Why do we go for 3rd party lens?


Status
Not open for further replies.

benn8

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
70
0
0
#1
May I ask, what are your reasons going for 3rd party lens?

1. Cheaper
2. More variety in the resulting shots
3. Better image quality
4. more ???
 

Bluestrike

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 17, 2002
4,784
0
0
41
There lor~
bluestrike.clubsnap.org
#2
some of the lens 3rd party provided is in a range where the original manufacturer do not have.

Example will be
1. Sigma 120-300/2.8
2. Tokina 12-24/4
3. Sigma 300-800/5.6
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#3
May I ask, what are your reasons going for 3rd party lens?

1. Cheaper
2. More variety in the resulting shots
3. Better image quality
4. more ???
COST is the main factor. I dun have $2600 to spend on a 28-70 from Nikon, thus I got the Tamron 28-75 ($600 or less) as an alternative. Much much cheaper and I dun require the top end quality from Nikon as yet. Do note that 3rd party lenses often have different colour casts that may differ from the originals. And also some of the 3rd parties have problems with distortion, etc but if you can forgo these problems, go ahead.
 

Jan 12, 2007
1,139
0
0
Woodlands
#4
COST is the main factor. I dun have $2600 to spend on a 28-70 from Nikon, thus I got the Tamron 28-75 ($600 or less) as an alternative. Much much cheaper and I dun require the top end quality from Nikon as yet. Do note that 3rd party lenses often have different colour casts that may differ from the originals. And also some of the 3rd parties have problems with distortion, etc but if you can forgo these problems, go ahead.
i second this...

i can't buy Canon 17-40L F4 so i bought Sigma 20-40 F2.8
i can't buy Canon 70-200L F4 so i bought Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6

but i have one Canon lens... and it 50mm F1.8... still cheap.... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

all these 3 cheapo lens work well for me... without spending a fortune...
 

Venom81

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2004
10,485
4
38
36
#5
No $ buy L lens. :sweat:
 

#6
value for money :)

i have tamron 28-75 F2.8 instead of nikkor 28-70 F2.8
i also have tokina 12-24 F4 instead of nikkor 12-24 F4

although if i have money to burn, definitely i'll go for the nikkors :p
 

sammedia

New Member
Jul 11, 2003
716
0
0
46
momo land
samwong.fotopic.net
#7
If can't affort & on tight budget, 3rd party lenses are good to start with. The quality of some 3rd party is not that far away from the originals.

If you are making money out of photography,your clients dont pay you more even if you use originals lenes. :bsmilie:
 

Jan 28, 2007
410
0
16
North of S'pore
#8
:thumbsup: for 3rd Party

I could afford the Nikkor 12-24 (after some period of saving), but chose the Tokina, cos the remaining $$ can buy something else. Moreover, no point blowing your $$ on DX lenses, if you forsee yourself going FF 3-4 yrs down the road.

And as the Old adage goes - The cat that catches mice, is a GOOD cat - regardless of it's breed/ colour :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

And if you are like me, dun have eyes that is SOOOO Sharp to spot the "blemishes" in your photo, 3RD PARTY is the way to go. OT abit, GREY SET also :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

3RD PARTY + GREY SETS = Lotsa gears with lesser $$
 

benn8

New Member
Jun 16, 2007
70
0
0
#9
i second this...

i can't buy Canon 17-40L F4 so i bought Sigma 20-40 F2.8
i can't buy Canon 70-200L F4 so i bought Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6

but i have one Canon lens... and it 50mm F1.8... still cheap.... :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

all these 3 cheapo lens work well for me... without spending a fortune...
Is Sigma 70-300 F4-5.6 comparable to Canon 75-300 F4-5.6 III in terms of quality?
 

Vulpix0r

Senior Member
Oct 2, 2002
3,136
0
0
West
#13
Can kindly explain which areas? Thanks!
Read the reviews online, because just my own testimonial won't be enough. It's just generally sharper and with better contrast IMO.
 

#15
It's all about the money :bsmilie:

and sometimes the 3rd party lens offers a little something extra which the 1st party lens doesn't
e.g. Sigma 50mm macro can go to 1:1, Canon 50mm Macro can't
 

Jemapela

New Member
Feb 20, 2005
791
0
0
Melbourne
www.jemapela.com
#16
COST is the main factor. I dun have $2600 to spend on a 28-70 from Nikon, thus I got the Tamron 28-75 ($600 or less) as an alternative. Much much cheaper and I dun require the top end quality from Nikon as yet. Do note that 3rd party lenses often have different colour casts that may differ from the originals. And also some of the 3rd parties have problems with distortion, etc but if you can forgo these problems, go ahead.
Generally, I'm in agreement with this, but not fully.

Cost is only 1 of the factors. However, the build is another important factor which many don't realise and I will explain why.

Many of Canon's cheaper lenses and a few L lenses have a lesser robust, or more vulnerable, build. As you probably know, lenses are tubular (comprising of tubes/barrels). After some use or impact, the inner barrel won't feel as tight/firm, and in some cases, wobble and droop to the pull of gravity. This is when the lens resolution becomes compromised. This problem adds to the mediocre optical performance of the lens and makes the lens even more crappy. One good example is the cheapie 50mm f/1.8. (The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is built far better than the Canon.) Some others are 18-55mm, 17-85mm, 28-135mm, 24-70mm L, etc.

In comparison, some third party lenses are much better built and hence more durable. It appears that the Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 are less vulnerable to wobbling/drooping inner barrels than the equivalent from Canon. This is a serious plus point.

As for lens resolution/performance, by test results, Tamron appears to be a bit better than Sigma. In fact, they have been making very good lenses since back in the days of the Adaptall mount for MF lenses. (They were 1 of the most expensive third party lens makers.) Tamron's 17-35mm f/2.8-4 has been independently tested to be on par with, or as good as, Canon's equivalent in terms of optical performance although it's very understandable that many Canon 17-40mm L uses will aggressively, violently, religiously, vehemently, murderously, dismiss it as hogwash but it is not.

Another good Tamron lens is the 28-75mm f/2.8. Although I haven't had any personal experience comparing it with the Canon equivalent, this lens is obviously sharp, you wouldn't be quick to classify it in the category of a consumer-budget lens like the kit lenses 28-80mm or 28-90mm coupled with film bodies. This Tamron is sharp, and for it's less vulnerable to inner barrel wobbling/drooping and amazing compact design, is likely to outlast the Canon cheapie zooms. It's price makes it a no-brainer why you would buy this. If there was someone open-minded and neutral to test this with the equivalent L, I'm not surprised that if it is a fair fight between them.

All lenses, L, ED, G, or whatever manufacturers call it from A-Z, have it. All wide angles have barrel distortion; the wider it is, generally the more distortion. All telephotos have pincushion distortion. This is something almost impossible to fully escape from and can only be minimised. Hence, the problem is not only confined to 3rd party. Never believe that the L or ED is the perfect lens. If you have a resolution target for test lenses, you can see that even L lenses have pronounced chromatic abberation (CA) at wide angles. Pronounced enough to wonder why you blew all that money away when the 3rd party isn't any worse.

Do keep in mind that when buying original lenses, the hefty price tag has probably taken into account other things such as, the larger production, and longer continuity, of spare parts. With 3rd party lenses, some could be considered to be like single-use. Once banged up, it's too cheap and uneconomical to repair, and they don't have/keep parts for it. If you're a Tamron and Sigma owner, you probably know this.
 

garou12

Deregistered
May 15, 2007
1,644
0
0
#17
Generally, I'm in agreement with this, but not fully.

Cost is only 1 of the factors. However, the build is another important factor which many don't realise and I will explain why.

Many of Canon's cheaper lenses and a few L lenses have a lesser robust, or more vulnerable, build. As you probably know, lenses are tubular (comprising of tubes/barrels). After some use or impact, the inner barrel won't feel as tight/firm, and in some cases, wobble and droop to the pull of gravity. This is when the lens resolution becomes compromised. This problem adds to the mediocre optical performance of the lens and makes the lens even more crappy. One good example is the cheapie 50mm f/1.8. (The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is built far better than the Canon.) Some others are 18-55mm, 17-85mm, 28-135mm, 24-70mm L, etc.

In comparison, some third party lenses are much better built and hence more durable. It appears that the Tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 are less vulnerable to wobbling/drooping inner barrels than the equivalent from Canon. This is a serious plus point.

As for lens resolution/performance, by test results, Tamron appears to be a bit better than Sigma. In fact, they have been making very good lenses since back in the days of the Adaptall mount for MF lenses. (They were 1 of the most expensive third party lens makers.) Tamron's 17-35mm f/2.8-4 has been independently tested to be on par with, or as good as, Canon's equivalent in terms of optical performance although it's very understandable that many Canon 17-40mm L uses will aggressively, violently, religiously, vehemently, murderously, dismiss it as hogwash but it is not.

Another good Tamron lens is the 28-75mm f/2.8. Although I haven't had any personal experience comparing it with the Canon equivalent, this lens is obviously sharp, you wouldn't be quick to classify it in the category of a consumer-budget lens like the kit lenses 28-80mm or 28-90mm coupled with film bodies. This Tamron is sharp, and for it's less vulnerable to inner barrel wobbling/drooping and amazing compact design, is likely to outlast the Canon cheapie zooms. It's price makes it a no-brainer why you would buy this. If there was someone open-minded and neutral to test this with the equivalent L, I'm not surprised that if it is a fair fight between them.

All lenses, L, ED, G, or whatever manufacturers call it from A-Z, have it. All wide angles have barrel distortion; the wider it is, generally the more distortion. All telephotos have pincushion distortion. This is something almost impossible to fully escape from and can only be minimised. Hence, the problem is not only confined to 3rd party. Never believe that the L or ED is the perfect lens. If you have a resolution target for test lenses, you can see that even L lenses have pronounced chromatic abberation (CA) at wide angles. Pronounced enough to wonder why you blew all that money away when the 3rd party isn't any worse.

Do keep in mind that when buying original lenses, the hefty price tag has probably taken into account other things such as, the larger production, and longer continuity, of spare parts. With 3rd party lenses, some could be considered to be like single-use. Once banged up, it's too cheap and uneconomical to repair, and they don't have/keep parts for it. If you're a Tamron and Sigma owner, you probably know this.
:thumbsup: for mentioning something that Pop photo does in its gear reviews and something extremely important that alot of people miss out on.
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#18
More bang for the buck

eg: the tokina 12-24 f4 is o.5 times the price of a nikon 12-24 f4
but the quality is not 0.5x less than the nikon

in fact if not for test targets, you would not know the difference
especially in the digital world

if we were shooting slides then it would be different
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#20
Generally, I'm in agreement with this, but not fully.

Cost is only 1 of the factors. However, the build is another important factor which many don't realise and I will explain why.

.....

Do keep in mind that when buying original lenses, the hefty price tag has probably taken into account other things such as, the larger production, and longer continuity, of spare parts. With 3rd party lenses, some could be considered to be like single-use. Once banged up, it's too cheap and uneconomical to repair, and they don't have/keep parts for it. If you're a Tamron and Sigma owner, you probably know this.
Well, I'm a Nikon user and generally Nikon ones are much better in build quality so I can't use this as an excuse. Well, coming from you as a Canon user, then I guess there's something for Canon to improve on. :sweat:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom