what's your brand in glass after Nikon

[jose_rivera9]

My two main lenses are Sigma. They offer great build at a somewhat reasonable price. the Sigma 18 - 50 f/2.8 and 70 - 200 f/2.8. Both are excellent and have great IQ

[ian_packman1]

nikon, then nikon, then after that i'd probably have to go for nikon.

[larrybc]

No particular preference. Everyone makes some crappy lenses so I rely on reviews and a large sampling of opinions to narrow the field down to specific models.

 

larsbc

[eric_arnold]

sigma has definitely raised the bar on their line. according to DPreview, their new 50/1.4 has the best IQ at wide apertures of any standard prime by any manufacturer (excluding Zeiss). their 150 macro, 120-300, 50-150 and 30 all exploit gaps in the nikkor lineup, though sample variation and QC continue to be a concern for some.

 

IMO this is a good thing, since it's forced other manu's to step up their game (i.e., Tamron adding micromotors to 70-200, 17-50, 28-75, and 90 macro, tokina spinning off the 12-24 into the 11-16); they may even have had an effect on nikon (more AF-S lenses).

 

going all-nikon clearly has snob appeal (as would going all-Zeiss), but its getting harder and harder to make a case for brand loyalty on that basis alone. for DX users, there's such a wide range of glass that it becomes easier to fit one's particular shooting style, which is what it's all about IMO. FX is a little tricker unless you have the cash to spend big bucks on the 14-24/24-70/70-200 combo, and i'm not sure we're gonna see a big rollout of new FF lenses by 3rd party manu's while DX is still selling like hotcakes on a consumer level. i think there will be some scattered FF-compatible glass here and there--like the sigma 50/1.4 and tamron 70-200, as well as film-era holdovers -- but D3/D700 owners clearly dont have as many attractive 3rd-party options at this time. for 3rd party lensmakers, they can spread R&D costs between different camera brands (Sony, Pentax, etc.) so closely following the DX market seems to make more sense in the immediate future than jumping feet-first into FX-optimized glass.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

Tamron SP, older Vivitar Series 1 and Kirons.

 

Russ

[Mike D]

I use Sigma glass where Nikon doesn't offer a similar lens such as the Sigma 50-150 F2.8, 120-300 F2.8, or 300-800 F5.6. I use all three of these lenses and no one else has anything close.

[tony d]

Zeiss, Though MF the images they draw are in my opinion superior to Nikon. I've all the Nikon Pro Zooms from 17-35 f/2.8 through 70-200

f/2.8 and with out a doubt this is the glass I'll use when "speed and action" are on the menu. When it comes to "deliberate and thought out

image making" i'll go for my Zeiss optics.

[bmm]

For no scientific reason - and probably a hefty dose of OCD - its all Nikon for me. The only 3rd party lens that has seriously tempted me is the Tokina 11-16/2.8 due to the lack of a fast wide Nikon option short of the 14-24 (which is a waste on a DX-format D80).

[bruce_hemingway]

In addition to Nikon glass, I use the Tokina 90mm f/2.5 AIS macro. Wonderful lens!

[dan_brown4]

Sigma 50-150/2.8 DX, very good lens, and an optical design that Nikon should produce with FX coverage.

[cmulcahy]

I think it depends on the lens. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm willing to bet every lens manufacturer out there has produced a product that stunk as well as produced a product that was great.

 

I'd go for Nikon 1st. But I have a Sigma 10-20mm that I absolutely love.

[wuyeah]

Leica. If I hv more money they might be my first choice.

I am one of those hardcore film fella. I just don't like to work with digital image unless i must for work.

[edwin_mendoza]

Sigma, because I was not going to pay $4,200 for a Nikon 28mm f/1.4. I purchased the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $430.

[jim_gardner4]

Generally try and stay with Nikon for 35mm. I tried a couple of the well known makes that were cheaper but the quaility just wasnt there. Having said that I have had some bad Nikon lenses and some razor sharp lenses of other makes such as Minolta.