Third Party Lenses

[cdnvic]

I was listening to a photography podcast the other night, and while the hosts admitted little or no experience with third party lenses they laughed them off as inferior to the lenses from Canon and Nikon.

Personally, I've found some of the high end Sigma lenses to be the best glass you can buy for the dollar, and in the lower tiers the cheap Tamerons and Sigmas are superior to the cheap Canon lenses. Lumix have always had very nice optics, even if they only work with their own brands.

What's everyone's experience with third party brands?

[astral]

When I was younger and poorer I did use 3rd party lenses

All my current glass is Canon, but I am open to other suggestions

[hughden]

"Third Party" does rather depend what you are shooting with. I have a micro four thirds camera so my third party lenses currently include Voigtlander, Angenieux, Contax, Yashica and Schneider-Kreuznach!

[angiud]

My equipment includes 3 Sigma and 2 Canon, with one more Canon on its way ;-)

[cdnvic]

The Sigmas have much better warrantees for sure.

[tw25rw]

"I was listening to a photography podcast the other night, and while the hosts admitted little or no experience with third party lenses they laughed them off as inferior to the lenses from Canon and Nikon."

I think some people just see the name and don't realise that not all their lenses are as high quality as their pro quality kit.

[manarak]

I was listening to a photography podcast the other night, and while the hosts admitted little or no experience with third party lenses they laughed them off as inferior to the lenses from Canon and Nikon.

What a bunch of muppets - they have no experience with third party lenses but give their opinion...

Do they get some kind of payment from Nikon and Canon?

Look at the Tokina 11-16 for APC... there are many other examples of excellent third party lenses.

[Deserted]

Sigma has come a long way. It's true that they were once a source of ridicule, as were Tamron, but that's a long time ago now. They've both faired the transition to digital cameras quite well, and it is commonly known that there are some Sigma lenses which are on a par, perhaps even better than their more established conuterparts. I've been using their 10-22 for a few years now -no complaints whatsoever.

[angiud]

Some Sigma lens is better than Nikanon lenses

AFAIK the 150mm macro from Sigma, especially the new with image stabilizer, is of amazing quality, probably the best macro lens of its range (and sadly also very expensive).

Just an example

[rijit]

I'm now a total canon user, but in the past ive used sigma whilst ive found sigmas optics's acceptable, the casings haven't worn anywhere near as well as the cannon counter parts, and this defo reflects in the resale, canon r easier to sell and u get proportionately a better price.

[BangkokImages]

There is not going to be a 'right' answer unless you throw in/out some qualifiers. Such as cost. When "value" is added to the equation then you need to weigh your application as well. For instance, for a hobbyists third party lenses might not give you the qualities of a top quality OEM lens, but at maybe half the cost you can easily live with a third party lens. Especially if your budget dictates a third party lens or no lens at all.

I've shot several brands professionally, two Nikon and Canon over the last decade which would be the most current information, and if cost is no object then I've only found two third party lenses which are better performers than OEM lenses. And by better performers I consider sharpness, color rendition, out of focus character (bokeh), build quality, weather sealing, focus throw, focus override, filter sizes, hood effectiveness, etc, etc.. there's a lot to consider other than sharpness.

In general, third party lenses have improved over the last decade or so.. often a modern third party lens is better than a 10-15 year old OEM design lens. But in general, I find their build quality to be vastly inferior which leads to malfunctions and worse what I call "slippage", where a lens was nice and tight and performed well when new, but because of inferior design/build quality tolerances have opened up through use and now performs less well. This is very common. Not so germane for an occasional use hobbyist, but critical for full time pros who puts a lot of miles on their lenses.

I will tell you the two third party lenses I consider great values and perform better than OEM lenses (in both cases by virtue that the OEM doesn't make an equivilent) which I use all the time in Thailand especially, and then I'll mention a few which are great values and performers on their own.. but can't compete with OEM lenses at 2-3x the cost.

1. Sigma 12-24mm This IS the widest rectangular lens made for a 35mm full frame. And no, a 10mm on a crop frmae isn't wider even if it can be used on a full frame because it circle crops. This lens holds up very well, I get 4-5-6 hard years out fo them and I'm very tough on gear. It's one of my top 5 used lenses. It's also light and small, and performs superbly from F8 on. I use my 16-35 and 17-40 for F2.8-F5.6 needs such as events, weddings, etc. But for general landscape use where you have light, there's nothing like it.

2. Sigma 20mm F1.8. Small, light, cheap for a F1.8 lens. Very sharp, good color rendition, focuses fast enough for a 20mm, and makes great images. I find this very useful in caves, dark temple interiors, museums where flash isn't allowed, it's a lens I carry in my bag while in Thailand 100% of the time.

Some lenses I'd consider if I were a hobbyist on a budget.. the 70-200mm Sigma (the newest one, they've had 2-3 improved versions in the last 10-12 years and they keep getting better), is really good, fast focusing, sharp, nice bokeh.. hard to beat at any price, but the OEM's beat it significantly. Some of the newer midrange lenses in the 24-100mm category I'd consider. And many of the fisheyes I'd consider if I was doing 360 panos or images of that type where the wide view is required but you don't want to spend $3000 to try that genre..

Generally, I'd rather have one professional quality prime lens than 3-4 third party zooms or lenses of any type. A good example would be Stick. Maybe 70% of his images are shot with the Canon 35/1.4.. he makes excellent use of it and achieves images he couldn't get otherwise.

Knowing HOW to use one lens to it's full potential will yeild more keepers than 3-4 lenses of any type. A new lens is rarely the answer to images which aren't sharp (soft), or aren't providing great results. You can get great results out of most any lens. A pro lens just lets you get those results easier and they're a bit more great(er).. If you're not happy with your images, look everywhere else before considering a new lens as a remedy..

[Whale]

I have a single non Nikon lens in my bag and it has performed flawlessy and am very happy with it. It the Sigma 500 prime. I am very happy I bought it, even if the main driver was that I could not afford the Nikon 500.

There are also other areas were Nikon, I have to use Nikon as my example because its the only thing I know, has lagged behind and not developed in niche areas and 3rd parties have seen that. Nature field macro is the classic example with Nikon, Nikon has only two "decent" macro lens for field use and are both croaking old things. The 70-180 and the 200. The main offerings of the 60 and 105 are not very usable for field macro IMHO, neither is "long" enough. 3rd parties have really developed and updated their macro offerings as Anguid has mentioned above.

I also think that 3rd parties have been very good at seeing what is required and setting an acceptable price point. Whilst Nikon seems to prefer to offer me more and more "pro grade lens" lens that I dont want to pay for. What may be interesting is will these costly lens be more future proof than less costly lens with the advent of much higher resolution cameras. I dont know the answer but as most of my lens are quite old I may be screwed anyway.