Nikon lenses vs third party lens makers.

[hung_troung]

As a nikon user for almost thirty years, in the early days, as much as i loved

to get everything from nikon for my hobby, i couldn't afford them all. Few

lenses i owned was from others makers, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron...

They were all fine, i was happy, but never truly content. Now that i can afford

the things i want, added to my collections last month was a nikon D300. Very,

very pleased, wonderful camera. Always wanted a wide angle DX lens for my

digital Nikons, i placed an order last week for a Nikon 12-24 f4. All the

researhings, readings, how Tokina 12-24 is $400 dollars cheaper, and the new

coming of Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a better lens than Nikon, make me thinking, am i

making a wrong decision? Is it just me or anyone out there thinking the same

way i always do about third party lenses. it's like driving a Ferrari with

Mercedes wheels?

[walterh]

I alway thought Nikon was like Toyota and Mercedes like Leica and BMW like Zeiss? Now give me the analogy to AUDI? :-) Perhaps AUDI is like a Leica with a Zeiss lens?

 

I drive a Volvo and am very happy with my 12-24mm Nikkor zoom. I might sell it though sine I moved up to the Porsche (D3)- now the DX wheels will no longer fit to the FX body.

[Two23]

In the past, it was rarely even a contest. The Nikon glass was better and performed better. In recent years, Sigma in particular has been on a noticeable quality improvement kick. Not only are they coming up with very good directly competitive lenses with Nikon, they also have some excellent unique lenses such as the 30mm f1.4 HSM, 120-300mm f4 HSM, and etc. Their new 120-400mm HSM OS lens even has me thinking of selling my 80-400mm VR whose slow AF performance has sometimes vexed me. I too am interested in the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 also. Really, it comes down to thinking very carefully about how you will use your lenses and what you intend to photo. Doing that, your photos end up picking the lens you need. I sometimes wonder if companies like Sigma have hired away researchers from Nikon et al. It would surprise me if they have not.

 

 

Kent in SD

[eric_arnold]

hung,

3rd party lenses have come a long way since the early days. one cannot automatically assume a nikkor will be sharper or even have better build quality. and one cannot generalize across product lines; the idea is to match your needs as a photographer with the best lens for the job. of course 'best' is a subjective term. for some people, best means matching components. for others its price. a great deal of us fall somewhere in the middle -- we want the best quality at an affordable price. there's also the fact that some 3rd party lenses fill in gaps in the nikkor lineup, i.e. sigma's 30/1.4, 50-150/2.8, and 120-300/2.8.

 

however, you can't have it both ways. if you want an all-nikkor lineup, you might miss some otherwise excellent 3rd party offerings

 

still, i wouldn't say the 12-24 is a 'wrong' decision, since by all accounts it's an outstanding lens.

 

i suggest you enjoy your purchase and don't look back.

[oxide blu]

HG - it's a good question and I am probably not the best person to be answering it because in general I am not impressed with the quality of modern Nikkor lens, in particular the build quality. That said ...

 

Overall, I think the quality of Nikon optics ranks higher than most stuff from 3rd parties like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina ... But there a handful of lens that I think top the Nikon quality; the (Cosina) Zeiss offerings and the (Cosina) Voigtlander lens with Nikon mounts.

 

And fwiw, I am also not sold on Nikon's strobes as necessarily the best choice, either, tho in that area I think it depends more on what you need the strobe for. I guess that says I think the Nikon strobes have a limited range of value.

[johncrosley]

Hung Truong

 

I have two Nikon (Nikkor) 12~24 lenses and both have been outstanding performers, and at f 4.0 the slower aperture is not much of a problem, since subject movement is minimized across the field of view by the very wide angle, allowing for use of a slow shutter speed and still minimizing subject movement artifacts. I would recommend the 12~24 f 4.0 lens.

 

About other manufactueres' lenses; it is noted above that (1) they fill in gaps in the Nikon lineup and that is true, and may be a very good reason for you to buy one. Image quality is quite good for many of the secondary manufacture lenses, and if image quality were the only concern, I'd say that you should be relatively happy with any well-reviewed lens out there, be it Nikon, or Sigma, Tamron, etc.

 

But there's more to the equation: Go to any camera swap meet, look at E-Bay prices, peruse (or advertise on) Craig's List. When a secondary manufacturer lens hits the secondary market (e.g.: used) market, there is a significant loss of interest in those lenses. They may boil down two several reasons besides the obvious one of not having the Nikon imprimatur.

 

One of those has been prior build quality. For years Nikon made lenses that were extremely solidly built; their old AIS and AI lenses which I have have never seen a failure due to manufacturing or build quality problems, in fact, I can't think of even one lens that has ever failed me in 35 years.

 

Of course with auto-focus lenses, there are more moving parts and with VR lenses, even more, so the integrity of the manufacturer becomes even more important, as by their very nature such lenses are bound to fail more often, particularly if they receive heavy use or exposure to the elements. That occurs for me a lot in 'street' shooting, especially when carrying two cameras at all times, which tend to cause the lenses to knock into one another, or get caught in doorways, closing doors of trains, elevators, etc. and so on.

 

While Nikon service has had many complaints, recently I have noticed a great improvement, and they always handle my issues and problems with courtesy and generally great promptness, for which I am indebted.

 

Here is a story: I once set two lenses, a Nikon reflex lens and a Sigma zoom on my automobile in Yellowstone, got distracted, then got into my car and started to drive away. I heard something, stopped and got out -- both lenses had fallen off the car (and not been run over).

 

The Nikon reflex lens I put on my camera and aside from a slight rub and almost a scratch in it, it continued to work at 100% and still is in my camera bag. On the other hand, the Sigma zoom was destroyed by the impact; with not only some external damage but also with internal damage, such as the Iris having been severely damaged.

 

A friend bought all-Sigma several years ago then went on a horseback trip into the mountains. He reported that all his Sigma lens basically were 'ruined' by the constant bounding, etc. and impact from being in saddle bags and literally because the cost of repair was too high, had to be thrown away. He now buys all Nikon lenses.

 

Maybe the build quality of secondary lenses has improved, and if so, one might want to mount them, but if one buys something that one may not need for a lifetime, one also has to look at resale price.

 

There is a decided lack of interest in Sigma, Tamron, etc., lenses at the resale level, and the above stories may have something to do with it. If you ever plan to resell a secondary manufacturer lens, you should look carefully now at the resale market for such lenses. Nikon lenses of high quality (not the cheaper 'consumer' lenses or 'kit' lenses) tend to hold their value very well, and sometimes can be sold a year or so later for as much or more than their cost, something that amazes me.

 

There also is a ready market for Nikon lenses -- the name does mean something to resale buyers. There is a huge market for used Nikon lenses, and those of secondary manufacturers tend to take quite a beating, I think or simply be ignored by those who are knowledgeable users who have not researched a particular lens from a secondary manufacturer.

 

I wouldn't hesitate to put all Sigma lenses on my camera and know I could get just the same images and about the same image quality for the most part on my camera(s), but past reputation and experience about built quality and more difficult resale do not, for me, make up for the long-time good name Nikon has made for built quality.

 

The same goes for any better reviewed lens from any manufacturer, including Tamron, etc.

 

You no longer can pound nails with Nikon cameras and their lenses no longer are so impervious to shock hazards, etc., as they once were, but it takes quite a bit to harm a Nikon lens. Failures are infrequent in the many lenses I use. I've had less good luck with those of secondary manufacturers.

 

That being said, I took my best photo (balloon man) with the lens of a secondary manufacturer which then cost less than $50, and my most-viewed photograph ever (Anti-War Then, Fixed Bayonet), was taken with a Soligor 28 mm f 4 prime lens that I bought in Hong Kong new for $28, and the same lens also took a photo of Richard Nixon that has been well-received and both those photos are pin-sharp.

 

If you buy a lens solely for yourself, you can make a determination of build-quality and read reviews about optical quality, and I am certain for some lenses you can do better than Nikon with certain focal lengths and maximum apertures. But it's a trade-off with reputation, repair, warranty (Nikon in the US has a one-year warranty with a five-year 'service contract' that is a warranty in disguise, and if you're a California resident, you don't even have to register the warranty. Warranties are of great concern if you're buying auto-focus lenses with vibration reduction and even militate against ever buying 'so-called' grey market lenses.

 

Some Nikon lenses are simply unequalled anywhere by anybody, such as my 200~400 f 4, which is an amazing lens (if very, very heavy).

 

Others have significantly less reliable build such as the 18~200 f 3.5~5.6, which all have a 'bind' in their zooming at a certain millimeter range as well as issues of pincushion and barrel distortion, which should arise when covering such a great range of focal lengths.

 

It's all a reason for making intelligent decisions rather than just becoming a blind adherent to one school of thought (I'll only buy all-Nikon) vs. another (I'll buy whatever lens makes the best photos, regardless.

 

My solution currently is to maintain an all-Nikon lineup because I use certain lenses very heavily and I need service from time to time, and I sometimes live outside the US (a Nikon US warranty is good throughout the world, but a Nikon warranty from outside the US is not good inside the US).

 

I wouldn't hesitate to use lenses (or cameras) from other manufacturers and be sure I could get superb quality photos, if the issues of resale, service and lens build quality were not something I would always have to be researching.

 

Since I don't want to occupy myself overmuch with reading lens reviews, so I tend to go with what works, and for me that is choosing the sharpest Nikon lenses serves me well.

 

But if Tamron or Sigma came to me and said 'here are free lenses, use them daily, and report back to us on how well they withstand hard, constant use on the street, and if you like them, endorse them,' I'd have no issues with mounting them on my camera(s) or endorsing them if they did work well.

 

With the new Nikon cameras (D300 and D3) which yield high quality images at very high ISO, I tend to shoot everything with high ISO when it's 'street', so the issue of an f 4 (Nikon) lens vs. the availability of a f 2.8 lens from a secondary manufacturer would be not much incentive to change from a supersharp lens (Nikon 12~24 mm f 4).

 

I hope this helps.

 

John (Crosley)

 

[bill_keane2]

Computerised design, computerised robotic assembly, computerised QC.

 

Phenomenal, and cheaper, results.

[bill_pearce1]

It is entirely possible that the lower level lenses from major camera makers are designed and manufactured by third party lens makers.

 

Bill Pearce

[Two23]

Bill--

 

I believe that's the case for the non-VR NIkon 70-300mm.

 

John C.--

True that 3rd party lenses don't hold resale as well, but that makes them a helluva buy when used. Look at the Sigma 500mm f4 for example.

 

 

Kent in SD

[bob_sunley]

Like the Nikon E series from many years ago.

[kohanmike]

I have the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX-Pro and find it to be a great lens. Build quality, image

quality is as good as the Nikon.

[ssisteve]

I also have the Tokina 12-24mm abd it is an excellen lens that is built like a tank and I don't see where the Nikon is $400 better. Your choice isn't wrong but if it was me I would save the money to put towards another lens. Reviews show that both of these lenses are pretty close in IQ and build.

[paul stewart]

there are some excellent third party lenses out there - like the Tamron SO AF 17-50mm f2.8 which is the match of the Nikon equivalent, or the Tamron 90mm f.28 Macro which again is an excellent lens.

 

You need to look at what it the best both in IQ and value.

[michael_darnton1]

I remember comparing my 28/2.8 Soligor to a 28/3.5 Nikkor a friend was trying to sell me, in 1967. Simply put, the Soligor blew away the Nikkor. I think sweet spots are wherever you find them--when I had Leicas, many of my lenses were Canon, in specific spots where Leica didn't do too well (the Canon 85/1.8 vs the contemporary 90 Summicron is a good example). I think someone must be making a better 28 (in a similar price range or less) than my Nikon 2.8D, for instance, which is really nothing special.

[george_borden]

I recently faced the same issue with the 12-24. I chose to buy the Tokina. I found the test results at Photozone helpful in evaluating the differences between the lenses. Overall, I am happy. The Tokina has great build quality and good image quality. The one issue it has is chromatic aberations -- under extreme conditions such as shooting tree branches against a white sky at 12mm and f/4, the CAs are substantial. This can be fixed, but it does take effort. Even with that, I just didn't see enough difference to justify $400 more. Also, now that Nikon has entered the full frame world, it seems wise to me not to spend too much on the DX format until we see how this plays out.

[curt wiler]

In the "modern world" it isn't just lens quality, but also a matter of software support. I chose the Nikon 12-24 over the Tokina because of the CA issue (I tried multiple samples of both). The Nikon exhibits a very minor amount of CA also; but one major difference is there is software support available for the Nikkor from DxO and maybe others to automatically compensate for CA and distortion. This tends to be more true for Canon and Nikon lenses on their own bodies than for 3rd party lenses.

[photo5]

Kent,

 

There is no data to support the rumor that the Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 AF-D ED zoom was designed and built by another company for Nikon. It is a Nikon zoom regardless of it resembling another zoom from another manufacturer.

[tri-x1]

The Nikon 12-24 f4--more than a thousand dollars. My Tokina 12-24 f4, $350 used but mint. Build every bit as good as Nikon and sharpness very close, I don't shoot for a living. I can't justify a $1,000 lens--not sure I could even if I sold photos. The photographer's eye is usually more important than either the camera or the lens, anyway.

[eric_arnold]

btw, tamron lenses have a 6-year warranty, and sigma has been receiving a lot of kudos for its repair tech's commitment to customer service. tokina's such a small company, they probably build their lenses so heftily no one will ever be tempted to send them back.

 

and i can appreciate john's testimonial, but things are different now in the dx age. brand loyalty doesn't mean what it used to, look at all the front-focusing issues with the 24-70, or the VR issues with the 70-200. you'd think that wouldnt happen on a $1500+ piece of glass.

 

still, for the OP, if you've already made your choice, then why second-guess yourself? you wanted a nikon lens and that's what you're getting. as john pointed out, you can sell it for close to what you paid, although $350 for a used tokina (mint ones go for $400-$450) is comparable to approx. $850 for a used nikkor 12-24 in terms of depreciation, so you're not really coming out ahead there.

 

only way to be sure is to order the tokina too and test IQ side by side, but that might be a little anal. i say go out and shoot and be happy you even have a lens.