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

[arthurking83]

Technically you are the first party.
The camera manufacturer is the second party, and any non second party lens manufacturer is the third party!

if you don't want third party lenses... get a P&S or bridge camera, where you have no option!

[jim]

...I like consistency and brand loyalty.

Sorry to pick out just one small part of your argument, but loyalty? It's a commercial transaction you know, they don't love you or anything.

[zollo]

[QUOTE]

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.
QUOTE]

sorry to spoil this quote but nikkor were pushing the boundaries in the 40's and 50's when glass had to be polished by hand - supplying both glass and lens to the military and LEICA and Canon. Lens development wouldn't be where it is today without nikkor

[kiwi]

Sorry to pick out just one small part of your argument, but loyalty? It's a commercial transaction you know, they don't love you or anything.

I realise that. I just like to follow a brand. Similar handling, finish, contrast, colours etc

I do the same in golf where everything I have is Taylormade, or appliances where everything is F&P, and home entertainment where everything I have is LG, and children where I have all boys etc etc....you get the idea

[Tannin]

Maybe so. The 1940s were, in case you haven't noticed, rather a long time ago. In fact, it was long before most people here were born.

The real question is what have they done lately to push the envelope?

They have continued to improve quality across the board, notably with the 14-24, now regarded as the industry benchmark for an UWA zoom. But actual new stuff? Been a long, long time. They didn't invent image stabilisation just copied Canon (and even that was a long time ago now), they didn't pioneer the superzoom revolution (the third party makers did that) ... so what have they pioneered this century? Ans: nothing in particular.

Now, can we get back to the actual question please?

[kiwi]

Nano lens coating

[zollo]

Now, can we get back to the actual question please?

my post above is another reason i choose genuine over third party. totally relevant to thread. mmmkay?

[griffljg]

I use Olympus DSLRs. That does tend to limit my chances of buying 3rd party lenses ever so slightly. - Not many third party lens manufacturers make lenses for the 4/3 mount and in any case the Olympus Zuiko lenses are of a good enough standard and cheap enough for me to not really need to look at third party lenses. - Another of the advantages of most Olympus bodies having built-in image stabilisation.

My reason to look at a third party lens would therefore have to be than the third party lens would fill a gap in the Zuiko range AND would have to be available with a 4/3 mount.

Soooo...... The Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM 4/3 Mount (aka "Bigma") is very definitely on my "when I can afford it" list. 50-500 is equivalent to 100-1000 on 35mm cameras. Very nice for photographing leetle birdies that are verrry far away.

[Andrew]

I have a Sigma 150-500 because it has 100mm more reach and 2 stops better IS than the Canon 100-400L. Image Quality was my only concern and I read enough reviews to know that I would be more than happy with it. 18 months later Im still very happy with my purchase. Bought this one from a shop instead of online as there seemed to be a hit&miss quality issue when they were first released. Buying in a shop meant I got to try before handing over the $$$

I have a Sigma 12-24 because no-one else makes a zoom that wide for a FF Canon. Dont use this lens a lot but everytime I do the results are STUNNING. Love it.

I have a Sigma 150 macro because the Canon 100 was too short for a FF 5D (in my opinion) and the 180L was out of my price range given the minimal use I knew it would get. The reviews of the Sigma 150 were overwhelmingly positive to the point of fanatical love.

My other 3 lenses are all Canons: 50F1.4, 24-70F2.8L and 70-200F4L IS. All great lenses too.

[Calxoddity]

Nano lens coating

new, in that marketing attached a new label to an existing technique/feature?

Regards,
Calx

[R1titan]

+1 for the Siggy 50/1.4 EX, Canon just dont make a 50 lens to lust after....

A couple more to consider;
Circular fisheyes, no Canon equivalent
Sigma 50-150/2.8 for crop

[Audible]

Sigma 135-400mm F3.5-4.5 DG.

Canon has nothing like this lens in its range apart from the 100-400mm IS drain pipe but it's 2.5 times the price. I find the sigma 135-400mm gives you good IQ and isn't too heavy for hand holding and comes complete with all the accessories such as carry bag, tripod collar and lens hood which are all usually extra's on canons.
Yes, I know about trying to hand hold a non IS lens @ 400mm. But if this is your only telezoomer you can use the shorter lengths quite nicely hand held. Pair it up with a nice 18-135mm or something like that and you have a good two lens package covering a huge zoom range.

Another lens often overlooked is the sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5. On a FF camera you can configure this lens to give fish eye @15mm, something No canon UWA will do and it's priced well and gives good IQ for the money. Nothing wrong with 15mm either on FF.

[Jcas]

Sigma 30mm f1.4
Tokina 50-135mm f2.8

No Canon equiv available. I'm not hung up on having everything the same brand, i read lots of reviews and get what i think will best suit my needs not my budget.

[AdamR]

Jcas, just to give a thought to your point. Canon has a perfect answer to your lenses. They have full frame. That means they have the equiv to the crop lenses. A 50/1.4 and 70-200/2.8. Though I may be wrong if the 50-135 can be used on full frame.

[Willz]

sigma 50mm 1.4 is probably the best 50mm out there, unless you're with Canon.

[DAdeGroot]

Sigma 135-400mm F3.5-4.5 DG.
... comes complete with all the accessories such as carry bag, tripod collar and lens hood which are all usually extra's on canons.

Just to correct this misconception, all Canon L lenses come with a hood and lens pouch and those that require tripod collars come with those too. It's only the consumer lenses that are lacking these accessories.

[James Axford]

only ones i would get would be the zeiss, but i would like to try them 1st to see how they feel
someone bring theirs on a melbourne meet for me pleaseeeee

[Cage]

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.

Sorry if I'm resurrecting a dead thread but I have the Tammy SP 70-210 and today have ordered a chinee adaptor to try it on my K20D.

It's part of my plan to keep throwing cheapish glass and TC's together in the hope of finding a combination that may come close to the DA* 300 or the Sigma 100-300 f4.

And I have no brand loyalty when it comes to value for money. If a 3rd party lens does an equivalent job, or better, for less, or similar bucks, thats where my money goes.

Kevin

[dche5390]

I've owned the Nikkor 50 1.4. I've owned the EF 50mm 1.4. I've owned (owning) the 50 f/1.2L. I still prefer the Sigma 50mm 1.4. There is no substitute. The Sigmalux shits all over the rest.

[bigdazzler]

I still prefer the Sigma 50mm 1.4. There is no substitute.

The Sony 50 1.4 is pretty damn good