User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Forget the price - why buy a non-genuine lens?

  1. #1
    can't remember Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Forget the price - why buy a non-genuine lens?

    A long time ago, in a galaxy far away ..........

    Quote Originally Posted by the nameless one
    I don't play with non-Canon stuff.. Its like buying an Astra door to fit a Pulsar, yeah they fit.. And it will work.. But every one will know you're just cheap.
    OK, it was a silly thing for the Nameless One to say, but doubtless it was just one of those off-the-cuff remarks we all make now and again more-or-less in jest. We won't crucify him just yet. But it does raise a really interesting issue.

    FORGET THE PRICE, why would you want to buy a third-party lens? Forget the price! If the reason you bought your Tamron 70-200 was that you could afford it and you couldn't afford the Canon, then find another thread. If the reason you own a Sigma 10-20 is that it seemed to be about as good as the Canon, more-or-less, and half the price, find another thread. If you shoot Nikon or Pentax, stick around, just replace "Canon" with your brand. The question is the same.

    I only want to hear about the third-party lenses you own or want because they are the best or only lenses in their class. I only want to hear about the lenses you get from Sigma or Tamron or Tokina because you can't get an equivalent product from Canon (or Nikkor or Pentax, as the case may be), or because the equivalent product from Canon (Nikkor/Pentax) is inferior. Not "about the same", not "much of a muchness", not "they are both pretty good" ... tell me about the third-party lens that is better!

    So let's have 'em!





    THIRD-PARTY LENSES YOU WOULD LIKE REGARDLESS OF THE PRICE

  2. #2
    can't remember
    Threadstarter
    Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My first example:

    Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom. No other manufacturer has a zoom fish. None of them. If you want one - and they are brilliant - you either buy the Tokina or else go without. (Unless you shoot Pentax, in which case you can't buy the Tokina, but you can get the same glass, with a better focus motor, much higher price, and a Pentax badge.)


    My second example:

    Tokina 35mm f/2.8 macro. Canon don't make one. Canon don't make anything even remotely close. I think Sigma have something in a short macro, but so far as I know, Canon and Nikon don't. (Pentax, once again, have the same glass with a Pentax badge instead.)

  3. #3
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a really nice piece of glass.
    It is reported to have issues on FF; but on APS-C it rocks. Great IQ.
    Light and is my walk around lens.
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    28 Dec 2008
    Location
    Penrith
    Posts
    1,335
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a great lens and Canon don't make one. Also it is half the weight of the nearest L series lens. I have trouble holding a heavy lens steady so the Tokina was a good choice and has tough build quality and good IQ. This lens is tack sharp and I love it. If Canon had made 11-16 2.8 I would have bought it.
    Carmen

    My Stuff:- Canon 50D l EF 28-80 f2.8-4L
    l EF 100-300 f4-5.6 l Canon 100mm f2.8 macro l Tokina 11-16 f2.8 l Pol. Filter l Flash l Grip l Remote l Tripod l Lightroom 2 l CS3

    Constructive Critique of my photos always appreciated

  5. #5
    Site Rules Breach - Permanent Ban
    Join Date
    14 Feb 2007
    Location
    Western Sydney
    Posts
    352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    There's nothing that I want from a 3rd party manufacturer - I've been burnt once albeit a long time ago with a Tamron 70-300 and will never buy another 3rd party lens. Not ever

  6. #6
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,911
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Couldn't be happier with the Sigma 100-300 F/4 with or without a 1.4x on it. Bought cheaply S/H, Nikon only make a 300 prime at F/4 at similar cost and from all I see it is not optically better, more robustly constructed or faster in the AF dept.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  7. #7
    Member KevPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury North
    Posts
    498
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Both my Sigma 17-70 & Sigma 100-300 f4 I consider are brilliant lenses - the similar Pentax 17-70 from what I have read doesn't come close & Pentax don't have a 100-300 equivalent.

    2nd hand Tokina lenses that have Pentax mount & AF are very rare but desirable.

    My Vivitar Series 1 105 Macro, in Pentax mount the only one close is Tamron 90.

    However on saying this if money was no object I would have a bag full of "A", "FA" & "DA" Limited lenses.

    Voigtlander lenses look pretty sexy, if that is a requirement.
    Regards
    Kevin

    Pentax K3, Pentax Tamron Sigma short glass
    Nikon D500. nikkor 200-500 f5.6.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevpride/

  8. #8
    can't remember
    Threadstarter
    Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is all very interesting. I keep saying things like "Oh, read the damn question, you idiot - the lens you are talking about isn't unique, it's just a cheaper equivalent to the ... no! wait! This is in the Brand X world, which is different to the Canon world I'm used to thinking in terms of. Sorry, as you were - good answer!"

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    25 Apr 2008
    Location
    Amersfoort, NL
    Posts
    658
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sigma 50/1.4 is much better than the Canon 50/1.4 . The latter also suffers from a weak design in its USM AF motors with a relatively high percentage of repairs needed.
    Further more, I own a Tokina 24-200 which is actually a below-average performer but built like a tank, it fits fullframe and there's no Canon equivalent that starts shorter than 28mm. It's quite an interesting lens to bring on a holiday where you don't want to switch lenses in the field.
    Ciao, Joost

    All feedback is highly appreciated!

  10. #10
    Account Closed Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Dec 2009
    Location
    Eastside
    Posts
    1,639
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkW View Post
    There's nothing that I want from a 3rd party manufacturer -and will never buy a 3rd party lens. Not ever
    Slightly modified quote, but I'm with him.

  11. #11
    Member Pinheadion's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Jan 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    6
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sigma 50-150 f2.8
    Tokina 50-135 f2.8

    both great lenses with an aperture, focal range and size that isn't covered by Canon. 70-200 is nice but much much bigger and impractical as an everyday lens (for me).

  12. #12
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    8,185
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jev View Post
    Sigma 50/1.4 is much better than the Canon 50/1.4 ......
    I felt the same way with the Siggy over the newer and smaller Nikon equivalent(the AF-S version)

    Ultimate IQ was, if not the same, possibly better but the bokeh of the Sigma sold me, in that brief instance in the store. Cost me about $50 more too, and I've never regretted getting it over the Nikon.

    Back when I got my Siggy 10-20mm, Nikon didn't have a rectilinear 10mm lens(the 12-24DX being the widest lens in their range, then) and I didn't think that the 5% higher sharpness/resolution figures of the Nikon 12-24 was worth the loss of 4° in the FOV.
    Tokina and Nikon subsequently introduced newer designs(11-16/2.8 and 10-24mm respectively) and having a wider choice of lenses now, I think I'd have gone with the Tokina instead(but not the newer Nikon 10-24mm).
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  13. #13
    can't remember
    Threadstarter
    Tannin's Avatar
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,894
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Then there are the two gigantic Sigma super teles - the 300-800/5.6 and the 200-500/2.8. At one time the 300-800 had a bit of a reputation as a birding lens, but since the advent of the Canon 800/5.6 IS no-one seems to talk about the Sigma unit anymore. And let's face it - would you want to buy a $8000 800mm lens that didn't have IS?

    As for the 200-500/2.8, it's probably just too big and heavy. Doubtless there is the odd wealthy photograpger who wants one, but they would be few and far between.

    The $10,000 Sigma 800/5.6 prime is, I believe, quite elderly now, and once again does not have IS. I don't think anyone has taken it too seriously for a long time.

    Conclusion: when it comes to the long glass, neither Tamron nor Tokina really tries; Sigma has three lenses on the books, none of them likeley to attract your dollar, and the ones to have are undoubtedly the ones with the Canon and Nikon badges.

  14. #14
    Member Calxoddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Apr 2008
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    473
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hmmm... evening forgetting the price, what about lenses like the Bigma, or the Sigma 150 macro? I can't find the equivalent in the Nikon catalogue. Even my favorite walkaround lens - the Sigma 17-70 - this was chosen in preference to the similar focal length Nikon 18-70 because it was faster and did better macro.

    When it comes to buying my 70-300 though, it will be the Nikon VR even if it does cost more, because it's the benchmark for that range zoom and what's the point of laying out any dollars on a lens if it can't focus properly or is rubbish at its intended purpose?

    As for:
    - long lenses, I can only dream....
    - the original quote in the first post, I'd just think they were over-compensating....

    Regards,
    Calx
    Calxoddity
    Concert Pianist, Test Pilot, Pathological Liar


    Nikon D40, Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5 HSM, Nikkor AF-D 50mm f1.8
    Post Processing: Aperture 3 & Photoshop Elements 6

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Site Sponsor/Advertiser OzzieTraveller's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Oct 2009
    Location
    Forster- Tuncurry, eastern Australia
    Posts
    1,600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    G'day all

    My love affair with zoom lenses started back in the 60s with a Tamron, 80-250 f3.8 blunderbus (by today's standards

    At the time, the closest that Pentax were offering only a 70-210 f4.5, and I didn't want it. I wanted a longer mm and a wider f-stop, so I went with the Tamron and never once regretted it.

    Cameras are the same ~ I look at the features offered and choose the camera body with 'bits' that are important to me and my style of photography. In the 70s I moved away from Pentax because their bodies at that time did not have features that I considered 'basic' to my needs

    Since then, I choose lenses (& cameras) to suit my needs ~ and yes, price comes into it too

    Regards, Phil

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    12 May 2009
    Location
    Cronulla
    Posts
    74
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 70-210 SP f3.5 Tamron 19AH is generally regarded as the best lens of this type ever produced

    http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/19AH.html

    A word of warning, though, to avoid a stampede towards B & H (where I bought mine), Pentax users, if they need the electronic connections, need to fork out a significant premium over Nikon or Canon for the adapter & for everyone, it's heavy (just under 1kg) so a tripod is required & the Tamron tripod mount is rare & expensive so I adapted a Canon unit lining with velcro to reduce the inside dia. . This also makes it effectively a 90 - 210.

  17. #17
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,440
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2 examples off the top of my head. At the time I bought a sigma 10-20 there were no nikon options but yes, if I was buying today, it'd be a different story although it'd not necessary be the nikon 10-24 I'd buy.
    If I was buying around the 50mm fl today i'd look at the sigma 1.4 version over nikon's. Another caveat though since u say no price restrictions, I'd take a nikkor 58 1.2 noct over any current lens around that fl so I guess nikon wins again.
    Nikon FX

  18. #18
    Member Calxoddity's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Apr 2008
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    473
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    oh, and another thought - what's this "non-genuine" labelling? All of the 3rd party lenses are genuine lenses - they're not trying to pass themselves off as a brand they're not. That "non-genuine" label that sometimes gets applied is just a clumsy attempt at psychological manipulation.

    I'm an individual - you can't fool me.

    Regards,
    Calx

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    17 Sep 2009
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    822
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    FWIW when I was using Nikons, in the 1980-1990's I had an amazingly good Tamron 300mm 2.8 - mainly because I couldnt afford the Nikon 300mm 2.8. So price was the factor in my reason for buying it. However after 8 years use, I finally managed to do a side by side comparison with the Nikon. Yes, the Nikon had a slight edge over sharpness, but it was vastly more contrasty, and as a result my preference with money as no object, would still have been the Tamron.
    William

    www.longshots.com.au

    I am the PhotoWatchDog

  20. #20
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,641
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Calxoddity View Post
    oh, and another thought - what's this "non-genuine" labelling? All of the 3rd party lenses are genuine lenses - they're not trying to pass themselves off as a brand they're not. That "non-genuine" label that sometimes gets applied is just a clumsy attempt at psychological manipulation.
    +1
    I was thinking that; came back to post and you nailed it.
    Some alternate brand glass out does the ones labelled the same as your camera body.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •