What are the best third-party pro lenses?

[joshloeser]

<p>Most people who know a decent amount about Nikon know what their pro-level glass is and also how expensive it tends to be. It seems like Sigma may be catching on a bit with at least one lens (the 50mm 1.4), if not more. I know Tokina has a decent reputation. Tamron doesn't seem too bad. None are Nikkors overall, but I know there are some gems lying around for a good price amongst them. <br>

What are the best standard zooms and primes being put out (or that were put out, if they're no longer actively being produced) by a third party company, and what's the best way to go about securing a good copy? QC seems to be another hurdle to cross, and that seems almost as difficult to deal with.</p>

[john schroeder]

<p>In my opinion Tamron makes one of the best third party pro lenses currently on the market. The Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8 is a very nice lens. But I don't think any single company dominates over the others. Tokina makes one of the best third party ultra wides currently and the Sigma 50-500mm telephoto lens is highly regarded.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Sigma makes several lenses that some photographers really like including the 30mm F1.4, 50mm F1.4, 100-300 F4, and 120-300 F2.8. Do a search on the Sigma 50mm F1.4 to see the comparisons between that and the Nikon and Cannon 50mm F1.4s. Please note that the Sigma is also the most expensive.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Here is 3 more which Nikon didn't match.<br>

Tokina made a 60-120mm f2.8 covering full frame and is also small and light weight. It is good for portrait but has been discontined. It can be found in AI/manual focus mount. Tamron also made a 75-150 F2.8 with soft focus feature in their adaptall mount for Nikon. Sigma has a very good 150mm "f2.8" macro and is still in production.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>The new Carl Zeiss ZF lenses are the best third-party lenses for the Nikon mount that I have used. The 100 mm f2 Makro-Planar is extremely sharp optically. The build quality is excellent; I haven't seen anything by another manufacturer that really even comes close.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Yes, the ZF lenses are definitely up there; many of them (i.e. 35/2, 100/2) are better than Nikkors (both optically and mechanically). Of course, they're also more expensive than Nikkors in several cases ;-)</p>

[veeee]

<p>I once believed the 3rd paryt lenses at pro level were good until I had problems with one, the The Tamron SP 17-50mm f2.8--I sold it taking a $100 hit, and got a used Nikkor 17-55 2.8, the Tamron does not come close in the speed of focusing, maybe image wise, I've read reviews that say the image is very close to the quality of the same Nikkor, but thats if you get the image...<br>

If your shooting PRO as the lenses state, then I would stick to the Nikkor. I had the Tamron Lock on me a few times when shooting a model shoot, and focusing was not as fast as the Nikkor. Just recently I was shooting a B-day party with my Nikkor and they turned off the lights for the dance party and it was almost pitch black except for the DJ's strobes moving around, and obviously it's hard for the any lenses to focus with really low light, and this light was so low that all you see is shadows of people not their faces, but still the Nikkor with a little hunting would lock on when the DJ's strobe came across, with-in those milliseconds..!! I was shocked how fast it locked on.<br>

If you shoot for money, I think it would not be acceptable to use any other lens. I see people walking around with D300's and 3rd party lenses, I would rather have a D60-80 and a good Nikkor lens, and latter set-up would smoke the D300 with the 3rd party lens any day.<br>

Your camera is only as good as the lens you put on it.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>Even a D300 with a Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM? I highly doubt that.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I shoot for a living and I use the best lenses I can get. With that said have three 3 rd party lenses.<br>

A Tamron 14 mm f/2.8 It tested better then the Nikon 14 mm<br>

A Sigma 120 to 300 f/2.8 Nikon does not make anything even close to it. I use this lens a lot at the equestrian events I shoot.<br>

I also have a 20 year old Sigma 75 to 300 f/4.5 to f/5.6. This is a old MF lens that would still make me shots to sell if I used it.<br>

DO 3rd party lenses have problems? Sometimes they do But then so do Nikon lenses</p>

[les_barstow]

<p>I have few complaints about my Tokina 12-24mm DX lens. It has an excellent reputation and doesn't seem to have many bad copies. The problem with the third party lenses now is (a) QC on some lenses, and (b) lower percentage of true winner lens designs than Nikkor. Go by professional reviews on a lens-by-lens basis and I think there are some good bargains to be found...</p>

[greg_lisi]

<p>I believe Nikon pro lens' are great, I have 3....however, with many hours of research, IMO Tamron makes one heck of a lens...I have the D300 with a tamron 17-50 2.8 and my neighbor next door has the same camera with the Nikon 17-55 2.8. Both of us are better than average amatures so I'll qualify us as that. When we matched both D300's and lens' at an exact senario the results were a bit disturbing...the Nikon lens should have blown the Tamron out of the water for the $1K+ price...guess what...not a chance. The difference in IQ was miniscule at best...and I had to stare down my PC's Viewsonic monitor (JPEG's) to see that much of a difference in either lens. I recently attended an airshow in which 2 people with D700's shared the same experience. One had the Nikon 70-200 2.8 and the other had the similar Tamron 70-200. They both downloaded in a high end notebook. IQ was again astoundingly close. As a part-time musician I played at a company CEO's wedding in which the Photog (who looked like his gear was a money-no-object-outfit) was shooting 2 D3's AND they both were fitted with Tamron and Sigma lens'. Does it take a brain surgeon to understand Nikon does not necessarily corner the "if-you-shoot-for-money, Nikon-should-be-your-only-choice" market.</p>

[timreaves]

<p>I also have to "go to bat" for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.............excellent lens.<br>

Also the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8........simply remarkable.<br>

I use them quite frequently on both my D300 and Fuji S3 Pro!</p>

[jerry_cahak]

<p>I have an old workhorse D200 and my widest is the Nikon 20-35 2.8. I need something wider but the 10.5 is too bubbly. I shot all Tamron back in the days of Olympus OM's but have become a Nikon snob. Nikon 12-24? Tokina 11-16? For the price it's tempting to go Tokina. You think the Tokina holds up? </p>

[timreaves]

<p>Jerry, the Tokina 11-16mm is rated very high and so far I believe, rightfully so. It's built very solid and is tack sharp. I was on the waiting list at Adorama for four months. I almost gave up hope and was poised to buy the Tokina 12-24mm but I stuck it out. Glad I did.</p>

[joshloeser]

<p>I don't think I've ever read anything particularly great about the Nikon 12-24. It's just sort of there, based on what I've seen. I've seen a number of very positive comments about the Tokina 11-16mm, however. </p>

<p>I keep reading good things about the Tamron 17-50, but I always come back to the trouble of getting a good sample. Between questionable QC and concern over the packing job done by some retailers, I'm still hesitant to get one. Good to see that so many people think highly of it, though.</p>

[jerry_cahak]

<p>I love the "idea" of having another big Nikon in the bag but have not been impressed with the 12-24 results for the money. Same goes for the 17-55 2.8. </p>

[eric_pelve]

<p>I have been using Nikon lenses semi professionally for more than 15 years and think highly of Nikkor glasses. My top choices are the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4, Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 AF-S ED-IF VR, and the only zoom that qualifies as a top notch performer: 14-24mm f/2.8 AF-S.<br>

That being said, in my search for absolute sharpness and contrast I found that Nikon prime lenses (20mm, 50mm ,etc...) are not to the level of Leica and Zeiss prime lenses adapted to work on Nikon bodies (Leitax adapter for Leica lenses and ZF line for Zeiss lenses).<br>

I recently switched to Zeiss lenses on my Nikon D300 and D700 and will not look back at Nikkor lenses until they invest time and money to improve their prime lenses. They spend much time and money investing in all kind of zoom lenses for commercial reasons and the niche photographers like me were forced to looked at other brands. <br>

Yes it is worth the hassle to loose AF and lens identification when using the Zeiss ZF lenses, just for the pleasure you experience when magnifying that shot 100% and still see these sharp details that would be long gone with the Nikkor AF 20mm or 28mm or 50mm and certainly the 70-200mm VR. I was very proud of that Nikkor zoom lens until I tried the Leica 180mm APO: what a mistake I did! I could not stand the comparison and the weight. I decided to loose the flexibility of the zoom against the absolute sharpness and color of the Leica APO lens, and sold back the Nikkor. If there is one Nikkor lens I would still dream to have it would be the 200mm F/2.0 AF-S VR.<br>

So far the prime MF lenses I like the most for their great resolution: Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZF, 35mm /f2.0 ZF, 100mm f/2.0 ZF, Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4, Leica Elmarit 180mm f/2.8 APO<br>

Photos using all these lenses are available at the link below at larger resolution than I can post on this thread.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/37067061@N05/</p>

<div></div>