3rd Party Lenses
- Thread starter Fluorite
- Start date
- Status
beggars are no choosers. those with no $$ like me cant afford original stuff. so far ive used tamron and sigma. never had a lemon. never had a need to service. very pleased with results till now.
very happy with my recently purchased sigma 24-70 f2.8EX DG MACRO!
cheap and good! very sharp and with contrasty colours in the images produced!
cheap and good! very sharp and with contrasty colours in the images produced!
Isaiahfortythirtyone said:
happy to hear that. when i first got my tamron 28-75, it's was such a joy to because the focusing speed was faster than the lenses i had. image quality is also very good. i guess u won't need to visit the service centre unless u dropped ur lens or something.
I used to be a 3rd party supporter myself.. that is until I bought my first Canon normal (100mm F2.8 Macro) and L (135mm F2 L) lens. The difference was big enough to get me hooked on original (unfortunately L) lenses. The difference is not so much in sharpness but rather in build quality (even compared to Sigma EX), AF (even compared to Sigma HSM), colour (my Tamron 28-75 looks flat, Sigma is yellowish) and contrast.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 3rd party is terrible and CMI but there is a noticeable difference although it might not always be worth the price premium. If you can't afford the originals, the 3rd party ones can still give you great results (I still regularly use my Bigma).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that 3rd party is terrible and CMI but there is a noticeable difference although it might not always be worth the price premium. If you can't afford the originals, the 3rd party ones can still give you great results (I still regularly use my Bigma).
I heard that many 3rd party brands use plastics for the aspheres in the lens due to cost effectiveness and that plastics are easier to mould. Do Nikon/Canon use plastics too?
Any opinions on using plastics which are supposed to be relatively inferior. Anyone who feels plastics have many advantages over glass, do voice them out here, too.
Any opinions on using plastics which are supposed to be relatively inferior. Anyone who feels plastics have many advantages over glass, do voice them out here, too.
i have 3 3rd party lenses, all tokinas
they are now almost 15 years old already, never had to service them.
served me well all these years, and still gives me stunning results.
you got to know your lens and what they can and cannot do.
and make the most of them.
are you thinking of buying some?
they are now almost 15 years old already, never had to service them.
served me well all these years, and still gives me stunning results.
you got to know your lens and what they can and cannot do.
and make the most of them.
are you thinking of buying some?
Actually I am not exactly experiencing any issues with my Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG MACRO except back focussing (correctable) and some inconsistency in focussing (sent back to Japan). Actually it isnt that bad- Maybe it is because I am particular that all my lenses focus very close to DEAD spot on.
But I read about soft image quality, lens fogging.... Frighten me only.
But I read about soft image quality, lens fogging.... Frighten me only.
I using tamron lenses ...good result ...no problem for me...
Is how you take care of them...both will still spoil if you drop it from a height...:bsmilie:
Is how you take care of them...both will still spoil if you drop it from a height...:bsmilie:
I've been using Tokina AT-X Pro 1 AF 28-70mm F/2.6 - 2.8 for more than 10 yrs n hav had no problems at all till today. Never even had it sent for any servicing.
There're good and bad lenses from every manufacturer. Just get the ones that meet your budget and needs.
But Sigma lenses always seem tempting. They usually have what I want for a lower cost. I have yet to encounter paint peeling off (i dun wish to) so I still sort of trust Sigma. Just that after the hear say about inferior optical elements (I still doubt this).
- Status
