Is 1st party lenses(Nikon, Canon) really better than their 3rd party equivalents?

[Freed]

Is 1st party lenses(Nikon, Canon) really better than their 3rd party equivalents, eg Tokina, Tamron?

I know this is what most, if not all says, but to what extent is it true?

Dun flame me, I am just wondering and considering my next purchase.

[vince]

Originally Posted by Freed Is 1st party lenses(Nikon, Canon) really better than their 3rd party equivalents, eg Tokina, Tamron? I know this is what most, if not all says, but to what extent is it true? Dun flame me, I am just wondering and considering my next purchase.

Firstly, my advice to you is: "Buy what you can afford"

Third party lenses are cheaper for a reason. I've had several third party lenses and on occasion, they don't quite measure up to the camera manufacturer's lens image quality. That said however, it also depends on the lens in question. Some third party manufacturers are better at making certain lenses than others.

On top of that, QC issn't always the same. Some lenses of the same type from the same manufacturer have better quality than others.

Best is, try out both, particularly if you can afford the prices. However, decide on which one you're happy to live with; i.e. cheaper lens or better quality.

[victor]

Originally Posted by Freed Is 1st party lenses(Nikon, Canon) really better than their 3rd party equivalents, eg Tokina, Tamron? I know this is what most, if not all says, but to what extent is it true? Dun flame me, I am just wondering and considering my next purchase.

I think for most amateurs, we cannot really tell the slight diff betwn originals and some highly rated 3rd parties eg Sigma 70-200 f2.8. some says the colors of the original lenses are more real but colors are subjective issues. some people prefers a certain film to others precisely becos they like certain colors rendered by their fav film.

[goering]

i find this generally true .. my best shots were all taken using originals. but i guess there are a number of well made lenses by 3rd party manuf.

for example the 15mm sigma fisheye is very well regarded and from what i have read, optical quality is not too different from the Canon one. the canon one costs almost $1,300 so it's hard to justify this purchase (at least for me) ..

some reasons why people prefer to pay for originals

a) some 3rd party manuf notably sigma have compatibilty issues.

b) resale value of 3rd party manuf generally not as good as original

c) generally better AF

d) Stabilisation technologies like IS (Image stabilisation)

e) generally quieter esp for the expensive ones

[Terence]

I own a mix of Canon and third party lenses. All were chosen based on their performance except for my Sigma 15mm FE which I bought due to cost reasons.

I chose the Tamron 24-135SP over the Canon EF 28-135 IS after putting both lenses through identical test shots. I felt the Tamron offered better overall quality, in terms of its results and build. It was also much better value for money.

Choose what you think best fits your needs and shooting style. It would be helpful if you had the lens to try out for a couple of days before deciding to buy. Nothing like having hands on experience.

[mpenza]

mine's a mix as well; have a tamron 28-200 XR and a sigma 70-300 in addition to canon primes/macro (35, 50, 100) and kit lens (no L lenses yet but the primes give very good quality images). The 2 3rd party lenses are better rated than Canon equivalent ones and are within my budget.

[clive]

for what i have gone thru, i say yes, originals are better in every aspect except the price and camouflagebility

in addition, originals may also act as a placebo (psychologically) so that u can sleep peacefully ans shoot happily for the rest of your life.