|
one really big advantage and most important one is imagte qulity.
Nikon is definitly sharper than most(if not all) of the other cheap ones.
second is built qulity.
i'm sure non of the other cheap lens can work under extreme conditions like somewhere in the Amazon. i mean if you really have to, some Nikon lenses can be even used as a hammer. ie. 18-55 f2.8
they really are tough!
there are many mores but just these two is more than enough for you to stick with nikon
man they better give some free coupons for doing this=P
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Off-brand lenses made for the Nikon mount will work perfectly with Nikon autoexposure and autofocus. As with all brands, they make some pretty high-end and some pretty crappy lenses. In some the build quality is quite good.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Which off-brands are even worth considering, if I want great sharpness?
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Wesley Baker [deleted] says:
That's not an easy question to answer, simply because the quality differs with each lens. For example, Sigma has some great lenses and they have some terrible lenses that Tamron or Tokina might be better at. It's a terrible idea to go blindly after one brand (even Nikkor), rather you should take the time to look at various examples, reviews and any information you can get your hands on. See what people have to say as well. You might avoid any brand-centric groups though (All-Nikkor, All-Sigma, All-Tamron...etc). One of the places I usually end up at is Fred Miranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/). They seem to have reviews of what I want to look at from a variety of people. But I guess of all the third-party brands, take a look at Sigma, Tamron and Tokina (no particular order by the way).
And feel free to ignore the elitists. Having better glass will never make you the better photographer.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
That last statement should be "more expensive glass", not "better glass."
There is a diminishing return as you pay more for a lens. High end Nikkor optics tend to be firmly planted in the diminishing return area. For instance, two years ago, I bought the 12-24mm f/4G DX Nikkor: a great lens and probably still the best of the four (Nikkor, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina).
Had I had a chance to do-over (as in purchase for the first time right now), I’d have saved half my money and gotten the Tokina 12-24mm f/4. For me, the marginal extra build-quality of the Nikkor isn’t worth what I paid.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I agree it pays to compare. I have both a Nikon 70-300mm & a Quantaray 70-300mm. You cannot tell the difference in the pictures. For budget lenses brand is not the most important consideration.
On the other hand the professional range lenses' build quality goes to Nikon. I can't see a real competitor (non-Nikon) to my 17-35mm 2.8 in its focal length.
When I look through photostreams on flickr I see excellent photos from many different lens and camera manufacturers. A great photo starts with a great eye for beauty and ends with knowing how to use the equipment you have to its greatest potential.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Would I need any add-on or anything to use the off-brand lenses?
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And how could I tell which can be used with Nikons, Canons, both? How do I tell which use -- my favored crutch until I develop my compositional eye -- the autofocus? Which alphabet soup designations should I look out for?
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
some off brand lenses are good, some aren't. Same with even nikon or canon lenses. My sigma 150 2.8 for example is stellar
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
And how do I tell which would work on my D50, specifically? I just got into this photography thing, and I'm ready to make my next big purchases, but I'm overcome with the jargon.
I think I'm doing well enough on my artistic eye, but I'm having more problems with letters and numbers and technicalities.
I hope triple-posting like this doesn't mark me n00b/anathema. These are really seperate questions.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No add-ons will needed. Get a solid affordable zoom like the Tamron 18-200 until you get used to the capabilities. Quantaray at Ritz is also a Tamron lens but is under $400 dollars. Just get the one that says made for Nikon.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
benabaxter: Every lens that says for Nikon and has autofocus will be just fine. Tamron makes some very good ones, so does tokina and sigma.
What focal range are you thinking about? And what's your budget?
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I'm planning on getting a 50 mm f/1.8 for low light shots, and I've got the 18-55 kit lens, but that has a f/3.5 at the 18 end.
I need my lens past that for preferably less than $200, but at most $400. I'd prefer a lens with substantial zoom, starting at something longer than the 55 end of the kit lens. I'm looking at a 70-300mm, as someone above suggested, but I haven't decided a brand yet.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If you want great sharpness, as you said in your first reply, you will probably need to spend more than $200, or even $400 if you want anyting past 100mm. You can get great results from those lenses, but the light needs to be good.
I'd suggest going to a good camera shop to talk to someone and try them out.
A year ago, I started with the Tamron 18-200. It's been a decent starting lens, but I want something faster and sharper now.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
In the sub 400 range find a sharp telezoom will be tricky.
New:
Nikon 70-300G
Sigma 70-300 APO
Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro
All are 4-5.6 designs so not really fast. Both the Sigma and the Tamron feature a 1:2 macro. The nikon has the nicest bokeh (unsharp areas) of the three. All need to be stopped down to about f7.1 to get decent sharpness above 200mm. Don't expect wonders beyond 260mm.
Other alternative would be a used Nikon 70-210 4-5.6 or even a 70-210 f4 which is reputedly very sharp but has a rather slow AF.
When buying used beware of the older non-apo sigma lenses, the ones I've handled were pretty sorry lenses.
If you can spend a bit more look at a 70-300/4-5.6 D ED used. If you can spend even more than that start looking for a used NIKON AF 80-200 / 2,8 D ED
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There may be some disagreement with the following statement but I am going to try to make it generalized: the biggest difference between Nikon and third party lenses--aside from build quality--is slightly better performance at wide open apertures. And Nikon tends to make faster lenses than third party providers, especially in the telephoto range. And until recently only Nikon had lenses with VR. For amateur use, third party lenses are a great alternative. If you are a pro that is being paid to shoot something that will be blown up to the size of a billboard, the cost of the best lens available is a small part of his annual operating budget. Remember, Nikon has to make equipment that satisfies the needs of professional photographers first.
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Im with anyone in here that thinks nikkor kills third party and is the only choice. people who dont care about cost and care about the best quality product second to the best quality glass. Which is nikkor! nikon is second 3rd party are well 3rd.
If you disagree I dont want to hear it. Im like that litttle kid whos made up his mind ; )
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I "play" with third party lenses but for my sharp photos that I can hang on someones wall I come back to Nikon. I was hooked once I got my first photos from my 17-35mm 2.8... Th e reflections off the water being nearly as sharp as the actual subject was amazing to me. Extra wide in the mountains with the 12-24 is always a thrill...
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@benabaxter: If you are thinking of a 50mm f/1.8 then get the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AF or 50mm f/1.8D AF. No 3rd party is going to compete with a $100 Nikkor.
If you are thinking of getting an old lens. One of the hazards of using the most venerable mount in 35mm photography is that you need a chart to navigate the minefield.
Hope this helps.
Originally posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
tychay edited this topic 66 months ago.
|
|
You should always buy the most expensive brand elite optics, even if you are not gonna need the extreme sharpness of them. Cause you can always brag over internet about owning them and that's always worth the money you pay for them.
Seriously though. What j_wijnands listed in the 1st part of his post is what you should be looking for. Start with cheaper optics and once you have learned more about technical and creative sides about photography and have decided that it's worth investing money into it then go for the professional quality. Off-brand doesn't automatically mean bad.
Lol, Amazon...
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've got all the way to the bottom of the thread and no-one has advised you to stay away from zooms and use primes as much as possible!
I tend to start with the premise that ALL zooms suck - some just suck less than others.
If you are really interested in image quality and want to maximise sharpness and contrast - use a prime.
If you ever want to shoot into the light - use a prime.
If you feel you need the "convenience" of a zoom - buy a P&S
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Photopath, I don't think that's really accurate anymore. Certainly in decades past it was true, but Nikon and all the other manufacturers have poured a lot of resources into improving the performance of zoom lenses, and it's paid off.
Modern zooms, while not quite as sharp as primes (the margin is pretty small, and getting smaller), are good enough that unless you're shooting for huge print sizes, it's often not worth the extra bulk, weight, and cost of owning and carrying a bunch of primes.
Also, implying that someone who doesn't want to change lenses every shot (getting dust all over their sensor) can't handle or doesn't need the flexibility of a DSLR is preposterous. Equating a differing opinion with foolishness or ineptitude is childish and kinda repulsive.
Between losing the shot and being assured of how good my lens is, I'll take the small hit of sharpness and contrast in exchange for the irreproducible image.
Photography is about making images, not obsessing about equipment. I think you're thinking of golf.
Originally posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
okto edited this topic 66 months ago.
|
|
I like my quantaray 70-300 sub $200.00 lens, but I wouldn't reccommend buying it the way I did: Walked in off the street and bought the first lens the guy behind the counter reccommended without knowing the first thing about what to look for.
(Now I know the first thing...but that's about all). ')
Anyway, this was taken with my quantaray. I think it's pretty sharp.
farm1.static.flickr.com/166/331936843_6c6f2a2cf1_o.jpg
Posted 66 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
For some great information on what you should buy consult Ken Rockwell's Suggested Lens for Digital SLRs.
Originally posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
Sam Scholes (a group admin) edited this topic 65 months ago.
|
|
@sam_ : Except for about half that stuff is garbage.
Right from point #1.
There is nothing wrong with buying MF lenses for your nikon. It's a GREAT and CHEAP way to get good glass for your camera. You can pick up excellent lenses for as little as $25 on eBay.
Then he goes on to talk about the 18 - 200 VR and how it's the last lens you'll ever need. There are several threads in this forum and other nikon forums that discuss this topic. My personal opinion (and that is what is) is that it's a giant waste of money. I agree with photopath. Want a zoom? Buy a P&S (the big ones with the good lenses). There are the few exceptions. 17-35mm f/2.8D, 70-200mm f/2.8G VR being a few. Keep in mind that I'm also into low light photography a lot. An area where zoom lenses just don't cut it.
And of course #3. Don't buy primes except for special needs.
Again, this I guess is preference. But I'd much rather have my 35mm f/1.4 and NO other lens, than carry around the 18-200mm. One is versatile in the day time over a wide range of focal lengths (if distortion is not an issue for you). The other is usable in almost any lighting condition. Oh, and all those cheap lenses from point #1 are fixed focal length.
@okto: "Photography is about making images, not obsessing about equipment. I think you're thinking of golf."
You're partially right. I can be very impressed with what someone takes with their low end P&S camera. But you don't use a P&S do you? Sure maybe there is a difference between "Obsessing" and "Talking about". It's a fine line though.
There is a certain point that the equipment means getting the shot or not. Just like you need zooms so you don't loose the shot when you have to switch a lens, I don't use zooms because they're too slow (except for the most expensive ones). To each there own it seems.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You also might want to think of resale value. A Nikon lense is always worth more in the used market.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
To the original question.
I don't own any third party lenses.
Here is several reasons why.
1. I chose my camera system way before digital. Back then, you chose your camera system based on the lenses, not the body. Things have changed.
2. I do not like the feel of Sigma or Tamron lenses. Tokina are ok, but not available in Canada.
3. Resale value. I got slammed for this in another group. But this is an important part. My photography needs evolve. As they do, I can get rid of lenses I no longer use, and get ones that I do. Nikkors sell for proportionally more than they cost over the Sigmas.
Why would I get an off brand lens?
When Nikon doesn't offer one. The 10-20mm and 30mm f/1.4 Sigmas are prime examples. I also here the 12-24mm Full Frame sigma is rather amazing.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I can also add when not to buy a high end high priced lens or camera, what are you useing it for? Snapshots, for fun or is it a money making tool? If it is your profession then you do need the best tool for the job. If anything go out shoot what you have practice. Get better and have fun!!!!
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@tracer.ca: I'm not here to defend Ken Rockwell's opinions but bear in mind that the views expressed on this web site are just that, opinions. I believe he offers sound advice and often refer to his web site for information. Ken Rockwell has been working as a professional photographer for years. He has an extensive knowledge of photography and has personally tried just about every piece of equipment out there.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'll pipe in with my two cents on the off-brand subject. I'd like to start with a couple of observations that I've been factoring into the purchase decisions for my own hardware.
First, I'm not purchasing anything auto-focus with the old screw drive connection. With the release of the D40 its pretty clear that our AF lenses might not be AF on a new body. By sticking with the AF-S lenses I'm assured the maximum compatibility down the road. Of the third party glass, only the Sigma HSM has the built-in motors as far as I know. They've had compatibility issues in the past but have been good about fixing the problem once they found it.
Second, we're at the point where the bodies are replaced on a regular basis. I'm spending the money on good glass that will last me for decades. I can stand to use a little bit less camera till I get the glass up to speed. That doesn't necessarily mean spending more money, but does sometimes mean sacrificing the convenience of one lens for the image or build quality of another. Let's face it -- all lenses from the same manufacturer are not created equal.
I don't personally have a problem with off-brand products, but tend to stick with the Nikon glass when possible as I feel they have the best performance and handling for the price. On previous systems I've picked up Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma lenses. Outside of the terrible luck with Sigma, the others have been wonderful lenses and still work today in the hands of the folks they've been passed down to. (All three of the Sigmas died horrible deaths and never produced a quality image.) I currently own all Nikkor lenses with the exception of the 30mm from Sigma and I have the 25mm Zeiss on order. In both cases Nikon doesn't have a lens to fill that need or the closest lenses don't produce the image quality on the DX sensors. However, the Sigma 30mm doesn't get much use as even the cheap 24-85mm f/3.5 has less distortion (though that's been passed down to the secondary body since I picked-up the 17-55mm DX). I hate to admit it, but of the gear I've purchased over the last 5 years I have only one regret -- that Sigma 30mm.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
If I had to choose between a third party lens and a Nikon lens in the same focal length, I would hold out for the Nikon. Trusted professionals overwhelmingly recommend Nikon over third party lenses where they have the equivalent focal lengths - I'll take their advice.
Having said that, I don't think there is anything wrong with buying a third party lens where there is a gap in the Nikon lineup. If you need a focal length that Nikon doesn't offer it, I say go for it. I just ordered the Sigma 10-20 myself. You can always replace the lens with a Nikon version when it comes out.
In the end lenses are just tools and 99% of the people looking at your next great image is not going to care if it was made with a Nikon or Tokina.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@sam_: "Ken Rockwell has been working as a professional photographer for years."
I think we found the problem. Ken Rockwell is not a professional photographer (unless you consider someone who has gotten paid on the occasion a pro). He's a video and sound engineer that used to work for a Television studio. Photography was his hobby. He started making his website because friends of his would ask him his opinion and he was sick of having to repeat himself. So he started his website. Before he knew it, he was making enough money on the website to have that as his only job.
This information is now mostly gone from his "About Me" page though.
There is a lot of useful information on his site. It's mostly on the technical side though. Even his highly "objective" looking lens reviews are sometimes complete garbage, like his 50mm lens comparison.
@northshore boy: Very well Said.
Posted 65 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
Nikon DSLR Users /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to Nikon DSLR Users discussion threads
