3rd party lenses

[roman_thorn]

Hi! Firstly, Thanks to all the folks on these forums who have guided me in the

past, without their knowledge I would still be at a loss. However once again, I am

seeking guidance. I'm looking into two 3rd party alternatives to the famous 17 -

55DX and the 70 - 200VR. Don't get me wrong, I think they are great lenses but

feel I could get CLOSE to equal performance for a great deal less. I'm interested in

covering special events, IE: weddings and other occasions. Currently I use primes:

28 2.8 AIs, 50, 1.8 AI and the 85 1.8 AF D. Although I have a great appreciation for

these primes, I require the versatility of a zoom. I have spent much time

researching off brands for my D300 and have narrowed down my choices: Sigma

20 - 40 and the Sigma 50 - 150. It is my belief that these focal lenghts will

compliment my style and each other. I know, a little short on the wide and a little

short on the

long, not to mention ...no VR. However, I feel 20 is more then adequate and 150

more than enough. I must say that I also appreciate the weight reduction of the

lenses to the more prestiges alternatives. That said, I think the weight of the 50 -

150 will allow for better low light hand holdability, allowing 1 - 2 stop shutter

reduction. I would like to also mention that I am aware about the mixed reviews

these lenses have received, some peaple give nothing but praise while others scoff

at them. Conclusion: I believe it just comes down to Sigma's poor quality

control.One way around this is to sample the product before you buy, and believe

me, I fully intend to. I appologise for the long winded build up to my question but I

just wanted to make my reasoning clear. So, has anyone used these lenses for

special events? What are your feelings towards 3rd pary alternatives and how

minute or infinite are the differences between my designated choics and the real

thing. In truth, I'm not one to place images under the microscope, however I do

have a keen eye and still look for the obvious things like: contrast, color, image

brightness...exc. Any contributions would really be appreciated...........thanks in

advance.

[ronald_moravec1]

Handle them both and you will find how much better Nikon feel in my limited experience. For profesional use, you need lenses that will hold up to many exposures without breaking on the job. For a tourist/family camera, the situation is different.

 

Any engineer can figure how to make a cheaper lens. The trick is to make one as good that is cheaper. What they cheapen is usually the inside you can`t see with lots of plastic parts that will easily break on impact or wear fast or are not built to the same optical specifications.

Further some will not work on future cameras so you have to sell and replace.

[kohanmike]

A posting just previous to this addresses this question as well. I have a Tokina 12-

24 and it sure looks to me like a tough and well built lens that should take a lot of

use. After using the Tokina, I have no qualms about third party lenses.

 

I've also been looking at the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 and 50-135 f/2.8, as well as the

Sigma 18-50 and 50-150 f/2.8 HSMs. I'm leaning toward Sigma for the HSM focus

system, but lean back a little for the build quality of the Tokina and 16mm, but I

think any of these choices would be good, considering the price, which can be less

than half of Nikon, and probably a good 90-95% of the quality.

[lex_jenkins]

Roman, be careful of relying on opinions on the web before reaching any conclusions. In some cases reports of "poor quality control" and similar issues are due to a few people making a lot of noise, not due to a statistically significant sampling group.

 

If you follow the trail carefully you'll find that throughout the history of the web there are, in every area of interest, a handful of people who will prominently post complaints or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, will lavish unfettered praise on as many discussion forums as possible. After doing this enough times and provoking enough heated debates those threads tend to rank high on search engines. From there it becomes a self-fueling cycle of prominence, which does not equal accuracy, objectivity or relevance.

 

Stick with, in order of relevance:

 

1. Reviews from reasonably unbiased, disinterested sources which have tested the lenses using standard methodology, preferably on more than one sample of the lens.

 

2. Opinions from experienced photographers who have used more than one system, owned the lens for more than a day or week, long enough for the honeymoon feeling to be over, and have used comparable lenses.

 

3. Opinions from people who have actually used the lenses you're considering. You might be surprised at the number of folks with strong opinions about stuff they've never tried. Or mebbe you wouldn't be...

 

Beware the fanboys interested only in promoting their own pet line of equipment. You can immediately and safely dismiss the opinion of anyone who uses part of a manufacturer's name in their online ID, including "Rabid Nikon Fan," "Canon Rulz!" or "Leica Uber Alles!" Also beware of opinions from people with online monikers such as "Zooms Suck!"

 

Photographers who list all of their equipment in their signature lines should be regarded with some skepticism, especially if they proclaim they own only "flagship" equipment in their sig lines. But treat them kindly because they are the folks who keep our favorite camera companies in business.

 

BTW, photozone.de is one of a handful of reliable sources.

[sngreen]

Tamron 17-50/2.8 for 17-55DX and Sigma 150 for 70-200. Prime 150 is not flexible but if you are comfortable with primes this lens can be very rewarding for when shooting portraits. Here are few street snaps,

 

http://www.pbase.com/sngreen/image/93762651

 

http://www.pbase.com/sngreen/image/94026209

 

http://www.pbase.com/sngreen/image/93762633

 

http://www.pbase.com/sngreen/image/93796579

 

http://www.pbase.com/sngreen/image/93796063

 

..and so on.

 

- Sergey

[samoksner]

I suggest the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead of the 17-55DX and the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 as opposed to the Nikon 70-200. Both of these lens' are quite well regarded and should do you well, don't be suprised if you find leaving your primes at home once you start using fast glass :)

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

Sam,

 

I've seen a lot of post of people who've bought the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 only to fast go to the Nikon 70-200VR and comment on the quality difference.

 

I only mention this as I've seen too many make this change both on DPR & on NikonCafe.

 

This written, I've owned the 200-500mm Tamron & now own the Sigma 300-800mm so I do buy some 3rd Party lenses.

 

I also have the 17-55DX & the 70-200VR - - the 70-200VR will not leave my hands until something better comes along - that lens will only be replaced with a newer version Nikon one of these days.

 

My copy of the 17-55 is amazing. It will not leave my hands until I've bought a new wider wide angle lens. This only because I needed to fill the gap in between the 55-70mm space. I may well still keep the 17-55DX as I will have use for it more & more as I work on my landscape photography in gardens around L.A.

 

There are some 3rd party lenses which are fantastic - - thing to remember is that different lenses give different colors to adjust in post. I do see differences in how the different manufacturers lenses have different color "preferences" - - something to think about......

 

JMHO

 

Lil :-)

[fullmetalphotograper]

If you look at the two images below can you tell which is the third party lens? Two of

my main lenses are the tokina 300mm f/2.8 and the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8. I have

been shooting this glass since the days of my Nikon F5. I now use them on my D3.

There are a couple of things I like about my tokina lenses they are well made sharp

lenses with good finishes. One of things about tokina is that they were founded by

former Nikon engineers.

 

I like tokina lenses, I also like my Nikkor lenses. The Tokinas that I shoot rely on

camera to drive the AF so their AF is not as fast as my Nikkor Lenses.

 

If you look at sigma I would look at their HSM and DG lenses. Those should work

best the D300<div></div>

[eric_arnold]

hi roman,

the sigma 50-150 is a great lens. no qualms about the build quality, it's pretty solid for being so lightweight. IQ is fantastic too, and you're right about the handholdability. this lens can go places the 70-200 can't.

 

havent seen too much about the sigma 20-40, although i briefly considered it before scooping up the tamron 17-50.

[sngreen]

<P><I>I like tokina lenses, I also like my Nikkor lenses. </I><BR><BR>Ralph,

Do you find Tokinas do usually produce somewhat cooler than

Nikon results?

<BR><BR>- Sergey

[bruce_margolis]

"the weight of the 50 - 150 will allow for better low light hand holdability, allowing 1 - 2 stop shutter reduction."

 

Roman, I understand where you are trying to get to but I don't agree with your premise. Yes, the Sigma is about 18 oz lighter and that certainly helps. Maybe it's worth a stop to you. However, you give up VR which is worth maybe 2-3 stops. Bottom line, you come up on the short side.

 

I can understand someone looking at the Sigma as an alternative if size, weight, and price are considerations. And I am not one of those who believes just because the lens has some plastic that it will fall apart in a year.

 

Nevertheless, you want lenses you can count on since you say this will be for weddings. Presumably the lens will get a lot of use and you will be charging for your services. The 70-200VR is more expensive but you get with it longer reach, far better build, much better optics, and VR.

 

For casual and personal use, the Sigma could be a nice alternative. For paid events, the Nikon has no competition.

[dan_brown4]

The Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM and Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM are working well for me. Yes, I

can find weaknesses if I look carefuly at the extremes, but they have not reared their

heads in regular shooting so far. For the sake of full disclosure, I reach for the new

Nikkor 16-85 VR more often than tht e18-50 sigma these days. The VR works well and

the lens produces very good images.

[Two23]

If he is earing $$ with the lenses, he could start with the good but inexpensive lenses such as Tamron 17-50mmn f2.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and then upgrade as profits allow. I own the Sigma 10-20mm and have been happy with its quality. Image quality is very good although it is relatively slow. I am looking to buy the new Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which I think offers both quality and speed.

 

 

Kent in SD

[fullmetalphotograper]

Hello Sergey,

 

I have not seen a temperature change between my Nikon and Tokina. I tend to shoot

digital like I did slide film so tone and color is well saturated.

[fran__ois_p._weill]

Just a witness and perhaps a kind of methodology...

 

Long years ago, whe I was a full time PJ and worked with Nikon SLR's (film cameras) i seldom used third party lens. But on one occasion, I decided to buy and use one....

 

It was the time when what was fashionable and spectacular was fisheye photography.

 

I took a long deep breath, went to Nikon price list, took a deeper breath and look at my bank balance and ... decided for such a "special effect lens" Nikon price was too much for me.

 

I then looked to Sigma catalogue, and I found a 16mm f/2.8 fisheye with a 180ﾰ coverage on all the 35mm film image diagonally. The price was perhaps 5 times (or more) less the one of the corresponding Nikon lens. So, I finally bought it...

 

As far as I'm concerend it performed well enough and I din't regret my choice. It looked a bit frail in construction with its forntal element separating from the barrel to allow the use of small filters (included with the lens)... It stood for a long time in my bag and was used very often for such a special lens.

 

More or less during the same period, a colleague, who was employed by the French internal airline (now defunct) Air Inter and whose equipment was bought by his employer ordered a Nikon fisheye of the same general characteristics... The aim was to get the pilot's cabin view of the planes of their fleet and part of these views were destined to be shown on murals of respectable dimensions at Paris-Orly airport.

 

He duly received the Nikon fisheye and used it... He was deeply deceived by the results.

 

We happened to make our films developped by the same individual who was a friend of both of us. He showed the results I obtained from my lowly Sigma to him. And what do you think happened ? This colleague ask me to borrow my Sigma lens to perform his work.

 

From this time on, I never ever told anybody a third party lens is ever inferior to a genuine one, unless I have verified it myself or the specs are so inferior than it is comparing apples to oranges.

 

However, I still prefer to rely on genuine lens each time I can afford them for primary focal lengths where good to excellent pics should be obtained even if large apertures are to be used. But with lenses of less frequent use, I ever examine if a cheaper, third party alternative won't be good enough for the job.

 

With the present widespread use of robotics and the fact all lenses are now calculated by computers, you also have to remember differences between third party lenses and genuine ones - as far as IQ is concerned - are more than often imperceptibles in common practice and limited to the use at full or near full aperture. The worst kind of defect being a lack of high enough quality control and you just can return any such defective lens under guarantee.

 

I'm not sure that better material is nowaays ever used to build genuine lense by the way.

 

The best way may be to test each lens you buy under actual conditions of use...

 

FPW

[fullmetalphotograper]

I will also add being a little old fashion, I will always take fast glass over VR. VR is

nice but I can do more with fast glass. If it is a choice between a f/2.8 lens with no VR

and a f/4 with VR. I will always go for the f/2.8.

[glockman99]

I will take Tokina lenses over Sigma lenses. The only 2 lenses I've ever had fail

were both Sigma (Canon AF mt) lenses. With one, the AF quit working, and with

the other, the aperture close/open quit working. I won't trust that brand again.

[dennis_oconnor4]

My bias is:

1. Fast glass

2. Nikkor glass

Because, while Tokina, etc., make some good glass, they have also made some dogs... And since I don't know in their lens line what is a dog and what is good, I basically cannot go wrong with with Nikkor ED AF-S, etc. Or for that matter with Canon L glass if that was the system in discussion...

 

So in this case I recommend the F2.8 non DX (full size) zoom glass from Nikkor...

 

Now to Ralph B. Nice work, BTW... But you know, just as I know, that lighting, subject, and pose are 99%,,, The lens is 1% and on an internet small JPEG no one, including gawd himself, can tell if you used a high end lens on those two scrumptious ladies, or something you found in a dumpster...

 

denny

[fullmetalphotograper]

BTW thanks Dennis,

 

I agree with you, I am from the Old school lighting is everything.

I have shot Canons and Nikons and I will say both companies have made Fantastic glass and some have made some really bad pieces

of glass, too.

 

Here are the things you need to be concerned with third party lenses.

 

(1) Repair and warranty service. Tamaron is good, Tokina is okay and Sigma has been all over the map on this.

 

(2) Camera Compatibility. For Example: Ultrasonic motors, Third party lenses without these motors painfully slow AF on the Canon

Cameras and on the new Nikon Amateur. Sigma is famous for having lenses that need a new chip set installed when Canon would

release a new camera.

 

(3) Build quality, If you buy the low end lenses the quality will be crap shoot. High end the Quality of optics and build hold together.

 

Denny you made a good point about the jpeg. So if you go to http://gallery.mac.com/ralphberrettphoto#100327, you can see some of the

images and download High res Glamour images with the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 and a press conference shot I did with the Tokina

300mm f/2.8. BTW the the press conference was shot at ISO 5000.

[fullmetalphotograper]

I forgot to give the pasword for http://gallery.mac.com/ralphberrettphoto#100327

 

user name : demo

 

Password: demo

[HuskyMason1]

Bruce mentioned the smaller size and weight of the Sigma 50-150 as a plus in hand held shooting situations requiring quick adjustments and I agree... I also use the Nikon 80-200 which is a better quality lens but not as convenient for weddings, social events and such

[eric_arnold]

one of the issues with this ongoing debate is that folks who spent inordinate amounts of cash on nikkor lenses

have a vested interest in downplaying 3rd party lenses they have never used.

 

it's a bit of a conceit to say only the 70-200 VR will do for event photography. sure, that's a big, heavy,

expensive lens, but just about everyone says its soft at 2.8, so it's not perfect. and that's certainly not a

walkaround lens, nor one you'd want to use if you have to wade through a crowd or plan on doing candids.

 

if you only use the 70-200 for paid events, that's fine, since you will only be carrying it for an hour or two at a

time. if, on the other hand, you want something more versatile and easier to carry--as the OP clearly does--the

50-150 fits the bill. it's not blasphemy, it's reality.

 

before the 70-200, wedding photogs used the nikkor 80-200. guess what? no VR. they did fine.

 

i've said this before, but the biggest issue with the 50-150 is probably that its not nikon-branded. if you had the

exact same lens in a nikkor version, all the skeptics would suddenly be converts. but, unfortunately, nikon

doesnt make a lens in-between consumer-grade teles like the 70-300 VR and big heavy pro zooms like the 70-

200 VR, just like they dont make a 1.4 normal prime for DX. you cant blame sigma for exploiting this gap; the

good thing is that they are churning out some good products.

 

besides having great IQ and a decent build, the 50-150 is about the only 2.8 telezoom that covers that focal

length and is lightweight. tokina makes a 50-135, but its heavier, doesnt have an internal motor, and has a

nonremoveable tripod collar, making it much more bulky as well as less speedy in terms of AF.

 

IQ is less and less of an issue with 3rd party manu's these days anyway, and there are plenty of folks who get

great images with their tamron 17-50s or tokina 12-24s. bottom line is that there are different strokes for different

folks. what's wrong with that? it's about the photographer, not the lens, anyway.

[benlundberg]

well i think you have more than enough responses already but i'll chime in a little..

 

 

i'm in the same boat as you.. i'm looking for 3rd party alternatives to the $1300+ main brand lenses... also i am a VERY picky buyer and i do a lot of researching first... check out www.slrgear.com if they have reviewed the particular lens you are looking for(they have a review of the 50-150) they break it down very well by, chromatic abbreation, distortion, build quality, vignette, and have sample photos... they also have sample photos one still life and one pic of some chart that helps show distortion etc. they also have user reviews of the lens posted there... DON"T stop there though, read up on other places... i have read reveiws of lens on bestbuy.com, circuitcity.com, bandhphoto.com, adorama.com, etc. all user reviews... i have also posted on flickr.com in the various groups i'm part of and i also just google "##mm-###mm f/## lens review" all said i have probably read more than 200+ reviews of a lens that way :)

 

anyways i have heard really good reviews of some models of the 3rd party lens... for example in your 17-55 range tamron makes one that retails for around $450 and i have gotten to try this one out in store at best buy... i do own a nikon so i dont' know what how the other makes versions hold up, but i have read on more than ten sites that this is a good lens and very comparable to the nikon version ...

 

 

 

hope this helps.

 

-ben

[dcraton]

Another vote for the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 over the Sigma 50-150mm. Use them both and the 80-200mm, at least my copies of the Sigma have been a bit soft and lackluster. And, I have no use for VR. Our company does a lot of event photography as well as sports and 90% of the time, it's a 80-200mm on one cam and a 17-55 on the other.

 

It has been said many times here, most don't miss the 55-80 (or 70) range.

 

I do have an older Sigma 24-60mm/2.8 I keep in my bag for back up. Pretty close to the 17-55mm. I found one at Cameta for 199.00. Killer lens. Here is a review if you are interested: http://www.dphotojournal.com/sigma-24-60mm-f28-ex-dg-if-asp-lens-review/. Maybe I got lucky and got a good copy.

 

I wouldn't be afraid of third party lenses. Reviews are OK, but trying one out for a day or in store would be much better shooting the same object side by side. I am fortunate that the local pro shop I frequent here sells Nikon, Tamron, and Sigma as well as Canon. I bring a card, try the lenses I am looking at side by side in a variety of shots and pixel peep at home.

 

Just advice from the old school infected by tech.

 

Good luck.

[yuri_sopko]

Roman,

 

1) A good lens site to look at is Photodo.com

 

2) I have a Sigma 150/2.8 macro lens and the Tokina 11-16. Neither feel poorly constructed and both perform very well.

 

3) My uncle does wedding/event photography and he uses the Nikon 18-200VR a whole lot. The versatility of the lens allows him to get shots that he would not get because he has the wrong focal length or is using up time changing lenses.

 

Yuri