third party vs main party (canon, nikon)


Status
Not open for further replies.

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#1
hi guys, i am very interested to know.

For beginner / amateur or even serious photographer (someone who is NOT PRO basically), do you think its wise to go for nikon/canon lens??

i am talking about regular people (with standard economy power).

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.

performance wise: lot of reviews even mention that sometimes, third party lens can outperform nikon or canon. even if they couldnt, their performance is below by just a bit.

take for example : macro tamron 90 vs nikon 105VR.

tammy beat nikon except on build quality. and the price is MUCH CHEAPER. i cant see any reason why get nikon here? VR is nice, but not worth 600 sing dollars imo.

tamron 17-50 2.8 vs nikon 17-55 2.8

again, tamron perform close to nikon and the price differ much. nikon can go up to 1100 USbucks AND tammy only priced around 400 dollars.

seriously, i dont know why people want to throw so much money for main party lens.

from my observation, the reasons are
1) lil bit of faster focusing
2) build quality
3) prestige

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.

what you guys think?? i wanna know what you think
 

Dec 2, 2006
811
0
0
41
#2
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.
 

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#3
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.
hmm, very interesting, may i know how old is your sigma lens? i mean, which year was it released?
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#4
hi guys, i am very interested to know.

For beginner / amateur or even serious photographer (someone who is NOT PRO basically), do you think its wise to go for nikon/canon lens??

i am talking about regular people (with standard economy power).

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.

performance wise: lot of reviews even mention that sometimes, third party lens can outperform nikon or canon. even if they couldnt, their performance is below by just a bit.

take for example : macro tamron 90 vs nikon 105VR.

tammy beat nikon except on build quality. and the price is MUCH CHEAPER. i cant see any reason why get nikon here? VR is nice, but not worth 600 sing dollars imo.

tamron 17-50 2.8 vs nikon 17-55 2.8

again, tamron perform close to nikon and the price differ much. nikon can go up to 1100 USbucks AND tammy only priced around 400 dollars.

seriously, i dont know why people want to throw so much money for main party lens.

from my observation, the reasons are
1) lil bit of faster focusing
2) build quality
3) prestige

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.

what you guys think?? i wanna know what you think
Dude... Have you shot with the Nikkors before??

If not, please watch those remarks carefully...

Nikkors have a REASON why they can command such prices. While I use a Tamron 90mm, I know and understand that I am a budget macro shooter and not one who goes for the quality. A Nikkor has better glass, build and compatibility to a Nikon camera than a 3rd party piece.

Also if you want to compare 12-24's there are 2 often compared. Tokina 12-24 vs Nikon 12-24. Both works quite comparably... but those critical of the shots would note that the Nikon colours are better and will give you less to work on during the post-processing...

So if you feel that this is not an issue to you, then by all means save on the cost of the lens and work on the picture slowly in PP. But to some, they have no time to do so and would pay the premium to have less to work on during the processing phase.
 

attap seed

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2006
588
0
16
41
#5
hi camerax

jus find u one of the more colorful character in this forum.

1st, u ask which is the SHARPEST lens in the universe.

then, u ask fast lens vs VR/IS.

later, fast lens vs kit lens.

now, third party vs original.

though u claim to be a newbie, u always ve some preconceived ideas (usually w all the facts and key terms mixed up) and ever ready to challenge ppl should their opinions differ from yours.


why not post some pic, so ppl can better gauge your standard, thereby help u find the truth faster?
 

Leong23

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2007
3,186
5
0
within myself
#6
hi camerax

jus find u one of the more colorful character in this forum.

1st, u ask which is the SHARPEST lens in the universe.

then, u ask fast lens vs VR/IS.

later, fast lens vs kit lens.

now, third party vs original.

though u claim to be a newbie, u always ve some preconceived ideas (usually w all the facts and key terms mixed up) and ever ready to challenge ppl should their opinions differ from yours.

why not post some pic, so ppl can better gauge your standard, thereby help u find the truth faster?
Ok, let me start off. :bsmilie:

Recent photo (uncropped) taken using Nikon Macro lens.



Not to be mean, but there are really some character like bro attap seed had mentioned giving very interesting comments.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#7
hmm, very interesting, may i know how old is your sigma lens? i mean, which year was it released?
If you need to know, I have a recently produced Sigma EX 24/1.8 which has front focusing problems the day I bought it and even though it has been sent back to Sigma for calibration, the front focus still exist and even with bodies like D300 having AF Fine tune, it could not correct the problem because it's different across the distance scale. And the severity of the front focus is also different with different bodies....... :angry:

Some people swear by 3rd party lenses (ZF).
 

Last edited:

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#8
I am sure you already know of the differences between the original vs third party lenses.

There is no wrong or right choosing one over the other. Why are you so upset ?

I know there are some rabid original manufacturer fanboys on our forum, but you do not need to be overly dismissal either.

Ryan
 

Headshotzx

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2007
5,841
0
36
25
Punggol
#9
Hey, lay off the arrogant attitude. You won't be taken very nicely here with these sorts of remarks.

Lets compare-

#1)
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (S$~550+) vs Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8IS (S$~1300+)
Sharpness: Similar
Contrast: Canon wins
AF Speed: Canon wins
AF accuracy: Canon wins when it's low-contrast (for some reason)
AF noise: Canon wins
Built: Canon wins
IS: Canon has
Price: Tamron wins

So, Canon wins 6 out of 8 points, with Tamron winning 1 out of 8, and 1 draw.
Factors that affect the image itself: Sharpness, Contrast, AF Speed/Accuracy and IS. Canon wins 4 out of 5.

#2)
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS
Sharpness: Canon
Contrast: Canon
AF Speed: Canon (USM)
AF Accuracy: Unknown to me
AF noise: Canon (USM)
Built: Draw
IS: Canon has
Price: Tamron wins

Canon: 5/7, Tamron 1/7, Draw 1/7
Image quality factors: Canon wins all

Anything else you want to know?

If you're talking about manual focus lenses like Carl Zeiss / Leica etc etc, sure, they'd win. But I do understand that you're referring to the lenses that AF, so Canon almost always wins when it comes to the image quality itself. So what if I don't have money for Canon but I'm picky with the image quality? I save up. If I'm okay with not getting ideal IQ, just want "to capture the image" (Note: I didn't say Make the photograph, I said capture); then you can go for alternatives.

Chances are-- the AF system of Canon / Nikon lenses with USM / AF-S will trump Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lenses.

A bicycle and a car can get you to work. If you have money, go for the car so you don't need to work so hard. If you don't, go the economical and ride the bike to work.
If you have the money for original Nikon lenses, go for it. If you don't, go for 3rd party brands if you are okay with what they offer. If you don't have enough money for either, don't shoot the picture. You said you're not a pro (and trust me, Professionals don't have your crappy attitude), so your food on the table won't depend on the images you take.
 

Last edited:
#10
hi guys, i am very interested to know.

For beginner / amateur or even serious photographer (someone who is NOT PRO basically), do you think its wise to go for nikon/canon lens??

i am talking about regular people (with standard economy power).

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.

performance wise: lot of reviews even mention that sometimes, third party lens can outperform nikon or canon. even if they couldnt, their performance is below by just a bit.

take for example : macro tamron 90 vs nikon 105VR.

tammy beat nikon except on build quality. and the price is MUCH CHEAPER. i cant see any reason why get nikon here? VR is nice, but not worth 600 sing dollars imo.

tamron 17-50 2.8 vs nikon 17-55 2.8

again, tamron perform close to nikon and the price differ much. nikon can go up to 1100 USbucks AND tammy only priced around 400 dollars.

seriously, i dont know why people want to throw so much money for main party lens.

from my observation, the reasons are
1) lil bit of faster focusing
2) build quality
3) prestige

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.

what you guys think?? i wanna know what you think
If you don't think it's worth it, then don't buy lah. Obviously no one's asking for your expert opinion.

Another stupid argument. This is like saying I don't think it's worth it to buy a Ferrari because a Toyota can get me from Point A to Point B in one piece. Is that going to stop people from buying the Ferrari? Of course not.

What in the world is the point that you're trying to make? Are you trying to make yourself look stupid? Like a fool? If so, then you have accomplished it in a matter of seconds. Congratulations.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#11
.............................

take for example : macro tamron 90 vs nikon 105VR.

tammy beat nikon except on build quality. and the price is MUCH CHEAPER. i cant see any reason why get nikon here? VR is nice, but not worth 600 sing dollars imo.

tamron 17-50 2.8 vs nikon 17-55 2.8

.....................................
Nikon 105VR is a VR lens, if you want to compare with Tamron 90mm, use the Nikon 105 macro lens (none VR)

Tamron is not a AFS lens, the focusing speed is so s..........l........o..........w, too bad, Nikon don't have a none AFS lens, so you can't compare.
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#12
hi camerax

jus find u one of the more colorful character in this forum.

1st, u ask which is the SHARPEST lens in the universe.

then, u ask fast lens vs VR/IS.

later, fast lens vs kit lens.

now, third party vs original.

though u claim to be a newbie, u always ve some preconceived ideas (usually w all the facts and key terms mixed up) and ever ready to challenge ppl should their opinions differ from yours.


why not post some pic, so ppl can better gauge your standard, thereby help u find the truth faster?
don't need lar, can tell by the person postings.....

btw, I don't post photos nowadays, does it mean I can't shoot??? :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#13
Nikon 105VR is a VR lens, if you want to compare with Tamron 90mm, use the Nikon 105 macro lens (none VR)

Tamron is not a AFS lens, the focusing speed is so s..........l........o..........w, too bad, Nikon don't have a none AFS lens, so you can't compare.
I have the non-AF-S version of the 105 Micro. ;p
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#14
I have the non-AF-S version of the 105 Micro. ;p
sorry, my first line is referring to the comparison between Tamron 90 and Nikon 105VR and the second line is referring to the comparison between the Tamron 17~50 and Nikon 17~55. so I'm trying to say Nikon don't have a none AFS version of 17~55 lens.

anyway, the focusing of both Tamron lenses are very slow. :)
 

Aug 8, 2008
605
0
0
Singapore
#15
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?
 

AdyH

New Member
Mar 8, 2005
344
0
0
#16
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.
 

estel

New Member
Jul 17, 2006
344
0
0
#17
Seriously camerax, a lot of us here don't really know what are you trying to find out!
some people like polemic for the sake of polemic.

TS, if you genuinely want to know, posting questions that look like questions rather than opinion pieces would get you more friendly answers. UNLESS your aim is just to grab attention.

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.

... but i have to say, the value of main party sucks.
Since you are so sure already, leave the original lenses to lamers, and wisely buy the third party. End of the story.
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#18
There is no Sigma or tamron 75-300 that comes close to the image quality of my sony 70-300 G. The Tamron 90mm macro is great, but when compared to the sony 100mm macro it shows it's limits. I have yet to see a third-party lens that is as sharp, with the punchy colors and contrast, as the sony Carl Zeiss lenses.

If you're happy with third-party lenses, then just buy them, and stop spouting philosophies.
 

synapseman

Senior Member
May 6, 2003
2,196
0
0
State of Confusion
www.pbase.com
#19
I believe you get what you pay for.

In terms of absolute quality (optical, mechanical, construction), original brands are the best.

In terms of value-for-money and price-to-performance ratio, 3rd party is superior. These companies aren't like what they were 10 years ago. They are fast catching up with original brand lenses, but somehow there'll always be some compromise. And another major concern is that buying 3rd party is a bit of a gamble. The QC seems inconsistent, with many people reported to have bought lemons. A big question mark also hangs over their long-term reliability, which is important to pros. Hard specs aren't everything.

I've got both 3rd party and original brand lenses, and I think they're all great in their own regard.
 

camerax

New Member
Apr 19, 2008
282
0
0
#20
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.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom