Non-Nikkor Branded Lenses

[peterd]

Hi all, as I have been looking at compatible lenses for my Nikon D80, I see

there are a lot of different brands that I know nothing of. Can I get an honest

opinion of them if you have it and what you do or dont like about ability or

construction? The Sigma lenses in particular look really nice but I dont know

how they perform or if they are even well made. Looks are decieving. Brands I

was wondering about that I am aware of:

 

Sigma

Tamron

Tokina

[kohanmike]

I have the Tokina AT-X Pro 12-24mm f/4 DX. It is as solidly built as I've ever seen. I

recently shot the California Jr. Philharmonic rehearsal inside the Disney Music Hall in Los

Angeles with a D70s, ISO 800 and got some great shots, which I printed at 13" x 19" (I wish

I could post them, but the-powers-that-be there required a release that does not allow

posting the shots on the internet, only archival).

 

I've been very seriously looking at getting the AT-X Pro 16-50 f/2.8, and either the 50-135

f/2.8, or Sigma 50-150 f/2.8.

[alex_lofquist]

The Sigmas have been very good optically, but sometimes suffered mechanically. I had a 70-210 Sigma become separated while I was grasping it tightly in a "Pink Jeep" in the hills above Sedona. The lens was good enough to warrant repair. I have also heard of several 400mm f/5.6 Sigmas coming apart, but mine never did. I think that you have to take their durability on a case-by-case situation.

 

Similarly, Sigma also supplies lenses to Ritz Camera under the name Quantaray. I saw one, that while similar to the regular Sigma lens, was somewhat different when examined closely. I cannot tell whether it was better or worse than the Sigma branded lens.

 

I feel that Sigma is good value for the money.

[tom_burke3]

One view is that it's individual third-party lenses that are good and which can offer real

value for money, rather than the whole of a manufacturer's range. For example, the Tokina

12-24 mentioned above has many fans, but other lenses in Tokina's range don't

necessarily win the same regard. You also need to be aware that some of these

manufacturers have different ranges; again, using Tokina as an example, there is the ATX-

Pro range (of which the 12-24 is a member) and then there are other lenses (labelled

'ATX', I think, in Tokina's case) which aren't perceived as being as good.

 

The best advice is to look for reviews here, on other sites (e.g. Thom Hogan's), or in the

pages of some magazines. I personally think that Amateur Photographer's reviews

(especially those done by Geoffrey Crawley) are good.

[ronald_moravec1]

You get what you pay for. The fact that different grade lenses exists attests to their durability and how well they are made. Only you can detirmine how well made you need a lens to be.

 

Example is the 18-55 kit lens. Plastic mount is fine. They supposedly go off and on the camera without a lot of wear, but if it gets a side hit, the mounts break. That will not happen with a metal mount. Pros who may be off in the middle of nowhere can`t have stuff breaking. They get paid to bring home pictures.

 

Nobody makes similar quality to Nikon at a much lower price. All manufactures have acess to Chinese and other low cost operations.

[prphoto70]

I think you have to look at the prices for the lens to judge the quality. I`ve bought a Sigma 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and the difference in build quality is substantial , but then so was the price.

Personally I like Tokina 12-24mm , Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 70-200mm. All these manufacturers have some quality lenses in theyre line up. But I would say that none of them can beat a good Nikon lens apart from the Price. If you can afford it go for Nikon in my opinion.

[Peter_in_PA]

What particular lenses/focal lengths are you looking for? Which off-brand lens is best in each

particular focal length range varies from range to range... DRASTICALLY sometimes.

[titospna]

I use the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. It's wonderfully sharp, at a fraction of the size and cost of the Nikkor version. I wouldn't trade it in for anything. Its only flaw is that it overexposes a little when using flash, but it's easy enough to adjust for it. I would skip Nikon's kit lenses to buy this, any day.

 

The lens came with a 6-year warranty, with a small rebate at the time.

There are some good reports about their 90mm macro lens, but I have never tried it. I am hoping that Tamron's newly announced 10-24mm lens will be a winner.

[eric_arnold]

<<Nobody makes similar quality to Nikon at a much lower price. All manufactures have acess to Chinese and other low cost operations.>>

 

ronald, you are making a broad generalization here.

 

actually, my tamron 28-75 f/2.8, tamron 17-50 f/2.8, sigma 50-150 f/2.8, sigma 30 f/1.4, and tokina 12-24 f/4, are all made in Japan.

my nikon 18-70 was made in Thailand, as was my d300, while my nikon 50 f/1.8 was made in China.

 

as for similar quality at lower price, check out thom hogan's 17-50 review: http://www.bythom.com/1750lens.htm

 

btw, thom uses a sigma 10-20 not because he's a cheapskate,but because it does something the nikkor 12-24 doesn't do (go wider than 12mm). nikon doesnt make a 1.4 lens in f-mount with an internal motor -- but sigma does (the 30/1,4). nikon also has no equivalent to either the tokina 50-135 or the sigma 50-150, and the tokina 12-24 actually has better build quality than the nikon at 1/2 the price.

 

to the OP: researching is key when venturing into 3rd party-land. read as many reviews as you can (tip: photozone.de is a treasure trove of MTF charts) before purchasing and make your mind up for yourself based on factual information, not speculative hearsay.<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

here's a 30/1,4 pic<div></div>

[peterd]

Thanks all for the info. As to whoever asked, I am not really sure what lenses I am want to buy yet but what I am planning to get is the Nikkor 18-200 DX VR and I started looking at the competitors from there. I think mostly looking at the tele zoom lenses. I appreciate the input. Peter

[phototransformations]

FWIW, the Nikkor 18-200VR has the worst build quality and optical quality of the four lenses I currently own, even after I sent it back to Nikon for repair shortly after I bought it. I've seen images that are much better than mine shot with this lens, so I assume I have a mediocre copy, and I've heard of copies of it that don't have bad zoom creep, so I know they exist, but you should very carefully check your lens out before you send in the warranty card, because if there's a problem Nikon Service won't a bad copy of this lens into a good one.

[mike_s.3]

Check out photozone for some objective reviews:

 

http://www.photozone.de/

 

and here for user opinions:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

 

Avoid opinions that over generalize. Many 3rd party lenses are quite good.

[crabseye]

I would buy neither a Nikon lens, nor a Tokina, nor a Tamron, nor a Sigma without thoroughly checking all the available review sites (except KR). I think each company makes quality products and each company makes some average products.

 

In addition to the review sites Mike S mentions, I also like these:

 

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[peterd]

Interesting photozone review on the 18-200vr Nikkor. I read other reviews that just glowed but this one did not seem to impress much. That is a great site to look things up, even if some of it went over my head a bit. Its not off the table but it makes me think more.

[juan_parm_nides]

Hi Peter,

 

I use the Nikon 17-55 f2,8 DX and use the Tamron 17-50 f2,8 too in my D200. The Tamron is as sharp as the Nikon is. The quality construction is better in the Nikkor, but if you are not going to use this lens as a professional, where you request endurance, very hard work, the Tamron 18-50 f2,8 is a really nice lens to fit your D80.

 

Juan Parmenides

[eric_arnold]

i agree with juan, the superiority of nikkors is kind of a myth, depending on the lens in question and what you will be using it for. FWIW, i can get awesome pictures from my tokina 24-200 AT-X, a $300 superzoom with an all-metal body. the nikon 18-200 VR is about $400 more, not as sharp, and made entirely of plastic. VR would be nice, but i'd rather spend that $400 on another 3rd party lens with excellent IQ, like the tamron 17-50 or sigma 30 (which is what i did).<div></div>

[dcraton]

My only non-Nikon lens: Sigma 10-20mm. Love it. Far better than any wide zoom I have had from Nikon. But...alas, the rest of my shelf is all Nikon. Recently published via D200 and aformentioned Sigma: http://www.davidcraton.com/portfolio/new/pages/sky_snow.htm

 

Soon to be Canon.

[Rich B NYC]

I certainly have a lot more respect for third-party lenses than I had back in the day. Having tried several non-Nikkors about 20+ years ago, I wouldn't have taken one for free. That's changed.

 

Currently, I have two Tokina ATX-Pro lenses. The 12-24 f4 which I think is at least as good as the Nikkor version. Also a 100mm f2.8 Tokina which I think is built as well as the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 but lags a bit behind optically.

 

A lot seems to depend on the specific model and even more on the specific example, when it comes to third-party lenses. Although I have to say that there has been quite a bit of sample-to-sample variance among recent Nikkors too.

 

The Nikkor 18-70 comes to mind as an example of less than great quality control at Nikon. Mine happens to be excellent, but I've seen quite a few that were pretty bad.

[les_barstow]

I have to agree with Richard. My first SLR was a Pentax, and the Pentax branded lenses were superb in quality; being young and not rich, the next couple of lenses I got were third-party, and they were not so great in comparison.

 

I just got my Tokina 12-24mm f/4 and I think it's great so far; a bit of CA that the Nikkor doesn't exhibit quite so much, but that's correctable. It's a solid lens with great contrast and sharpness - something my old third-party lenses couldn't brag about; I'll be happy to sell the images I take with this lens, and that's what counts.

[larrybc]

In the low-end and mid-level price ranges, I think some third party lenses can meet or exceed their Nikon counterparts. But in the high-end, generally speaking, I would bet that few third-party lenses can out-perform the Nikons in terms of image quality. But the incremental cost of that superior image quality might not be a good value for many people.

 

Case in point: My 17-55/2.8 performs better than my Sigma. The Sigma is about as sharp as my Nikon, but when comparing other factors such as contrast, bokeh and chromatic aberration at wide open apertures and wide angle, it isn't as good. But is the 17-55's superiority in those areas worth almost 3x the price of the Sigma? For me, it is. But if I couldn't afford the 17-55, then I'd be perfectly happy with the Sigma...and I was back when I didn't have the money for the 17-55. I just avoided shooting at f/2.8 unless I really needed the shot. With the 17-55, I shoot at f/2.8 whenever I want.

 

As for the Tokina 12-24/4. I love the image quality of my 2nd copy. 1st one was unacceptably soft and was replaced by THK, the US Tokina distributor. 2nd one is at THK right now because the AF/MF collar is faulty. Hopefully I'll get a 100% working lens on my 3rd try.

 

larsbc