3rd party lenses manufacturer

[ntz]

Hello,

cv-19 crisis sucked, but at least no vacation and no money spending in restaurants and pubs caused that savings increased .. I am now about to upgrade my equipment. I am aiming towards FX. Because I am not a Rockefeller I need to consider the price so I decided to go with Nikon-F because of plenty of available lenses on the market for a fair price (Vs a totally overpriced Nikon-Z and few lenses on the market) .. My idea is to build a holy trinity (or similar) set for FX with focal lengths 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all of that ideally in f/2.8 .. I have following options

1) new (or "almost" new) Sigma Art line
2) Tamron lenses (are about the same price as Sigma)
3) used Nikon lenses

Based on the reviews the Sigma and Tamron lenses have their own flaws, specifically Sigma lenses are in general being accused that IQ derogates with AP wide open and Tamron lenses are often being accused that they differ piece by piece (2/5 lenses are usually optically worse, 1/5 is usually better than average) and Nikon lenses are very expensive so I will have to buy used ...

what are your thoughts please ? what would you suggest, what would you do, what strategy you'd follow if in my shoes ?

thanks for the input and regards, dan

 

[Meehow]

I've used sigma 1.4 art for a few years now, mainly at weddings. It's very sharp but it does misfocus sometimes as people say. Still a good value for money.

 

[paigew]

I have the first two zooms as Canon L lenses. But I do have three sigma art primes and they are some of my favorite, sharpest lenses!

 

[mrca]

You don't say what you shoot so it's hard to make a recommendation. The term "holy trinity" regarding nikon lenses makes me cringe. The only hole it make is in your wallet. Want great glass for a good price, primes. And realize there is more to a lens than sharp. We don't buy wine on the basis of alcohol content nor should we on sharpness. Micro contrast eliminates muddy shadow areas that lenses with 14-22 pieces of glass create. Every piece of glass in the tube sucks up light and most aren't coated so reflect even more. Primes can have fewer elements. Think Zeiss or voigtlander manual focus. If you think you can't manually focus, look in the lower L corner of a Nikon viewfinder. There are 2 arrows pointing at each other, the lit one tells you which way to focus and a circle appears between them when focus is nailed. It happens while auto focusing too. I shoot nikon, d 700 I have had for 12 years and a d850. I am a portraitist so a 35 zeiss distiagon 2.0. A zeiss 85 1.4. 6 elements. This lens blows the doors off nikon and sigma. I have a zeiss 100 makro planar but don't recommend it. The nikon 105 has auto focus. But instead, I have the 135 dc. 7 elements. The 180 2.8, 8 elements not 22 like the holy ghost 70-200 with TWENTY TWO hunks of glass. $450 used like new. If you shoot b&w, it is only contrast and 22 elements will give you muddy shadows. Bokeh in all those primes, fantastic. I saw a shot taken with nikons new 105 for 2 grand, and the terrible bokeh literally made me nauseous. Color rendition, well, they have been making the 135 and 180 since 1994 unchanged for a reason. Pick up a 36 mp d310, a 35, 85 and 135 for the cost of "the father and son." Check the image quality on their flickr pages. And the older lenses can be used on 35mm film camera. The 70-200 I used to use for weddings/events, sold it and the 135 weighs a fraction and I can crop 46 mp down to 200 mm with pixels to spare. That lens used to kill me all day on a body over my shoulder. If you want an auto focus 35 the Nikon D lens is only a couple hundred again, low element count. And the glass in the older zeiss, lead crystal no longer used because of environmental bs. Zeiss still uses it.

 

[ntz]

I can proudly present that I was able to find and buy this lens

DXOMARK

www.dxomark.com

it's absolutely awesome lens, I have ultimate trust to tokina .. build quality is no match with anything else and optically my best lens so far

 

[Dave Maciak]

Hello,

cv-19 crisis sucked, but at least no vacation and no money spending in restaurants and pubs caused that savings increased .. I am now about to upgrade my equipment. I am aiming towards FX. Because I am not a Rockefeller I need to consider the price so I decided to go with Nikon-F because of plenty of available lenses on the market for a fair price (Vs a totally overpriced Nikon-Z and few lenses on the market) .. My idea is to build a holy trinity (or similar) set for FX with focal lengths 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all of that ideally in f/2.8 .. I have following options

1) new (or "almost" new) Sigma Art line
2) Tamron lenses (are about the same price as Sigma)
3) used Nikon lenses

Based on the reviews the Sigma and Tamron lenses have their own flaws, specifically Sigma lenses are in general being accused that IQ derogates with AP wide open and Tamron lenses are often being accused that they differ piece by piece (2/5 lenses are usually optically worse, 1/5 is usually better than average) and Nikon lenses are very expensive so I will have to buy used ...

what are your thoughts please ? what would you suggest, what would you do, what strategy you'd follow if in my shoes ?

thanks for the input and regards, dan

Have you made your purchase yet? Nikon used glass to save a buck. You wouldn't put a lawn mower engine in
your Mustang GT---Would you? Benefit of sticking with Nikon are many. I've used B&H and KEH and found them honest, fair, and prompt. Give a look if you haven't already.

 

[ntz]

Have you made your purchase yet? Nikon used glass to save a buck. You wouldn't put a lawn mower engine in
your Mustang GT---Would you? Benefit of sticking with Nikon are many. I've used B&H and KEH and found them honest, fair, and prompt. Give a look if you haven't already.

Servus Dave ...

I love the You wouldn't put a lawn mower engine in your Mustang GT---Would you? but this stinks a bit by unholy overrating of Nikon glasses .. Two things: I am always buying an used glasses (and cars), that's implicit, and the second thing is that the other brands also have a merit in certain aspects ...

I didn't do my purchase yet .. I was shooting (my first) weddings this weekend and I had a borrowed second camera for it, Nikon D750 .. I was thinking that it will be a dealbreaker but it didn't .. I have same IQ from my D7200 .. Simply, I wouldn't recognize the difference .. And this experience put me back at the beginning .. I didn't purchase a FX yet but I partly re-considered my previous decision .. I don't know where to go with next .. My gear now is

Nikon D7200 - great camera, I had D750 and I've verified that there's no meaningful benefit in going for it .... I've reconsidered to go into Nikon Z5 instead of D850 in (far) future
Tokina 24-70 f2.8 FX, Tokina 70-200 f4 VR FX - these two lenses are specifically awesome on my DX, they give me 35-300mm equivalent on FX, I'm fine
Tokina 11-20mm f2.8 DX - my absolutely awesome supersharp wide angle (equivalent of 17-30mm on FX)

So no idea, it's all about money ... perhaps I will go in future to Nikon Z5 with some Z lenses ... but Z is terribly overpriced now and there are only few native lenses available for it compared to Nikon F-mount, same with used gear ...

 

[ac12]

If you have situations where you shoot in LOW light, the D750 would be better than the D7200. I think there is a 1-stop difference in the IQ, so the D750 will let you shoot at ISO 6400 with the same IQ as the D7200 at ISO 3200.

If you are all Tokina you are OK.
The difficulty is when you mix brand and the zoom rings turn in opposite directions. Such as Nikon vs. Sigma. Not if I can help it, as it was too confusing, I kept turning the sigma zoom ring the wrong way. Not an issue for casual work, but for FAST sports, that is a missed shot.
For me it is Nikon and Tamron, zoom rings turn in the same direction.
Tokina zoom ring also turns in the same direction as Nikon.

Depending of your focal range needs, the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 is another lens to consider. That avoids the lens switch at 70mm, that you have with the 24-70 + 70-200.
On the D7200, it is normal to medium tele, and is similar to a 70-200 on a FX camera.