3rd party 18-200s


Status
Not open for further replies.

aq12345

New Member
Nov 19, 2006
185
0
0
#1
why are they so cheap? Compared to Nikon, the sigma is half the price
Does this mean....VR and slighty bigger max apperture costs $600?
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#4
2 more point... its a Nikkor and also SWM equipped. :bsmilie:
anyway y surprise by that? if you do compare the sigma 18-50, tamron 17-50, nikkor 17-55. the nikkor gives a pretty useless 5mm extra and SWM but cost nearly 3.5x that of the tamron...
 

posez

New Member
Mar 23, 2007
283
0
0
#5
Image quality and build quality - a world of a differemce.

VR is also really, really useful.

finally, who would want to shoot at 6.3 at 200mm? 5.6 is really dark already :) and without VR too! You will get really difficult to control shots!
 

Adelfin

New Member
Dec 18, 2005
495
0
0
32
Earth
#7
never look at it based on specs alone.. if not anyone can make their own lens and say they got a winner with ultra-zoom and big aperture...

alot of other things go into it.. like optical quality (type of lenses, how well they perform, flare resistance, among others), how well the auto-focus works, sharpness, resolving power, handling, build, etc... VR is very useful esp since the lens goes into the telephoto range... and VR systems are not cheap, just like the Canon ones.. so u have to expect this kind of price difference...

in short.. never look at it based on numbers alone.. usually what u pay is what u get...
 

aq12345

New Member
Nov 19, 2006
185
0
0
#8
Well...ok, but does the build quality differ by miles?:think:
 

devilry

New Member
Feb 16, 2006
986
3
0
#9
Well...ok, but does the build quality differ by miles?:think:
build quality not really differ by miles, in fact 3rd party makers like tokina make SUPERB BUILT lens... by superb it means it can match or win nikon or canon.

99% of the time, the MAIN difference is in the quality of the image. somehow canon and nikon got some pretty good chemical or watever that they use to make their lens so that they give very good colour, contrast and sharpness.
 

cichlid

Senior Member
Dec 2, 2006
5,074
4
38
S'pore
#12
build quality not really differ by miles, in fact 3rd party makers like tokina make SUPERB BUILT lens... by superb it means it can match or win nikon or canon.

99% of the time, the MAIN difference is in the quality of the image. somehow canon and nikon got some pretty good chemical or watever that they use to make their lens so that they give very good colour, contrast and sharpness.
Agree with what u mentioned about Tokina. Although i even haven't touch one yet, I am really impressed by the physical outlook of Tokina lenses. If they bother to have such nice, solid design, I think their optics must be good too...
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#13
Agree with what u mentioned about Tokina. Although i even haven't touch one yet, I am really impressed by the physical outlook of Tokina lenses. If they bother to have such nice, solid design, I think their optics must be good too...
actually going by today, 3rd party optic ain't really inferior to the "original" equiv... in fact some even surpass tho some are not as good...
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#14
actually its still the same... sigma got their APO, tokina i dono, tamron got LD... its just that people always mention the good about N/C but not 3rd party
Honestly speaking i do not find Sigma's APO fantastic. Tamron's LD is not bad but still lacks the quality from Canon and Nikon.
 

kairospix

New Member
Mar 28, 2007
384
0
0
Singapore
#15
Image quality and build quality - a world of a differemce.

VR is also really, really useful.

finally, who would want to shoot at 6.3 at 200mm? 5.6 is really dark already :) and without VR too! You will get really difficult to control shots!
i second tt... the Nikon VR is useful and at f6.3... dark...

so if you can spare the molah... get the Nikon one :thumbsup:
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#16
Honestly speaking i do not find Sigma's APO fantastic. Tamron's LD is not bad but still lacks the quality from Canon and Nikon.
it depends alot on the lens, there are some APO lens that are superb like 300-800, 70-300, 50-500, 50-150... etc. all of them are APO lenses and some of the quality even surpass nikon/canon equiv if there is any... :bsmilie:
 

cichlid

Senior Member
Dec 2, 2006
5,074
4
38
S'pore
#17
it depends alot on the lens, there are some APO lens that are superb like 300-800, 70-300, 50-500, 50-150... etc. all of them are APO lenses and some of the quality even supass nikon/canon equiv if there is any... :bsmilie:
yah, check out the pics posted by xcpictorial at bns!
 

kairospix

New Member
Mar 28, 2007
384
0
0
Singapore
#20
why are they so cheap? Compared to Nikon, the sigma is half the price
Does this mean....VR and slighty bigger max apperture costs $600?
the VR is VR II i think... new technology sure will mean higher price... further more it's native brand mah so you paying for the brand too...

also i heard original brand still at better prices later than 3rd party lens
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom