So who says third party lenses shouldn't be your first choice?

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>A minority of photographers believe that the lens should be made by the same company that made the camera. This is partly justified. But usually not. Nikon makes some very unimpressive lenses, even today.</p>

<p>Have a look at a comparison between a cheap 85/1.4 and a Nikkor 85/1.4:</p>

<p>http://front1.dxomark.com/index.php/Lens-with-Camera/Compare/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/364/%28lens2%29/244/%28onglet%29/0/%28brand%29/Samyang/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/485/%28camera2%29/485</p>

<p>Keep in mind that while the Samyang is very cheap, it is not fully automated. But for many applications you'd be nuts to ignore it, even if you can afford the higher priced Nikkor.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>There might be more to a lens than static numbers comparisons; intangibles such as build-quality, reliability, how it feels and responds dynamically, resale value, are also considerations to potential buyers. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Karim,</p>

<p>Ask the early Canon version Sigma AF owners what they think of their lenses (sorry, paperweights) now. I know of people who had four and five Sigma lenses none of which could be successfully re-chipped.</p>

<p>Yes there are some great third party lenses out there, some with groundbreaking optical formulas at prices a fraction of the Canikon's. Fully integrated forward and backward functionality and compatibility is worth a lot to me though.</p>

<p>Oh sorry, I just clicked on your link, I thought you were being serious but then I realised it is a DxO "test". I wouldn't count on their test results, even to tell me the time twice a day if they were a broken clock. But if you want a cheap and fast manual focus lens to put in front of your DSLR, that is impossible to accurately focus manually, then there are many options on eBay. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Actually what DXO is saying there is consistent with what I've read about that lens (that comes in a few brands but from the same factory). Some people would think the cheap lens is the better buy.</p>

<p>I have several 3rd party lenses that I'd buy again if I lost them. For example, Tamron 28-75/2.8 in Nikon AF (it's not at its sharpest wide open, but what is, and how the heck am I supposed to come up with something better for $250 used), Tamron 70-300 VC (sharpness under baseball park lights at 300mm is what I'm looking for, and it delivers), and some of the classic Vivitars: 28/2.5, 28-90/2.8-3.5 and 70-210/3.5.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Andy,</p>

<p><em>"Some people would think the cheap lens is the better buy."</em> They would be the ones that have never tried to manually focus an f1.4 lens through a modern DSLR viewfinder. Your Tamron is a well regarded bargain, but it has AF. I can't think of a situation where the Samyang would be of any value.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>As Scott notes, focusing an f/1.4 lens manually on most DSLRs with an expectation of useable results is pretty futile. If you have e.g. a D700 with a Katz Eye screen then however you may find manual focusing reasonably feasible. Even so, I prefer the camera manufacturer's AF-S lens - they typically have the best shot of being autofocusable accurately. And yes, it's worth every cent. BTW. I firmly believe DXO is highly incompetent in reviewing lenses.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>I honestly don't know if it is a small minority or not - but I don't think you can make any kind of a blanket statement about <strong>any</strong> manufacturer's lens quality. </p>

<p>Sigma makes some very good lenses - they also make some not so good ones.<br>

Tamron makes some very good lenses - they also make some not so good ones.<br>

Nikon makes some very good lenses - they also make some not so good ones (24-120 vr I anyone?)<br>

Same down the line.</p>

<p>Each lens should be analyzed on its strengths and weaknesses. Not in a lab - shooting black and white or color patterns. But rather, in the field - where it counts. Shooting landscapes, portraits, wildlife - whatever - but not in a lab.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>The best way to test a lens is with your eyes ! Another less reliable way is from photographers online reviews. Tests are good, but you never know whether the tester got a good copy or a bad one, or whether they are being subjective due to price, pride and other factors.<br>

<br />For example one of my earliest lenses was a Canon 50mm f1.8 kit lens. I was so sure this lens, was so inferior, that I removed it from the camera as soon as I got home and put it on the shelf. It wasn't until several months later that I decided to use it and was amazed by the contrast, colors and clarity of this so-called kit lens.<br>

<br />I can say the same for the Canon 28-105mm f3.5/4.5. After I started purchasing 'L' series lenses, I also put this lens on the shelf for a while. I recently resurrected it and was amazed as I was when I first purchased it. Currently I have a Sigma 17-70mm($450) that matches and sometimes beats-out some of my 'L' series lenses in optical quality.</p>

[eric merrill]

<blockquote>

<p>But for many applications you'd be nuts to ignore it, even if you can afford the higher priced Nikkor.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The cost of a lens is only partially related to its purchase price.</p>

<p>While the Samyang may initially be cheaper, if you decide that you'd like to sell it, you'll most likely have an easier time recouping most of your money buying/selling a Nikon lens than a brand like Samyang. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but as a general rule, the name brand lenses will be easier to sell and will depreciate less (in fact, some may be worth more when you sell than when you bought.)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>The only lens test worth a hoot is one that tests the specific lenses you are using, in the situations you shoot, with the cameras and other gear you use, and comparing the finished product you end up with. When I sold photography gear I had the opportunity to test many of the same model lens on one body and in the same shooting conditions. Variation within the same lens model line was often noticeable (this would have been in the 90's, so we were using film and comparing prints, not pixel peeping).</p>

<p>I have done many tests of my Canon primes, Canon non-L zooms, Canon L zooms, Tamron zooms, and Sigma zooms on my DSLRs. While there are differences (most often in the bokeh, but it's not always the high dollar lenses that win the popular opinion) they are usually very subtle, and when I show the unlabeled examples (100% mag files & large prints) to other photographers they cannot pick which is from which with any sort of accuracy. Most of the time they can't even pick which was the prime lens.</p>

<p>Shortly after I acquired a 5D2 I had a show where I was exhibiting 12"x18" to 20"x30" prints. Several photographers who knew of the gear I owned commented on the wonderful sharpness of my fancy new 5D2 and the Canon L 24-70 f/2.8 I often used with it. Except that none of the prints in the show were from the new camera, and many that people perceived as being exceptionally sharp had been taken with a Canon 20D w/ Sigma 18-50 f/2.8.</p>

<p>I can often see issues with 20+ year old zooms, but IMO they've gotten pretty good in the last decade. In my experience significant sharpness issues are almost always my fault rather than a problem with lens quality. When I want to make sure I've got sharpness good enough for large prints I'm much more concerned about using my tripod than which lens and body I choose.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Scott, note that I did not disagree with you, but it's easy to think of a situation where a manual focus 85/1.4 lens has value, which is when it's used on any camera that is good for manual focus. Any of the 3rd party lenses mentioned in this thread has value in some situations that are going to make them good buys for those who get in those situations.</p>

<p>Eric, the current Nikon 85/1.4 lenses will run you $1300-1700 depending whether you want AF or AF-S, and the Samyang... actually I have no idea but the same lens in Vivitar is $350. Even if fewer people respect the 3rd party lens, it's got much less room to depreciate, and meanwhile you get to hold your $1000 and get the "time value of money" benefits. I haven't done a study or anything but I can't believe you can lose more by buying, and selling in a few years, a cheap lens rather than an expensive one. An expensive lens is sensible when and only when it's worth the additional cost to you and your photography.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Andy,<br>

Sensible post; I agree that resale value is an argument that won't fly too well in this case given the vast price difference and</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An expensive lens is sensible when and only when it's worth the additional cost to you and your photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>exactly.... which for amateurs means whatever they feel fine with. I have been tempted by the Samyang on occassions, but I am happy with my 85 f/1.8. I have no immediate need for 2/3 more, and I like that the lens actually has AF... It's to each his own. Samyang adds an interesting option, and that's just great.<br>

And also to be mentioned: the Sigma 85 f/1.4 HSM, which is a much more interesting alternative to the Nikon. One thing, though, on the OP:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon makes some very unimpressive lenses, even today.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does Nikon make unimpressive lenses, or does Samyang make some impressive ones? By all measurements (not DxO's but actual photos of people and such, what it is meant to do), the Nikon 85 f/1.4 looks pretty fabulous. Because it has a good competitor does not make it unimpressive. A bit strange case of reverse lens-snobbery.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Andy,</p>

<p>I didn't mean it to sound like you did, I do seem to come across much more aggressively than I actually am on occasions. Sorry.</p>

<p>Now, can you name me a camera that the Samyang fits that is optimised for manual focus? I come from an age of manual focus, swapping out focus screens to optimise focus accuracy and of using fast primes. It was difficult then when the cameras and screens were built for it, now unless you are doing still life images with live view at f1.4 I can't see any benefit.</p>

<p>With regards the depreciation, that is a good point, but it can be countered with the comments that if an amateur has no intention of selling then the brand lenses are not as attractive as more of their money is tied up in them, also a person can get a set of lenses for the price of one brand lens. Yet another scenario that favours off brand, loss, should the equipment get lost, stolen or damaged without insurance then the owner is able to replace or fix the lens far cheaper, if you have a $400 lens nothing can ever cost you more than $400, but a $1,000+ brand lens can hurt you a lot more. These are very powerful arguments for off brand lenses. </p>

<p>I can well understand people wanting, and buying, off brand lenses, though I struggle to see the practical and effective use of fast prime manual focus lenses on modern cameras however cheap.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Nikon makes some very unimpressive lenses, even today.</em></p>

<p>BTW I hope you weren't suggesting that the 85/1.4D is "very unimpressive?" It is an excellent lens, one of my very favorites (the G is better wide open though, but nevertheless the old lens is still excellent). But it's not manufactured any more, so perhaps your comment wasn't directed towards it.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Scott, I understand. That lens might be used by somebody who has a DSLR with an upgraded focusing screen (some prefer manual focus for portraits, for example) or an F3, FM3a etc. In Nikon mount it would be fine on an AI compatible camera, maybe pre-AI (I can see it's got an aperture ring, but I don't know if it has a prong). But it's true that most DSLR users would have difficulty focusing (I have a few AIS lenses and a D90, and the focus dot is nowhere near as good as the proper split image screen on my F3) so I don't doubt that you're right that a manual focus fast lens is suboptimal for a pretty large percentage of users. I'd never say that this is a good buy for everybody.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I recently passed on an EF 100/2.8 L IS macro because I already had a Sigma 70/2.8 macro. I'm not claiming that the Sigma would have been my first choice had money not been a factor in my original decision about which macro prime to buy, but it was the choice I made, and the lens serves my purposes very well.</p>

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>I follow the theory of keeping like things together. Back when all I could afford was used equipment I had no trouble making do with non-factory brand lenses. When I did finally purchase a new body/lens combo the lens blew my mind in comparison to what I had been using. As I gradually merged new and old I seen how much better the factory lenses are. Now that I have disposable income I stay with factory lenses. </p>

<p>However, if I were to help an aspiring photographer get started with their first SLR on a shoestring budget I'd have no problem suggesting they explore used and third party equipment then work their way up from there.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>BTW I hope you weren't suggesting that the 85/1.4D is "very unimpressive?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Both lenses are clearly impressive. :-)</p>

<p>Side note: I only just found about about DxO's reputation. Sorry to cause a stir! However, in this case I do notice that many people who use the lens actually agree with the basic conclusion: Samyang's 85/1.4 is not just a good lens but it's very good value.</p>

[chelsea]

<p>*sigh* it's these long discussions that keep me from buying a wide angle lens for my Canon Rebel XT. I had it down to Tamron and Sigma 10-24 lenses, read some good things about Sigma for photographing the night sky and Milky Way (which is why I want it),and then read that the Tamron has some vignetting problems. So off I go to the camera store, and I get an argument from the clerks that Tamron is the better lens (Sigma costs more, you'd think they'd be happy to sell me the more expen$ive one), and that a local well-known pro photog who I know well enough through our camera club meetings always uses Tamron and has no problem with it. (Haven't run into him lately to ask him about it, but I have heard him many times sing the praises of Tamron. He shoots landscapes, not night skies.) I just can't afford the brand name lens. The money that was burning a hole in my pocket is back sitting comfortably in my bank account.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Rose-Marie, the easiest (partial) solution to your issue is to simply ask for example images. They don't have to be full-sized or even RAW. Just enough to show what the photographers are claiming. That doesn't take into account sample variation, though.</p>

[chelsea]

<p>The website claiming the vignetting showed an example on the Tamron, and the magazine article touting the virtues of Sigma showed some gorgeous star shots. Store clerks don't always listen to what you're telling them.</p>