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

[Tannin]

On the "non-genuine" point, I agree. I never use that term, for the reasons you have outlined - but I made an exception with the title of this thread because I wanted to get your attention.

[arthurking83]

FWIW when I was using Nikons, in the 1980-1990's I had an amazingly good Tamron 300mm 2.8 - ....

Do you remember which version it was?
I have one of those monsters too now, and apart from the awkwardness of carrying it around(with all my other gear that is) it works well enough for my purposes, and even with the 2 Tc's I have(1.4x + 2.0x).
The 2x TC is a bit of a dog, and I'd love to get the uber expensive(for what it is), and rare 200F version.
If anyone has an Adaptall 200F model 2x TC, or knows of its whereabouts, give me a holler!

Another lens I thought of, but have no experience with is the Sigma 12-24mm.
It's on of the widest rectilinear lenses available for the 35mm format, and the widest available for Nikon and Canon, and it's a zoom too. The test results seem to indicate that it's distortion performance is better than any other UWA lens that it competes against, which includes Canon's and Nikon's 14mm primes.
Resolution is about on par, and in many cases slightly better than these primes, but the Nikon 14-24 has superior resolution capabilities, and CA is only bettered by the Nikon 14-24 again.

When I eventually go full frame, the Sigma 12-24 is the first lens on my hit list, mainly due to it's lower price, which when coupled with an expensive camera purchase makes for an easier/earlier purchase timeframe .. and then eventually the N14-24 to complement it.

[Calxoddity]

On the "non-genuine" point, I agree. I never use that term, for the reasons you have outlined - but I made an exception with the title of this thread because I wanted to get your attention.

Is that all? You should have just labelled it "I have three elbows" and you would have had my attention immediately!

(oh hahahaha etc etc. I crack myself up sometimes. overnight travel will do that to you....)

Regards,
Calx

[arthurking83]

One thing that 'irks' me about the non genuine branding(which sometimes seems to be a cheap shot at implying lower quality lenses).. is that it includes the likes of Zeiss lenses, Voightlander(Cosina, or whatever other brand they may eventually appear as), Schneider(if you can make them fit) .. and any others I can't think of now.
The other day I was in at Camera Exchange, and the shop assistant chap was playing around with a newly acquired lens(which may or may not be for sale), which was an Angenieux 180mm f/2.3.
I've heard about them, and Angenieux make some of the most expensive lenses available, mainly for non-still imaging needs, and military applications...etc. And their quality is some of the best.
The particular lens mounted on a D700 at Camera Exchange was to die for
But at $1700(maybe more, now that the shop assistant noticed my drooling ) it seems rather expensive for a manual focus lens, when modern new AF lenses of similar design can be had for a lot less.

[bigdazzler]

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a really nice piece of glass.
It is reported to have issues on FF

Huh ?? What issues Kym ?? It is A1 on my A850 ...

RE: the OP ... Sigma 12-24 ? The widest lens that Sony make for FF is the CZ 16-35 ... I dont have the Sigma but I would have to go for it if I were after an UWA.

[jibbonpoint]

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.

Plenty of good old Tamrons here:-

http://www.adaptall-2.com/

Go for the SP's.

I can well live without autofocus; I do like the focus confirm, though.

[ving]

lolz cant afford the expensive stuff so this thread doesnt apply... but non-genuine stuff rocks.

[Tannin]

Darren, 16mm on full frame is UWA. That's the standard for a UWA focal length. Canon do the same as Sony: a 16-35/2.8 L is the standard Canon ultrawide (for full frame); similarly, all those 10-xx lenses for crop cameras. On APS-C, 10mm is equivalent to 16mm on FF.

So if 16mm on FF is a UWA ..... what is a 12mm lens? UUWA? SUWA? RRUWA? WTUWA?

[bigdazzler]

of course it is ... I think im still asleep ... I cant imagine what the 12mm will look like then ?? Super Fish ???

EDIT: actually Sony make a 16mm 2.8 fish prime too come to think of it ..

[arthurking83]

....

So if 16mm on FF is a UWA ..... what is a 12mm lens? UUWA? SUWA? RRUWA? WTUWA?

OTTUWA I reckon

BTW, those 10mm UWAs are 15mm (equiv) on the 1.5x crop sensors(Sony/Pentax/Nikon).

the small FOV gain may seem almost irrelevant, but going by the test results on the Siggy on the Canon vs the Nikon mount versions, the waveform distortion seen in the Nikon results, is much more reduced in the Canon mount results.

The link to the Tamron Adaptall mount site(which I have bookmarked, due to my T300/2.8 lens) brought back memories of my desire to acquire another fast-ish telephoto prime lens.
I read the review of the Tammy 180/2.5(reviewed by some magazine in the early 17th century, when magazines were the most common form of communication between photography reviewing staff, and the general public ) and they compared it to the Nikon, Olympus and Minolta equivalents, and the Tammy version won out in 99.9% of the results, with the bonus of it being 1/3 of a stop faster than the f/2.8 lenses from the genuine manufacturers.
I searched high and low for this lens, and when one popped up on ebay for over $800... my head proceeded to self destruct against the brick walls in my house!
(which, BTW, are not actually brick!.. but in fact faux faux brick, in the form of wallpaper, so it wasn't as dramatic as I may have lead you all to believe )

In that case, the idea of getting the Tammy(which I assumed was to be in the <$200 region) was thrown out and I went with the eminently more affordable Nikon(ie. genuine version) for approx 1/4 of the price!
That Tamron lens is very rare, and I dare say more of a collectors item now. But I don't care for it's collectible value, only price/performance value.

brings me to two basic conclusions:

1. Who'd have thought it possible, that a Tamron lens would be more valuable than a genuine branded version.

2. and the person responsible for the brick wallpaper covering 90% of the interior of my house, probably saved my life!

I suppose the only benefit of having this brick wallpaper is that I can take a photo of brick walls in the relative comfort of my living room too, but only with the 180/2.8 Ais Nikon, of course.. not the Tammy f/2.5 version.
Problem is that available light may be an issue, so I may have to refer to Tony's rule 14, or bite the bullet and spring for the more expensive Tamron lens!

[Tannin]

Waveform distortion?

[zollo]

you've answered your own question. forget the price, why would you buy a third party lens.

[Tannin]

Your point, Zollo?

[Miaow]

Tamron 90mm f2.8 - it wasnt so much that the lens was better better than the Canon 100mm Macro - it's more I found the lens way easier to use than that 100mm that I had a chance to play with it at a meet up a while ago

[zollo]

Your point, Zollo?

not so much a point, as an opinion. I've always found the camera brand lenses to be equal or better performing than equivalent third party lenses - under 300mm - (i dont have any experiences with lens over this focal length)

example - tried a sigma 18-200 before buying my nikon 18-200vrII for a weekend. the sigma failed miserably at something i had never even considered - camera battery life. yep it sucked batteries like a german drinks beer at oktoberfest. seeing as i take a lot of photos per day on location, it was not the one for me.

[kiwi]

I will not buy a non Nikon lens. Ive had and sold Sigmas, Tamrons and Tokinas. Nikon has something close to whatever you come up with, so, Id rather not take the punt. I like consistency and brand loyalty.

[Slide]

I don't really get why people bag the 3rd parties, they are often the ones that push lens designs and canikony designers to the limit. Sometimes they come out with a god and at other times a dog but at least they are pushing the envelope which is more then can be said for the majors.
Anywho thats enough of a rant here is what I have.

Tokina 11-16 at the time nikon had nothing wider, faster or sharper they only had a 12-24(?) and the super expensive 14-24 which doesn't quite cut it in AP-C land.

And I recently aquired a 100-300 siggy which will be booting my 80-200 2.8 nikkor out of my camera bag, nikon still don't have a lens in this range at the same spectacular IQ.

[arthurking83]

Waveform distortion?

otherwise known as moustache distortion.
It's not standard barrel distortion, where the arc of distortion is a constantly shaped arc.
It starts off more level at the far edges, and then(at approximately 5% from the edge of the frame) starts it's arc that forms the barrel looking distortion.... and harder to correct in basic editing programs like CaptureNX as they (probably)assume a standard barrel distortion in the lens.

PT Lens is a good program for correcting for lens distortion as it has more flexibility in it;s correction procedure(and many lenses have already been added to the database of lenses that need correcting anyhow, so all you have to do is choose it from the list.

[AdamR]

I came very close to buying a 120-300/2.8, Would have been nice.

Wouldnt mind the ziess 21.

Either way most of the time there is a canon alternative that gives a strong arguement.

[maccaroneski]

I've always wondered who the 2nd party is....me? I'm certainly not manufacturing any camera gear.