eajames Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 Rodenstock, then Zeiss, then Fuji, the Schneider - but not really what the OP is looking for. If I were to put third-party glass on a Nikon body I would consider Zeiss and Voigtlander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sking Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Canon Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john schroeder Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I have Nikon, Tamron, and Tokina. J Sevigny, I also have the Tokina ATX-Pro 28-70mm f2.6 lens. I have used this lens for years and it is built like a tank. Optically it is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever seen. It does have more chromatic aberrations than I would like but these are correctable with Photoshop and Capture. It is the lens I reach for when shooting portraits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctirpak Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I love my Sigma 10-20. I think it has outstanding color and I have nothing but good experiences with it. I looked at the Nikon that is close but in the end the extra range of the Sigma, the color, and the price, just made it the lens for me in the situations it is called for. I am mixed on the Tamron 28-200 that I used to have. It took fine pictures for the money and I used it for 15 years (it was a first gen) but am much happier with my Nikon 18-200 VR. The Nikon is obviously miles ahead in terms of technology and IMHO gives great images in terms of bang for the buck. Obviously there are a lot of folks that do not like this lens but on my D300 I can take the 18-200 and fell confident that I can get a decent photo in almost any situation. I never felt that confident with the Tamron even though it did an OK job most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffal Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Sigma 10-20mm , Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 ,Tamron 17-50 mm 2.8 , Tamron 28-75mm 2.8-- --- No complaints !!! -raf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcraton Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Nice crystal rocks glass (2) with two large ice cubes and a 18 year old bottle of Macallan shared with a dear friend of mine who is a dedicated Canon and very fine shooter. Oh, let's add a couple of Drew Estate Naturals. Ahh, with jazz in the background and our wives putzing around, we would each shoot into the back of our property, which is forest. Other than that, is there really any other glass than Nikon??? Or, Canon? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_symington1 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Zeiss only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sngreen Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 It depends. Sigma (150, 105), Tamron (sp90) for macro, although I prefer Sigma. Tokina 12-24/4, 11-16/2.8) for wide angle. I never tried Vivitar. Would like to try out Zeiss though. - sergey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwphoto Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 My only non-Nikor is a 12-24 Tokina. Love it & saved nearly $500 over the Nikon. But otherwise I stick with Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lesterphoto Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Sigma 30mm f1.4 If Nikon would make a 1.4 wide angle prime lens at a decent price I'd buy in heart beat. I have used this lens for a couple assignments this week because exactly what I needed - wide and fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich B NYC Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 The only two third-party lenses that I use on my Nikons areTokina AT-X Pro. One is a 12-24 f/4 and the other is a 100mm f/2.8 macro. Very satisfied with both and the 12-24 really seemed like a no-brainer given the savings over the Nikkor with virtually the same performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I have the 12-24 Tokina that I use on my D300 and love it--especially since I paid a lot less for it than for the Nikkor 12-24. I also have a MF Tokina 80-200 f2.8 zoom that produces great images and a Kiron MF ai f4 80-200 macro zoom. One lens I originally got to use on a D100 that produces excellent results is a Promaster (Tamron) 28-105mm zoom. I like Nikkor but I'll use whatever works and what I can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray_mason Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Interesting thread. Unfortunately, my ability to create compelling images is the limiting factor for my photographic talents rather than the brand or the price of my lenses. That said, I do like my Tamron 28-70 f2.8. Can't tell the difference between that lens and similar Nikon glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennismk Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Tokina is my 2nd choice. I have the 12-24 f4 and the 28-70 2.8 pro lens. Both have been great preformers and are very sharp and very well built and half the price of Nikon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
josheudowe Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I shoot a Nikon D300 and use the Nikkor 18-200 and the 105 f/2.8. I also have the Sigma 10-20 which is fantastic. I've never owned Tamron, but I think it's important not to get persuaded by marketing. Most of us would be very hard pressed to really see the difference between manufacturers (assuming the same lens). I would almost bet the bank that if someone shot a gorgeous photo with a Sigma or Tamron and posted on here claiming it to be a Nikkor prime f/2.8 that no one would suspect anything different. There are many professionals out there traveling all over the world shooting for Nat Geo, using other than Nikon and Canon lenses. Nikon makes amazing glass, no doubt, but really one needs to determine the price/value ratio. If price isn't an issue, then why not shoot with the best lens you can? But if budget is an issue, then try to get the features you want (image stabilization, quality glass, f/2.8 or f/4, etc) and worry less about the brand name slapped on the side. I think so long as your looking at the top manufacturers, i.e. Nikon, Canon, Sigma, and Tamron, you'll be safe with the build quality. That said, there are definite differences between a Nikon 105 f/2.8 and a Sigma 150 f.28 in build quality (I own the Nikon 105, but seriously considered the 150 by sigma) - but again, it's the cost/value ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Despite what everybody says about Sigmas, I own equal number of Nikkors and Sigmas. I even use 18-50 f/2.8 and 10-20mm, as my two primary lenses. I may be lucky guy, but I picked good copies on my first attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I've shot with many brands and Nikon glass is my first choice for all formats. I've enjoyed Schneider, Zeiss, Rodenstock, Sinar, Bronica, Mamiya, Tokina, Vivitar Series 1, Tamron, Sigma, and Kodak Ektar. Every manufacturer has it's gems and it's dogs. You can't say company X is all good and company Y is all bad, it's just not the case in my experience. But overall I prefer Nikon over everything else I've used. Zeiss is overpriced in my opinion. Great photos have been taken with average lenses. David Hamilton's gorgeous photos of young girls taken in the 1970s were made with ordinary Minolta cameras and lenses. I'd rather take a great photo with an average lens than an average photo with a great lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffrey_aiello_photography Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Nothing. Nikon/Nikkor glass only for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tri-x1 Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 Dave: I totally agree with your comment on Zeiss being overpriced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry_pao Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I'm not sure this counts, but back in my film days, I was using the Hasselblad system and upon entering the digital age, I was relunctant to give up the MF format, especially because of the superb lens. I was using the Zeiss Sonar 180mm f4, Zeiss Planar 80mm f2.8 and the massive Zeiss Distagon 40mm f4. Anyway, I finally discovered quite by accident that there are adapters that will allow the Hasselblad lenses to be mounted on my D700. It's on the way, so I have yet to test the combos out, but according to research, it should work very well in terms of sheer IQ, although it works only in manual mode which is fine for me when doing studio work. Has anyone tried this combo? I know it's impractical as far as buying from scratch, but seeing that the Hassy lens were sitting in my closet, this seems to be a nice way to "bring them back to life!" Thoughts? Tuarreg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I never used MF lenses on a 35mm or DSLR camera, but I`m pretty skeptical about it. Hassy lenses are big and heavy, with slow max. apertures and no metering benefits. It makes not worth it to use on a small format camera, thought. I really doubt than e.g. a Distagon 40/4 could bring anything that a 50/1.8 AFD could not. It`s also more than two stops slower. I wonder if the Planar or Sonnar have something interesting to offer, bokeh or whatever. Anyway, I surely would buy that adapter just for the fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 <i>I totally agree with your comment on Zeiss being overpriced.</i> <p> Obviously these are specialty items, not intended for the mass market. If you don't see the difference due to technique or shooting conditions, then they are perhaps overpriced - though where I live, Zeiss lenses are similarly priced to new manual focus Nikkors, and between those two, the Zeiss are superior in sharpness though in practical shooting situations the difference is often less than in a rigorous test. Japanese glass are dumped into the U. S. market (priced lower than anywhere else), whereas Zeiss glass are priced in the USA about the same as in Europe (although many of them are made in Japan, but the company pricing policy is more favorable to European customers). I always wonder about the reasons for this but I suppose it's one of those curiosities in world politics and ages back to the second world war.<p> For me, there are distinct gaps in the current Nikkor lineup, and Zeiss lenses fill in some of these gaps. I intend to get some more, ie. the 18mm and the 100mm. I do use Nikkors, new and old but I don't like the wobbly kind where the barrel shakes around and makes rattling and squeaking sounds as you focus and you never get a feeling of confidence when operating the lens. The extra sharpness of the ZF lenses is a bonus which is sometimes useful and sometimes not. For example, I like my 85mm f/1.4 AF-D Nikkor precisely the way it is, but never liked the 50/1.4 Nikkor much. Today the Nikon user has more options than ever before, which is great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scherzer Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 I've tried most off brands and found them to be inferior both mechanically and optically. I will buy a used Nikkor over an off brand, and I have many times. I even prefer Nikon filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garydem Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 it is not the maker, it is the lens. any maker can make a dud lens, that upon using or reviews is determined that it is a bad performing lens. rpt any maker. the best way to go is that if you are interested in a lens, look for reviews done by websites that you trust and see what they say. base your decision on objective evidence not a maker's label. i have a $110 zoom lens that is equal in performance to a $1100 zoom lens by a name maker. in a photo magazine the 2 lenses were tested in different reviews, in comparing the numbers they were identical. the magazine flatout stated that they did not know why the cheap lens was being sold at that super low price. they mentioned that it should have a price at least 5 times higher. i wouod not have known that if i didn't read the reviews. i bought the lens, and still use it. it produces excellant images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jose_angel Posted September 10, 2008 Share Posted September 10, 2008 ... Why don`t tell us which lenses are these? :)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now