Have you ever borrowed a third party lens and found it was better than your Nikon lens?

[jose_perez3]

<p >Have you ever borrowed, or purchased, a third party lens and found it was better than your Nikon lens? What third party lens surprised you? And, what Nikon lens was it better than? </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t own a single third party lens. Every single lens I own (except a Canon 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 on my old Rebel 2000 film SLR) is a Nikon lens. But, I just want to know, are there any third party lens that stand out and match or beat a Nikon lens on performance? You can qualify what you mean by “match or beat a Nikon lens” in your response.</p>

<p > </p>

[Prof-K]

<p>For me, the Tamron 90/2.8 and the Sigma 30/1.4 DX; the former is a truly outstanding lens in terms of IQ (bokeh, sharpness), but lacks in built quality. The latter is worth mentioning for its wider aperture performance.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>I don't own a Nikon 12-24 but I tried one in the store. I ended up buying the Tokina 12-24 as it seemd to have the same performance at half the price. With the money saved I was able to buy the Nikon 24-70 and with this combination of lenses I am well-pleased.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I've had a few third party lenses that were as good as or better than comparable camera brand lenses (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, others). The Tamron Adaptall SP 24mm f/2.5 is as good as any camera brand 24mm I've tried so I haven't bothered to replace it with a Nikkor prime. The Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5 was better than the 18-70 DX Nikkor at 18mm, tho' that isn't really a fair comparison.</p>

<p>A Kiron 80-200/4 zoom in OM mount was better than any comparable f/4 telezoom I'd tried from the Canon FD lineup at that time (around 10 years ago). The Nikon AI mount 70-210/2.8-4 Vivitar Series 1 is as good as the comparable slowish or variable aperture Nikkors I've tried, tho' a bit lacking in the snappy contrast of the Nikkors.</p>

<p>Even an old Lentar 135mm f/3.5 preset T-mount compares favorably stopped down against my 85/2 AI-S and 105/2.5 AI Nikkors. Just not convenient to use.</p>

<p>Most of my favorite third party lenses haven't had any direct counterparts among camera brand lenses so there's no way to draw any meaningful conclusions. The Vivitar 2x macro focusing teleconverter is an example - there's no counterpart made by anyone else that I'm aware of. And my Spiratone Portragon is a soft focus lens so only very subjective opinions about aesthetic appeal can be offered.</p>

<p>I've also found more dogs among third party lenses than camera brand lenses, from Tamron, Soligor, Vivitar and others. So far in more than 40 years I've had only one true dog of a camera brand lens, a variable aperture Canon FD in the 80-200 range, but it was never regarded as a particularly good lens.</p>

<p>To be fair, I've found more good than bad among third party lenses I've tried in shops or borrowed but not bought. Several from Tamron, Tokina and Sigma have been very good and seemed comparable to Nikkors in the same price range. The Tokina 12-24/4 AF for example was very good, practically indistinguishable from the 12-24/4 Nikkor on my D2H, altho' a higher resolution camera might have revealed some differences.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>No, but I've borrowed another sample of the same Nikkor lens that was either better or worst than the one I owned (but didn't have with me).</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>No.</p>

[john schroeder]

<p>Yes. I borrowed a Tokina 28-70mm f2.8 once. After looking at the slides I walked from the lab area to the lens counter in the camera store and bought one. </p>

[greg_lisi]

<p>I have a Tamron 17-55 2.8 and a recent Sigma 24-70 2.8. Both are surprisingly sharp with excellent color. I would love to get the comparable Nikon lens but the price is out of reach. I shoot raw exclusively so the diffrence between the 3rd party and the Nikon is almost neglidgable.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>I purchased a Sigma 70-210mm F3.5-4.5 APO Macro D about ten years ago to photograph sailboat races in Hawaii from the deck of a boat. I didn't want to expose my Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 to salt spray. I considered the Sigma to be, more or less, a disposable piece of equipment. Not a problem with light out on the water, so the relatively slow and variable aperture didn't concern me. I was astonished with the quality of the photographs this lens produced, and I still occasionally use it today with my digital bodies. It is almost immune to chromatic aberration, has nice color, contrast, and is very sharp.</p>

<p>These lenses sometimes show up at KEH and elsewhere, (there is one there now "UG" for $47), and sell very cheaply. When I purchased my lens new, I thought it had the worst build quality of any lens I have ever owned, but it's not bad by today's standards. ;-)</p>

[luca_stramare2]

<p>Better, no. But in many cases I found very similar results at lower price, or real bargains in the used market, because of the lower resale value. Not to mention situation like the Nikon 70-300 AF 4-5.6 ED and the Tamron 70-300 AF 4-5.6 LD in which the lens is exactly the same but the Tamron was half the price new and a third used.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I found a third party lens for a <em>very specific task</em> to be better than the Nikkor alternative.</p>

<p>I owned a Nikkor AF-D 105mm micro. I also took a punt on ebay and purchased a Kiron 105mm MF macro lens in Nikon mount. I required a dedicated micro / macro lens for close focusing for magnifcations up to 1:1. I never used the AF function on the Nikkor as it was never accurate for such small subject matter and related DOF issues. </p>

<p>The Kiron has a long focus throw and is much easier to get to focus precisely than the Nikkor. The Kiron is a more robust build than the AF-D Nikkor and the IQ is every bit as good for close focusing micro work. I sold the Nikkor for what I paid for it (AU $750) and kept the Kiron which cost AU $130 ........... I still have and regularly use the Kiron lens today.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>in my case, i can't really afford pro line nikkors but want better performance than kit lenses. the tamron 28-75 completely blew away my 18-70 and opened my eyes to 3rd party glass. if money was no object, sure, i'd get the nikkor every time. but since it is, price/performance ratio is a consideration. i'm not sure i'd trade my tamron 17-50 for a nikon 17-55, since the added weight might inhibit some of the shooting i do. and i'm really starting to like the sigma 50-150 and 30/1.4, not to mention the tokina 12-24. what i'm finding is that every lens has its idiosyncracies, the more you shoot, the more you become familiar with the characteristics of that lens and are able to use that to your advantage.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I too owned the Tamron Adaptall SP 24mm f/2.5- but just because when I purchased it, I couldn't find a store that carried the Nikon equivalent. The lens turned out to be quite a good performer, and for a long time, it was the only third party lens in my bag - I eventually sold it when I covered the same focal length with zooms. The one thing that troubled me with the lens was that the focus and aperture ring turned the opposite direction of the Nikon lenses.<br>

Currently, the only third party lens in my bag is the Sigma 150/2.8 APO Macro EX DG HSM. The only reason is that Nikon has nothing equivalent in the program; the 105 VR is too short and the 200/4 too slow and overpriced.</p>

<h1 ><br /></h1>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Sure, yes, the 100mm Zeiss easily outperforms any Micro-Nikkor I've used. Also, the 18mm and the 35mm ZF are better than equivalent Nikon primes.</p>

[sammy_d1]

<p>If by "better than" you mean in every conceivable way, then no. However, I opted for the Sigma 18-200mm OS over the Nikon VR, because it is sharper, and I think the OS is more effective on this lens than the VR. The down side is it focuses more slowly, and is 1/3 stop slower at the long end.</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>I also have been extremely pleased with my 28-75 f/2.8 Tamron. Is it the equal of the Nikkor 24-70? I doubt it, though optically it appears to be close. However, it is better in every way than the Nikkor kit lenses that are in its price range, in their common focal length.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>Like Matthew I owned a Nikkor 105 AFD, a horrible plastic cased lens with poor manual focus feel. It did however produce sharp images, with good contrast.</p>

<p>While looking for a M/F Nikkor 105, I came across a Kiron 105. It was a joy to manual focus's compared to the AFD. And the images were just as sharp, but the bonus was the rendition of the out of focus areas. The smoothness give photographs a special look compared to the Nikkor.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Angenieux 180mm f/2.3 APO : very slightly better (and a half stop faster) than the lens it replaced, a 180mm f/2.8 AI-S Nikkor. but that was in 1990-1996. <strong><br /> </strong> </p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Another vote for the Tamron 90 2.8 macro. It is the only non Nikon lens I own, and it is superb in all respects. I have never directly compared it to the Nikon macros, but suspect its performance is just as good. The main difference would probably be build quality, but I don't knock my equipment around at all so that is not an issue for me.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>Not so much better but different. Sigma's AF 100-300 F4. Excellent build, very sharp and reasonably fast. One of the true sleepers in the Sigma lineup.</p>

[gwen_klaus]

<p>Last September I bought my first non-Nikon lens, a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 lens and just sent it back to Tamron because it sporadically failed to work. When it did work, it took great pictures. I hope they get it fixed real quick.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>For night shooting in the city, the Tokina 11-16 2.8 is better than any other ultra wide. It's not just fast, it's sharp wide open and the distortion is easy on the eyes.</p>

[bahrammonshat]

<p>I purchased 2 copies of the Tokina 11-16mm. I had to retun them both. The first copy was decentered. The second copy could not accurately auto focus beyond 3 metres. On the other hand my Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro leaves me with notthing more to desire about. I am not sure what Nikon has to offer that this lens does not already. My Sigma 10-20 was excellent. My Tamron 17-50 excellent value for money, although not as good as the nikon 17-55.</p>

[robert_holwick]

<p>Found some to be comperable, but never better.</p>