IF buying a NON NIKON lens, which company your trust the most.?

[juanjo_viagran]

Hi..

 

Simple question...

 

So far all my lenses are Nikon, but that's about to change.

I have my eye in a company already but I'd like to know here, which is your

numero uno company for lenses after NIKON .! and maybe why..!

cheers

Juanjo

[ellis_vener_photography]

there isn't a #2 for me. Sorry.

[User_502260]

Do you mean you want a Sigma or Tokina lens or do you mean a Canon or Leica or Pentax lens?

[anthony_bez]

"which is your numero uno company for lenses after NIKON .!"

 

Nikkor.

[dave_petley2]

NIKON ONLY FOR ME

[juanjo_viagran]

look like I have to brake the ice here...

 

 

I'll go with Tokina, the ATX pro line to be more precise.

 

As much as I like NIKON lenses the price difference some times is way bigger than the actual quality difference.

 

Nikon 12-24mm Vs. Tokina 12-24 in money is $500, but if you go to the picture quality you get from those two lenses I don't see to be worth it the extra $$$$.

[frzzy]

I don't trust any specific 3rd party lenses makers, but I have my eyes on some specific 3rd party lenses, but somehow I managed to get the Nikon's counterparts for the price that rivaled them.

 

Having said that, I only seek for 3rd party lenses if the price gap is too big for me to afford. Quality wise, I don't trust any of them.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Zeiss - if you don't mind manual focus. Very sharp and excellent build quality. Nice bokeh, too, if you have a reasonable background. But, to be honest, Nikon makes some excellent lenses that are a lot less expensive than Zeiss.

[hugh_davis]

Juanjo,

 

My 2 cents--I wouldn't look at it brand-by-brand. Look at it lens by lens. The Tok 12-24 is a pretty good example; the Tamron 90mm macro or the Lester Dine 105mm macro could be others. Most decent third party mfrs have at least a couple good pieces of glass in their lines, but aren't necessarily consistent in quality across the board--but that statement's true of the Nikkor/Canon/Olympus/Pentax lines to some extent as well. The problems with good third party lenses are resale value and backward/forward compatibility with the camera systems. Same thing with flash units...HWD

[bruce_margolis]

Juanjo, IMO there is no specific manufacturer just behind Nikon. All of them make some good and bad lenses. Even Nikon has some dogs.

 

Most of my lenses are Nikon but I also have the Tokina 12-24 and like it a lot. Is it better than the Nikon version? Maybe not but it cost about half as much. Am I giving up something by not buying Nikon? Probably.

 

Another lens I have is the Tamron 90mm macro. I got it because Nikon's 60mm was too short for my other uses and the 105mm was too long. I would have loved 80mm but it doesn't exist.

 

Does this make Tamron my second favorite company? Nah. They just had a lens that fit better for me. If Nikon would have had a 90mm macro, I probably would have jumped on it. Well, I would if I could afford it. Never bought a Sigma so I don't know about them.

 

All manufacturers offer something. There are always tradeoffs between speed, focal length, optic quality, and price. I am happy there are a few companies to choose from for specific lenses. It would be horribly expensive if no one but Nikon made lenses for their camera bodies.

 

In the end, Nikon is number one. All the others are number two.

[arnabdas]

I'd suggest only Nikkors, because as long as self-conscious equipment-flashing brand affictionados continue to get all wet over the Nikon/Nikkor names, the rest of us will get to buy some phenomenal 3rd party optics (Tokina 90/2.5 Macro ATX, Tamron 90/2.8 Macro and Kiron/Lester Dine 105/2.8 Macro to name a few) at a price lot less than what they deserve.

[juanjo_viagran]

I'm getting two Tokina lenses..

 

12-24mm AF f/4 and 28-80mm AF f/2.8 ATX pro.

 

I know that set up with Nikon is out, WAY out of my budget and I hope/don't think I'm giving up much in quality.

 

Thanks for the inputs.

[tonybeach]

Juanjo, the Tokina 12-24/4 has better build than the Nikkor; but the optics are just slightly less mainly due to CA. My copy of the Tokina 12-24/4 is very sharp and holds its own against my Nikkor 17-35/2.8 (its actually better than my Nikkor in the center but softer at the edges at the same focal lengths). As for resale value, I wouldn't be surprised that both Nikkor 12-24/4 and Tokina 12-24/4 retain about 80% of their value which means if you sell you will be out twice as much using the Nikkor as the Tokina.

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

I buy Nikkor, or Nikon's lenses. I have one none Nikkor lens though. I bought a Kiron macro lens by mistake originally. It's a super lens so I'm everything but sad. It's as sharp as can get.

 

Past that, I buy Nikkor only.

 

Lil

[mark_firley]

I hate to enter the group being a contrarian, but if our concern was for getting the best possible images without compromise, we would have only been shooting Leica or Zeiss in the film days and would sneer at anybody shooting with less than an H3D in the digital age. All of life is a compromise.

 

Nikon many good lenses and a few marginal lenses. I own many Nikon lenses. My 18-200mm VR is off to Nikon tomorrow because it isn't very sharp and the zoom ring came loose and was held on only by the hood.

 

I own three Sigma EX lenses and I expect the 150mm marco in a few days. I can afford the Nikon lenses, but I can't always justify them. I didn't just buy the Sigmas because they are cheaper. They all offered something that I felt was better or different than the Nikons.

 

I really enjoy my Sigma 30mm, F/1.4. Is it the sharpest? Not sure but it certainly is sharp enough. Same feeling about my 10-20mm zoom. They all tested well and after six months, I am happy to report they are all still in one piece.

 

Do research the lens before you buy and make sure you can send it back if it doesn't meet your needs. And don't believe everything your read, even from The Rockwell (or is that he whose name cannot be spoken?)

 

Don't buy the hype. Don't buy the company. Buy the lens you need.

[Jerry_]

The Sigma 10-20mm DC HSM lens works:<div></div>

[bruce_margolis]

"I hope/don't think I'm giving up much in quality. "

 

FWIW Juanjo, I don't think you are giving up anything. You are doing what most of us do, just trading off. Maybe (that's just maybe) you are giving up some optic quality but you are saving something, too. Money. Money that can be used to buy even more lenses that you want.

 

Tokina makes really good lenses. Just test them out and make sure you have good copies. Everyone, including Nikon, sometimes lets duds get out the door.

[photo5]

I like Tokina ATX lenses very much. Not a big fan of Sigma. For now though I have all NIKON

optics and one Tokina 12-24 DX ATX Pro, a wonderful lens.

 

Dave

[mjt]

Top three choices:

 

1) Nikon

 

2) Nikon

 

3) Nikon

 

in that order.

 

regards, michael :)

[morganlashley]

I think it depends on the lens itself....I've tried the Tamron 90mm macro and this is an incredible lens...other Tamrons are crap, some are good...same for Sigma, Tokina, etc....Nikkor has some excellent lenses but others are crap as well...I have a few pro-level friends and one friend who is quite a famous photographer...they all carry mixed bags of lens as well as cameras..ie Canon and Nikon!

[klix]

As someone said, I would trust generalities like that. I only have two non-Nikon lenses -- Kiron 105mm/macro and Tokina 90mm ATX Macro, but that doesn't mean I think ALL Kirons are good or that ALL Tokina's are good.

 

Also, even you find a good prospect, remember that there are sample to sample differences.

[fotch]

Tokina. I have about 20 Nikon lens and 2 Tokina's and must say, they are a good. I would consider for future lens if I didn't want to spend the price of a Nikon.

[fullmetalphotograper]

To be blunt it depends a lot on the individual lenses design. I have gotten okay shots with Tamron, Great shots with Tokina, and have had Sigma lenses fall apart in my hands. This really comes down to how much use and how hard are you on gear. I will say Nikon is usually a safe bet but they have made a couple of dogs on occasion. The first AF 180 f2.8 was a dog of a lens it was okay but not great on manual focus with a much to tiny of a focus ring. They also had a 35-70mm f3.3 that a lovely grinding noise in AF mode. This lens also held together with tape. I was shooting a 187 case in court when I had a sigma 28-70mm f2.8 come apart in my hands, so it is a little buyer beware.<div></div>

[jack_davison]

I've had no problems with a Tamron lense, and my friend has the equivilent Nikkor-

difference?

IO can't see it if there is.

[Rich B NYC]

I used to see more of a difference with manual focus lenses. These days, other than with the Nikkor "pro" lenses, there doesn't seem to be the quality gap that there once was.

 

As for manual focus, I never found a third party lens that came close in build quality or optical quality. I'll have to defer to those who have tried the new Zeiss lenses as I've yet to use one. However, based on what I've seen and heard, I wouldn't doubt that they are the equal of their Nikkor counterparts.