Misgivings Concerning Third-Party Lenses?

[fionndruinne]

As I begin looking into the subject of glass more thoroughly, I'm surprised to find the amount of reservations many (especially) Nikon users have concerning third-party lenses. Personally, I always kind of considered third-party options part of the game, but there seems to be a line of thinking where folks stick with the Nikkor line even to the extent of spending a lot more cash/not buying precisely the lens they need. Whereas in the Canon realm I notice a lot more third-party regulars. There are a lot of Canonites with Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8's, and Tamron macros, just as an example.

So, out of curiosity and to better educate myself in lenses, do you have reservations about third-party lenses, and what's your reasoning?

[Jason25]

I like the Tokina 12-24 so much, I'm on my second copy. I have previously owned 2 Sigmas (24-70 f/2.8 EX and 105 EX macro), and the Tokina 80-200 AT-X Pro. I do have some concerns about quality control and general build quality with certain lenses, but that doesn't discourage me from 3rd party glass all together.

[VTEC_EATER]

The only 3rd party lens I still use is the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro. Its pretty decent. I don't like its auto focus whine, or the fact that it extends while zooming, but other than that, I really cant complain that much.

I guess after using the 70-200VR/2.8, the 12-24/4, and now the 50/1.8, Im just not as wowed by the Sigma. The color and contrast seem crisper with the Nikkor lenses than my Sigma.

The Sigma is a nice lens, and is my walk-around lens for most all my shooting, but if I had the means to pick up a 24-70/2.8 Nikkor in the future, I probably would.

[r3g]

Seeing as the majority of my lens collection will be Sigma when its complete I have to say no. I see no reason to aviod 3rd party lenses unless your a brand name fanboy..

[K1W1]

There are Nikon lenses I wouldn't buy for my camera let alone third party ones so I voted no because I would buy the lens that suits my requirements / budget / expectations regardless of what brand it is.

[erichlund]

As you can see from my signature, I have two third party lenses. One's a cheapie 75-300, the other is the very nice Tokina 12-24. So, it's not that I won't buy a third party lens.

However, that was not the question. The question is, will you hesitate? Of course I will hesitate. I will investigate. I will test. I will seek opinions.

Generally speaking, I know what I'm getting when I buy a Nikkor. I know Nikkors are not perfect, but I have generally found that certain expectations over color fidelity, sharpness, etc. are well known and well documented. I know there are Nikkors that I do not want. I also know there are Nikkors that I do want, to the exclusion of all else.

When it comes to third party lenses, I find that the documentation is less reliable. More emphasis is placed on easily obtainable statistics, and less on the things that really matter to an image. ( I'm reminded of the difference between Carver amplifier testing and Japanese amplifier testing. The Japanese manufacturers would turn on their amplifiers and warm them up to the point of peak performance, then they would test. Carver turned on their amplifiers, cranked them to full power, leave them on for 24 hours, then test. With a Carver amp, the spec values are the worst you will likely get. With the Japanese amplifier, the specs are better, but you will only achieve them under ideal conditions. )

I find Nikon more conservative in their specification than the third party manufacturers, and so I'm more likely to buy a Nikkor based on trust, where I will buy a third party lens only after significant research.

[fionndruinne]

I guess after using the 70-200VR/2.8, the 12-24/4, and now the 50/1.8, Im just not as wowed by the Sigma. The color and contrast seem crisper with the Nikkor lenses than my Sigma.

True, but those are some of the best and best-known Nikkor options. I've come to the understanding that there are some not-so-good Nikkors out there as well, and don't you think there are third-party "bests" as well?

[K1W1]

I've come to the understanding that there are some not-so-good Nikkors out there as well, and don't you think there are third-party "bests" as well?

My Sigma 70-300 DG APO is a superior lens to the Nikkor 70-300G that came free with the camera.

[hankbeblazin]

My Sigma 70-300 DG APO is a superior lens to the Nikkor 70-300G that came free with the camera.

yeah i bought the 70-300g for a cheap superzoom for my gf but i like the tamron 70-210 i have more its all manual cuz its really old but its just crisper i'll get something better soon

[SpecialK]

Most people like what they have. It is human nature. And marketing.

[achuang]

My reason is simply because of the Tamron 70-300 I had which was a bad lens, compared to all my other nikkor lenses. I don't have a problem with buying a third party lens which performs well, but to answer the question yes I would hesitate after the experience with the tamron.

[VTEC_EATER]

True, but those are some of the best and best-known Nikkor options. I've come to the understanding that there are some not-so-good Nikkors out there as well, and don't you think there are third-party "bests" as well?

Well, I guess it is hard to compare $1000+ lenses to a third party ~$400 lens.

However, my 18-50/2.8 Macro is what Sigma would refer to as their "pro" glass. It is a nice lens, and when compared to the 17-55/2.8 Nikkor, I couldn't justify the price difference for my use, so I chose the Sigma. I don't feel bad about the decision, but there are some things that I don't like about the lens when compared to a Nikkor "pro" lens.

I chose the 12-24/4 Nikkor over the Sigma mostly due to quality control. I tested the Nikkor lens at a store and I was amazed with the very first shot I took. I compared it to the Sigma 12-24 (monster of a lens) and the quality was drastically better. I knew I was going to be using this lens for my work, and I wanted the best quality I could afford. Maybe the Sigma was part of a bad batch. Maybe I should have tested the 10-20, but that 12-24 did not look good for the Sigma ultra-wides. So I bit the bullet and got the Nikkor. I have been pleased every day since with the lens.

The 50mm, well, do I really need to explain this one? :) If only Nikon would get off their ass and make the standard primes AF-S I would have got the F/1.4

Im not looking at the Sigma 30/1.4 because it is a cropped image circle. I'm not getting the Nikkor 35/2 because I feel it is too slow, and too expensive for what you get.

Like someone mentioned above, there are some Nikkors that I just dont want, and some that I lust after. If I were into Micro photography, I would probably look at another Tamron lens (90mm) over a Nikkor due to price vs. quality. Third party glass can be very nice, it just requires lots of reviews, and a lot of objective thinking about my shooting for me to buy one again.

[tcadwall]

I said I would hesitate, but the reasoning has already been covered here. I am not saying I *wouldn't* purchase 3rd party, but it would really depend on the particular lens. In most cases I feel it would be a compromise, but that isn't always bad either. Every choice I have made has been compromise. I just don't have unlimited funds. Tamron 90mm would be one of the few instances where I would definitely go with a 3rd party lens and not hesitate, but that is really only because I have already done some research on it.

[e_dawg]

Yes, I would hesitate, but I would still buy 3rd party if I did my research and were comfortable that I might have to send it to get recalibrated. There seems to be more reports of AF accuracy problems with 3rd party lenses for some reason.

Anyways, I think there are a dozen 3rd party lenses that are almost as good as Nikkors in performance but significantly cheaper in cost. For example:

Sigma 70/2.8 macro
Sigma 150/2.8 macro HSM
Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM
Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM
Sigma 10-20 HSM
Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Tokina 12-24

And there's more that I am just not familiar with at this point.

[Jason25]

Two lenses I've heard/read nothing but glowing praise for are the Sigma 100-300/4 and 120-300/2.8. I've been heavily considering the 100-300/4 as Nikon's 200-400 VR is far too expensive for my needs.

[XaiLo]

"Hit and Miss" Quality control issues, while they plague every company some seem to have more problems with consistancy than others. While a particular Nikkor lens maybe less than desirable that holds true for the whole run. So you know which ones to stay away from. Conversely when they make a good lens you're fairly certain that the quality and performance will be as recorded.

On the other hand with third party manurfactuers while a lens maybe reguarded and well recieved. Quite a few seem to be plagued with production issues varying the quality and performance of that particular lens run.

In general though I would not run out on the spur of the moment and make any lens purchase. So my answer would be yes but that would not exclude Nikkor lenses from the same scrutiny.

[yewsef]

I've seen the results of Sigma 10-20 HSM I would get this lens as my wide angle lens in the future. But I'm not sure if I can find a good competitor to the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 VR or the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4?

[herc182]

I have no problem getting third party lenses (see signature).

I have bought them from ebay (which admittedly is a risk). But if you are buying new, and buy from Jessops or jacobs (in the UK) and you get a dud one (small chance) then you can return it and get another. For the sake of a potential trip to the shop over saving a few hundred pounds, its a compromise i am willing to make!

However, if i won the lottery i would buy Nikkor lenses only (based on reviews and for the sake of being a snob and having nikon only products :D)

[Sole Shooter]

Yes, I would hesitate, but I would still buy 3rd party if I did my research and were comfortable that I might have to send it to get recalibrated. There seems to be more reports of AF accuracy problems with 3rd party lenses for some reason.

Anyways, I think there are a dozen 3rd party lenses that are almost as good as Nikkors in performance but significantly cheaper in cost. For example:

Sigma 70/2.8 macro
Sigma 150/2.8 macro HSM
Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM
Sigma 18-50/2.8 HSM
Sigma 10-20 HSM
Tamron SP 90/2.8 macro
Tamron 17-50/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Tokina 12-24

And there's more that I am just not familiar with at this point.

Nice list.

I voted no, but like most it depends on the lens. I'm currently looking to add a Sigma 100-300 f/4 to my stable and debating between the Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24.

[4PLaY]

normally I would not have any misgivings about 3rd party stuff as long as it does it's job and it does it well. :)

I'm new to the dSLR scene so if everyone would just post their thoughts on the disadvantages (pros/cons) of buying 3rd party lenses i'd be grateful.

ive been reading from Ken Rockwell, he's just against 3rd party.

If I have a d40/d40x then most of the excellent choices for 3rd party lenses would not be much of an option right? I've read a lot of great stuff about the Tokina 12-24mm but that does not AF with d40/x also the tamron 90 macro. some of the other choices wouldn't do one thing or another. the only 3rd party vendor right now that would AF properly with this d40/x is Sigma, this shortens my list considerably.. :(

[SpecialK]

ive been reading from Ken Rockwell(


Not really the best source of information. Normally very opinionated, and in the 2 articles I read, very wrong.

[fionndruinne]

If I have a d40/d40x then most of the excellent choices for 3rd party lenses would not be much of an option right?

Actually, third parties offer many of the better choices for the D40(x) - specifically Sigma, because they are the only other manufacturer I'm aware of (besides Nikon) that make D40-compatible lens focus drives (their HSM designation). Better in that affordable low-light, fast-aperture lenses are available, whereas with Nikon the majority of these are not AF-S, or else are very costly.

[r3g]

It seems that Sigma makes more quality lenses at an affordable price then Nikon does for the D40.

[4PLaY]

Yeah, I kinda find it quite surprising that while he strongly discourages me (the reader) from buying 3rd party lenses, almost everyone here in the dcr forum has one or the other of the more popular 3rd party options, e.g. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina. Even the the excellent Lens Buying Guide here has at least a few Tamrons or Sigmas in the recommended list. it's just a little confusing that's all.

although some of his reasons were valid, like futureproofing. I can't recall what I read in verbatim, but he was mentioning things like will not AF or will not auto-bracket or something when the new cameras come out. Can anyone here validate how true or false this is? coz right now my main concern is im looking for a more affordable MACRO lens for D40x that does 1:1, and so far ive also read that manual focus is the way to go when doing macro shots.. :confused:

[r3g]

The reader is prolly a brand freak. :rolleyes: Hell anyone with common sense can do a couple minutes of research and see without a doubt that 3rd party lenses can be just as good as 1st party. So if you see a 3rd party lens that is of good quality and price by all means go for it.

[fionndruinne]

I believe there's a Sigma 90mm HSM macro... maybe I'm mistaken, but it may be a good choice, what it's exact macro ratio is I dunno.

[4PLaY]

If you mean me as the brand freak? well Hell No. as a matter of fact It only gave me pause when I read from Ken. :p

I want the following:
Tokina AF 12-24mm AT-X 124 Pro DX
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro
Tokina AT-X 107 AF DX Fish-EYE - AF 10-17mm f/3.5-4.5

now tell me how I can get these to work with a D40/X? :o

[r3g]

If you mean me as the brand freak? well Hell No.


My bad I ment the writer;) As for those lenses you listen they should mount just fine but youll wont have auto focus.

[4PLaY]

I'll just get a D80 and all those lenses and I shouldn't have a problem at all, right?? :p

[r3g]

HAHAHA.. Matter of fact after I get my 30mm 1.4 and SB600 then D80 will be next on my list. :cool:

[4PLaY]

By the way, I got it now, the other term used was "meter" he said some of these lenses will not meter with d40/x :cool: