Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92

Thread: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    sure it is better, but is it worth it? since you are paying so much more.

    there is nothing wrong with me to state my opinion. if it was wrong, PROVE ME WRONG ! dont talk **** like what some people here did.
    Justifiable to who? You?

    Okay. Tell us your gross monthly income, savings and expenditure. We'll then research about your shooting and then we'll give you an accurate and unbiased result.

    Come on, to me, it's justifiable because I'm guaranteed that it will work when I get it, and when it stops working, it's a guarantee that it can be fixed. And if something screws up, it's Canon's fault-- no other company.

    So to me, the added advantage in image quality/built/guarantee is worth it. What about to you? That's for you to decide, and for us to not know.
    Our pictures are our footprints. Itís the best way to tell people we were here - JoeMcnally | Flickr

  2. #22

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by LifeInMacro View Post
    Seriously camerax, a lot of us here don't really know what are you trying to find out! Or are you just simply expressing your opinions and preferences for 3rd party lenses in the form of a question if I'm reading between the lines???

    If you like 3rd party for the price, etc., just stick with it. I don't have a problem with people who do that; what matters is the end result, and I don't really care if anyone spends $100, $1,000, or $10,000 for a piece of glass.

    What I find offending is that you went on saying that if anyone buys an orignal manufacturer's lens, one has money to throw around. Please remember that how people spend their money is really their perrogative and it is not for anyone to comment.

    Need I say more?
    hey buddy, let me tell you something, what i am trying to find out is that WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH MONEY FOR NIKON WHILE YOU CAN GO for tamron/ sigma for much lower price.

    just state the reason and no need to get worked up. i am not criticizing you about how you spend your money. you can burn it, throw it away, i dont care. why get offended???






    Quote Originally Posted by AdyH View Post
    U sound like a 3rd party lens salesperson sia!

    Wat i tink is, there'l always b 3rd party cuz of price factor. 1st party less r expensive cuz they spend thousand or millions on research to come up with a particular lens. 3rd party tend to do reverse engineering fm those 1st party less. So their research spending is minimal or maybe even ZERO.

    Can they perform better or equal then 1st party? Sometimes can sometimes cannot. My principle is simple, get only 3rd party lens if 1st party doesnt have e lens within that range tat u wan. So far i cant find any range tat 1st party do not have. At least for my needs. Ya u can consider me lame, rich guy or watever u wanna call. I'm happy with e lens tat i have (1st party tat is). N maybe i have $ to burn. Same qs like y people buy 1st party batt instead of 3rd party batt, or accessories. Well e list goes on. E logic is e same.
    i am not trying to sell 3rd party lens . I just think they offer much greater value. IS IT WRONG for me to state my opinion??? if you disagree, hell, prove your point. matter fact, some people above propose the idea why we need to go for main party lens, and that is COMPATIBILITY ISSUE.

    this issue actually get me start to think, oh yeah maybe this is the best reason to go for main party. just relax buddy, this is the discussion at the end of the day. i am not trying to offend anybody here. just wanna learn by having some discussions with y'all

  3. #23

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    dude...meeting fist with fist is a surefire way to get bruised knuckles...tone down on the combative language please.
    おれのflickrださ

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    just relax buddy, this is the discussion at the end of the day. i am not trying to offend anybody here. just wanna learn by having some discussions with y'all
    I know that you're not trying to offend anybody, but your first post speaks of people who buy original lenses are rich. That sweeping statement, along with a post that screams arrogance, probably got everyone here worked up.
    Our pictures are our footprints. Itís the best way to tell people we were here - JoeMcnally | Flickr

  5. #25

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by shahrulesa View Post
    There's no guarantee that your thir party will work when you update camera. Some old sigma lens can't work with newer canon. Had exprience before where i get err99 with my 400D but the lens work fine with 350D.
    thanks man, this is actually the best reason so far.

    i never think about this before. and you really get me to start thinking about this issue. : )

  6. #26
    Member seefei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,708

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    LOL, you guys are such a fan huh. hell, just because i stated my opinion about third party value, everybody was worked up.

    look, there is nobody denying the fact that main party is BETTER than third parrty,

    but what i am trying to find out actually is that "is it worth it though"??

    sure it is better, but is it worth it? since you are paying so much more.

    there is nothing wrong with me to state my opinion. if it was wrong, PROVE ME WRONG ! dont talk **** like what some people here did.

    matter fact, from this discussion, I JUST PICKED UP ONE STRONG REASON TO go for first party. and thats COMPATIBILITY ISSUE. but i still not sure about the pics quality.
    you really have the last laugh to get everyone worked up liddat! guess nobody answered your question whether 1st or 3rd party lens is "value" for money. everyone just saying 1st party is better, which i think you not denying

    that said, i guess it is better for you to ask the same question in a more neutral manner like stating your need and the best value for your pocket size dont have to mention brand name and polarize the whole thread.

    this forum exist becos we are passionate about our hobby and equipment. dont take everyone for a ride by asking sensible question in a provocative manner. there are better ways to elicit an answer.

    dont forget, although amateur, we are photographers too!!
    Last edited by seefei; 20th October 2008 at 11:44 PM.
    shoot to remember. flickr

  7. #27
    Senior Member Leong23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    within myself
    Posts
    3,186

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    LOL, you guys are such a fan huh. hell, just because i stated my opinion about third party value, everybody was worked up.

    look, there is nobody denying the fact that main party is BETTER than third parrty,

    but what i am trying to find out actually is that "is it worth it though"??

    sure it is better, but is it worth it? since you are paying so much more.

    there is nothing wrong with me to state my opinion. if it was wrong, PROVE ME WRONG ! dont talk **** like what some people here did.

    matter fact, from this discussion, I JUST PICKED UP ONE STRONG REASON TO go for first party. and thats COMPATIBILITY ISSUE. but i still not sure about the pics quality.
    Third party lens very very good, just like this shots taken by 3rd party lens (CZ 100mm f/2) The price also very very good.


  8. #28

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by Headshotzx View Post
    I know that you're not trying to offend anybody, but your first post speaks of people who buy original lenses are rich. That sweeping statement, along with a post that screams arrogance, probably got everyone here worked up.
    arrogance??? how come??? dude, really, i dont get it.

    if i said, y'all are crap. none of you use this lens like what i use here. or y'all sucks because you cant take pics like me. thats what you call arrogance.

    i am not trying to be arrogant here. i really welcome differences. i think difference in point of view is the one that makes us learn from each other.

    like the post above, mentioning about compatibility issue, THAT I TOOK IT. never aware of that issue before. really, i am just trying to understand more, why NIKON OR CANON?

    like i said, i am not always correct. i can be wrong, and if i was wrong, then tell me.

    and really, am i wrong to say that somebody who bought nikon is pretty much get money to blow??? its expensive dude. you may be richer than me, thats good for you. i am not jealous.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default Once upon a time...

    ...I also thought the same way.

    If a Sigma is 1/3 the price of an original-brand lens, does that meant the original-brand lens is 3x as superior? The of course, there's the old "it's the photographer, not the equipment" arguement. I always print 4R only, why do I need a super good lens??? Kit lens will do, what! (And technically, that is true)

    Then one fine day, I itchy backside go and ask to demo a certain Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4. At that time, it cost SGD2499, which was MAD expensive by ANY standard. But once you hold it, use it, and see the kind of images it can produce, I told myself that I definitely WANTED one. Yup, this is the kind of "poisoning" that people here talk about. And no, I am not one of those rich fellas - the lens costs more than my monthly pay! Even though I managed to get it substantially cheaper from overseas, SGD1800 was still for me a bloody huge amount to pay.

    What more, this lens, I use it maybe about 1% of the time only. But is it worth it? "Logically", no. But my gut instincts tell me that it is worth every cent! No regrets.

    So therefore, "worth", my friend, is totally subjective.

    Another example:

    The latest Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM-II, S$1650.
    A second-hand Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 APO HS G, a decade-old design, S$1800.

    To me, the Sigma, although cheaper, wouldn't have been "worth it" in comparison.

    One unique exception could be the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It's supposedly better than original brand lenses - but at the same time, more expensive!
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  10. #30

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    thanks man, this is actually the best reason so far.

    i never think about this before. and you really get me to start thinking about this issue. : )
    others stated a reason: quality. Your position? "it's lame" to buy original and Canon and Nikon "not worth". And then you ask the others to prove that you are wrong. No one said you are wrong. And no one got "worked up" except you who was already worked up on the very fact that others spend more than you would like to on lenses, in the very first post, with patronizing language such as calling buying original "lame".

    Why do you shoot SLR? P&S can also take photos. BECAUSE, P&S don't deliver your quality.
    Are you we raring a 10$ trouser and 15$ shirt from little India streets right now? I suspect not and I suspect the reason is that they don't deliver your quality.

    If you think YOUR price/quality point only justifies third party lenses, by all means buy them and let the others buy what they think better. If you ask opinions from others, then NO NEED TO GET WORKED UP on answers.
    Last edited by estel; 20th October 2008 at 11:55 PM.

  11. #31

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by seefei View Post
    you really have the last laugh to get everyone worked up liddat! guess nobody answered your question whether 1st or 3rd party lens is "value" for money. everyone just saying 1st party is better, which i think you not denying

    that said, i guess it is better for you to ask the same question in a more neutral manner like stating your need and the best value for your pocket size dont have to mention brand name and polarize the whole thread.

    this forum exist becos we are passionate about our hobby and equipment. dont take everyone for a ride by asking sensible question in a provocative manner. there are better ways to elicit an answer.

    dont forget, although amateur, we are photographers too!!

    well , actually that compatibility issue get me to start thinking that maybe its worth it after all to go for main party lens. : )

    dude, i am passionate about this too. : )

    okay everybody, i formally want to apologize if i offend you in any ways. what i really want to find out, is that why pay much more for nikon glass since according to many reviews in internet , they claim that third party lens can produce ALMOST the same quality pics like main party.

    ex: thom hogan says that TAMRON 90 beats nikon 105mm VR by just lil bit.

    lot of people also said that it has better bokeh.

    again guys, i am not attacking anybody here.

  12. #32

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    3rd party is good value for money but if you're unlucky your 3rd party lens will just refuse to work on a real camera. I had to sell off a sigma because it no longer works on digital. Worked great on film though....

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    i really think its kind of lame actually to go for nikon or canon lens while you can get third party lens like sigma or tamron for MUCH LESS price.
    seriously, i dont know why people want to throw so much money for main party lens.
    but i have to say, the value of main party sucks. i think if you want to get the best bang for the bucks, go for third party,
    nikon or canon is for rich people who get money to blow.
    I call that arrogance.

    I also really welcome differences-- like, mind telling us why you have to stick with your aggressive attitude?

    Anyway, with regards to the topic: It's already been said- you get what you pay for. If you have X amount of money, use it for a tamron. If you have X+S$1k, use it for a Canon / Nikon for the advantages they offer.
    Our pictures are our footprints. Itís the best way to tell people we were here - JoeMcnally | Flickr

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    2,196

    Default And another thing...

    ...when people call you arrogant, and you react in the way you do, insisting that you aren't, it's hard to call you anything else but that. (or maybe childish?)

    Re-examine your first post, do a bit of self-reflection and learn to eat a bit of humble pie. We all make mistakes, but it takes real balls to admit to doing so. So please, don't just barge in here and start teaching your grandfather how to suck eggs.
    Sony Alpha system user. www.pbase.com/synapseman

  15. #35
    Senior Member Leong23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    within myself
    Posts
    3,186

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    okay everybody, i formally want to apologize if i offend you in any ways. what i really want to find out, is that why pay much more for nikon glass since according to many reviews in internet , they claim that third party lens can produce ALMOST the same quality pics like main party.

    ex: thom hogan says that TAMRON 90 beats nikon 105mm VR by just lil bit.
    Now what you getting from this thread are live review from internet.

  16. #36

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    arrogance??? how come??? dude, really, i dont get it.

    if i said, y'all are crap. none of you use this lens like what i use here. or y'all sucks because you cant take pics like me. thats what you call arrogance.

    i am not trying to be arrogant here. i really welcome differences. i think difference in point of view is the one that makes us learn from each other.

    like the post above, mentioning about compatibility issue, THAT I TOOK IT. never aware of that issue before. really, i am just trying to understand more, why NIKON OR CANON?

    like i said, i am not always correct. i can be wrong, and if i was wrong, then tell me.

    and really, am i wrong to say that somebody who bought nikon is pretty much get money to blow??? its expensive dude. you may be richer than me, thats good for you. i am not jealous.
    Different people have different priorities in life. To some, their interest is in photography so thay want to get the best that money can buy. To others like myself, I prefer to spend my money more sensibly. Meaning if the 3rd party is 50% cheaper than the Canon lens but performs to 80% or more of the Canon lens, then I would buy the 3rd party lens.

    I wouldn't say that people who buy Canon or Nikon lenses are blowing their money. It's their money and they can spend it any way they like. I for one prefer to spend $30K on a vacation than $30K on Canon L lenses.

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by teebs View Post
    Different people have different priorities in life. To some, their interest is in photography so thay want to get the best that money can buy. To others like myself, I prefer to spend my money more sensibly. Meaning if the 3rd party is 50% cheaper than the Canon lens but performs to 80% or more of the Canon lens, then I would buy the 3rd party lens.

    I wouldn't say that people who buy Canon or Nikon lenses are blowing their money. It's their money and they can spend it any way they like. I for one prefer to spend $30K on a vacation than $30K on Canon L lenses.
    Ups for the best answer to the thread. Well said.

    EDIT: Did you know? Some enthusiasts shoot with 2 x 1D mark3 cameras, f/2.8 trinity lenses, 300mm f/2.8 to 600mm f/4 lenses just because they can.
    Last edited by Headshotzx; 21st October 2008 at 12:00 AM.
    Our pictures are our footprints. Itís the best way to tell people we were here - JoeMcnally | Flickr

  18. #38

    Default Re: And another thing...

    Quote Originally Posted by synapseman View Post
    ...when people call you arrogant, and you react in the way you do, insisting that you aren't, it's hard to call you anything else but that. (or maybe childish?)

    Re-examine your first post, do a bit of self-reflection and learn to eat a bit of humble pie. We all make mistakes, but it takes real balls to admit to doing so. So please, don't just barge in here and start teaching your grandfather how to suck eggs.
    read my post above. i already aplogized if i offend anybody here in anyway. thats not enough??

    my first post, maybe it sounds so aggressive. and i said sorry, not enough?

  19. #39

    Default Re: third party vs main party (canon, nikon)

    Quote Originally Posted by Headshotzx View Post
    Ups for the best answer to the thread. Well said.

    EDIT: Did you know? Some enthusiasts shoot with 2 x 1D mark3 cameras, f/2.8 trinity lenses, 300mm f/2.8 to 600mm f/4 lenses just because they can.
    Reporter: why would you want to jump out of a moving plane 40 000 ft in the air using a small piece of cloth attached to ur bag?
    daredevil: ...because I can!
    おれのflickrださ

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    5,812

    Default Re: And another thing...

    Quote Originally Posted by camerax View Post
    read my post above. i already aplogized if i offend anybody here in anyway. thats not enough??

    my first post, maybe it sounds so aggressive. and i said sorry, not enough?
    Yeah. Not enough. Your "not enough"s just made you look worse off than before. Come on la, this thread is so fast paced, maybe he couldn't read it? I only read your apology the second time when I looked through the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shiruikage View Post
    Reporter: why would you want to jump out of a moving plane 40 000 ft in the air using a small piece of cloth attached to ur bag?
    daredevil: ...because I can!
    Amen. The things people do just because
    Last edited by Headshotzx; 21st October 2008 at 12:06 AM.
    Our pictures are our footprints. Itís the best way to tell people we were here - JoeMcnally | Flickr

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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