having fun, not trying to cause trouble. Don't take it seriously.

[ShunCheung]

To echo Lex' comment, please read my 9:19am post again, and don't take the comments in this thread too seriously.

[john_morris4]

<i>"I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 with a Nikon lens cap to protect the front element. Lovely sharp pictures."</i><p>

 

That's great! I use a Tamron cap on a Nikkor lens on a Leica. Lovely sharp pictures from that combination, too. And my Voigtlander (Cosina) 50mm f/1.5 lens usually has Canon "Ultrasonic" cap. That "Ultrasonic" looks cool on the old M3.

[dan_fromm1]

Um, Mike, there's a reason why Sigma lenses are also called Stigma lenses. Although they're better made than they used to be, I'll never forget complaints about older ones literally falling apart. This was apparently a consequence of Sigma's using double-sided tape to hold the barrels together.

 

On the whole, its a foolish question that got some appropriate answers. Its a pity that not everyone here has a sense of humor, a pleasant surprise that Shun does.

 

One of my neighbors is a Zeiss collector. Very serious collector. Is co-author of a book on Zeiss-Ikon cameras. Has more 50/1.5 Sonnars than he can count, not to mention other lenses, Zeiss and not. Is on a first-name basis with Kornelius Fleischer, speaks with him often. He doesn't give me a hard time about how much better his Zeiss lenses for Contarex and modern Kyocera-made Contaxes are than my Nikkors, in fact he allows that they're all pretty good and that operator errors swamp any small differences that may exist among 'em.

 

If you want good image quality, get a good tripod and use it. Don't obsess about optics.

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

[ilkka_nissila]

Well, only a subset of images can be taken from a tripod so wide aperture performance is important.

[oceanphysics]

Seems strange to have to point this out, but if you're buying used lenses low resale value is what you want.

[leicaglow]

I'm not going to offer any more advice on the Nikkor lenses (or otherwise) that I like because each and every one of them is berated in these forums. I've discovered that too many people really don't know what they're talking about on these forums, and the opinions of the others are awfully subjective.

 

As for people not putting their money where their mouth is, since November:

 

I bought one Nikkor ED-IF telephoto on eBay.

I bought 2 kit lenses with my D50.

I replaced them with 2 better Nikkor zooms, and

4 brand new Nikkor primes

0 non-Nikkor lenses,

but probably will try at least 1 Zeiss

... oh, and 1 lensbaby 2.0 for an assignment where I needed a different look.

 

Why do I need to buy anything other than Nikkors? I know what kind of quality to expect from a good Nikkor.

[chuck_french1]

All Nikon, all the time. Why get something inferior? Those images will last long time, you want the best.

[hash]

>> All Nikon, all the time. Why get something inferior? Those images will last long time, you want the best.

 

Ok I'll take the 30/1.4 Nikkor.

[daniel_ob]

Vivek

 

'I think anything other than Nikon is a better performer.

Only there is no collection/resale value.'

 

How your photographs looks like if you use that bad Nikon lenses? Good?

 

If you use Nikkor zoom lenses and runing after Leica bokeh of fidelity I can understand you. I have 1.4/85d (AF) and 2.8/55 ais macro and I know very well that two lenses and what they can make and what for they are. I know their sharpness, fidelity, bokeh,... for any apperture. It is why I can tell you that you do not know your equipment. If you use 1.4/85d for female portrait at F8 you better off spend time to meet you Nikkors and you will love 'em.

[peter k]

Robert,sorry I have not tested for flare. All my shots have been side ways and away from the sun. No flare as you would expect. Regards Peter

[vivek iyer]

Daniel OB:

 

Check this post jan 30, 2006; 09:26 a.m., again.

 

FWIW, I have some idea about what an aperture, shutter speed or particular lens can or can not do. Also, i have/use more Nikon lenses than you can count with all your fingers.

[Mike D]

Actually, this is an interesting question. Sigma makes a 100-300 F2.8 HSM lens and 300-800 F5.6 HSM lens. While each lens may not be quite as sharp as the longer Nikkor lenses, the ability to zoom might be an overriding factor in deciding to use the Sigma lenses. For example, I own both the Nikkor 500 AFS and the Sigma 300-800 and the Nikkor is rarely used.