whats the difference between branded lense and none branded lense?

[Derrel]

Yeah--Leica gear can be bought and held for 10-20-30 years, and re-sold for the same amount of money or MORE, even after adjusting for inflation!

As to the lens-by-lens basis: for example, the Sigma 150 EX and 180 EX macro lenses--really excellent performance, as good as camera-maker lenses,more or less. Same with the 90 Tamron SP (Superior Performance) macro and Tokina's 100mm 2.8 AT-X macro: Sigma's EX line (EXcellence), Tamron's Superior Performance SP line, and Tokina's AT-X line are all the "premium" designs those respective makers produce. So, just like Canon and Nikon, the third-party lens makers have standard-grade and premium-grade optics.

A good example of where a 3rd party lens would be better than a camera maker lens would be Tamrons 24-135 SP all-in-one zoom, versus Nikon's atrocious 24-120 zooms, of any incarnation....the Tamron 24-135 is a surprisingly GOOD lens of its type...Nikon's 24-120 is a piece of what I call dung...Canon's 24-105-L is pretty good, but has some problems as well. And the Tamron 28-75 SP series zoom lens, the f/2.8 lens that is SO,SO GOOD OPTICALLY that both Pentax and Sony have contracted to have the lens built with their brand name on it, with their own brand-specific rubber ring covers on it...a 3rd party lens that gives 90% of the optical performance of the older Nikon 28-70 AF-S ($1799 vs $399 at intro)..a 3rd party lens SO GOOD that two camera makers felt they absolutely HAD TO HAVE IT in THEIR OWN mount, rubber ring dress, and brand!!! So, again, on a lens-by-lens basis, the Tamron 28-75 SP really does offer Superior Performance.

Tokina's older 19-35mm zoom was similarly well-received: it was offered under multiple labels,and before kit zoom lenses hit the market, the 19-35 Tokina was sort of "the" affordable wide-angle zoom in the early days of the digital SLR, back in 2000-2004, before the camera makers offered any really affordable "kit" wide zooms like the 18-55 or 18-70.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Yeah--Leica gear can be bought and held for 10-20-30 years, and re-sold for the same amount of money or MORE, even after adjusting for inflation!

As to the lens-by-lens basis: for example, the Sigma 150 EX and 180 EX macro lenses--really excellent performance, as good as camera-maker lenses,more or less. Same with the 90 Tamron SP (Superior Performance) macro and Tokina's 100mm 2.8 AT-X macro: Sigma's EX line (EXcellence), Tamron's Superior Performance SP line, and Tokina's AT-X line are all the "premium" designs those respective makers produce. So, just like Canon and Nikon, the third-party lens makers have standard-grade and premium-grade optics.

A good example of where a 3rd party lens would be better than a camera maker lens would be Tamrons 24-135 SP all-in-one zoom, versus Nikon's atrocious 24-120 zooms, of any incarnation....the Tamron 24-135 is a surprisingly GOOD lens of its type...Nikon's 24-120 is a piece of what I call dung...Canon's 24-105-L is pretty good, but has some problems as well. And the Tamron 28-75 SP series zoom lens, the f/2.8 lens that is SO,SO GOOD OPTICALLY that both Pentax and Sony have contracted to have the lens built with their brand name on it, with their own brand-specific rubber ring covers on it...a 3rd party lens that gives 90% of the optical performance of the older Nikon 28-70 AF-S ($1799 vs $399 at intro)..a 3rd party lens SO GOOD that two camera makers felt they absolutely HAD TO HAVE IT in THEIR OWN mount, rubber ring dress, and brand!!! So, again, on a lens-by-lens basis, the Tamron 28-75 SP really does offer Superior Performance.

Tokina's older 19-35mm zoom was similarly well-received: it was offered under multiple labels,and before kit zoom lenses hit the market, the 19-35 Tokina was sort of "the" affordable wide-angle zoom in the early days of the digital SLR, back in 2000-2004, before the camera makers offered any really affordable "kit" wide zooms like the 18-55 or 18-70.

It's not so much the design as it is the quality control and mechanical durability that usually separates camera mfr lenses from 3rd party. In some cases, I imagine the camera companies don't have the resources to design all the lenses they need and may farm out some of the work. In such cases, they would have them built to their specs and requirements, and such lenses may be better than the same lens made for their camera but sold by the third party vendor directly. Just speculating. There may be provisions prohibiting that though.

 

[Overread]

Quality control is a bit of a red herring with regard to 3rd party lenses. The general figures used are those released by Lens Rentals (I can't find the reports at the moment, I think I am googling the wrong terms or something) and a few years ago they did show that Sigma were having poor service and repairs - however the latest data shows that they are in line with Nikon and Canon. Even when it comes to lenses on the repair/breakage list there are L grade and Nikkor grade lenses sitting in the bad list alongside 3rd party offerings.

Also sale figures have to be considered - Sigma (As an example) sell more lenses than canon or nikon so similarly reports of product fairlure (both real and user error generated ones) will be higher as there are more potential users - I'd also say that a lot of beginners get into the "Its 3rd party = its cheaper = its not as good = errors are the gear not me" mentality which does not carry over to the godly canon L and such

 

[usayit]

Personally, I don't think that the difference build wise is a big deal... that's just my observation. What drives 1st party lens sales is branding and marketing. Many professionals I've met are perfectly happy.. Sigma being the most popular of the third party lenses... (then again many are sponsored by Sigma, I think.. one for sure since he was mentioned in their ads in a few magazines).

My favorite macro is a Tamron 90mm Adaptall...

A Leica 50mm Summilux from the 1970s in M-mount goes for about $1000.... in part because the latest Leica bodies are compatible. There are far more expensive examples such as the Noctilux 50mm f/1.2 (1st version for the same time period).