if you had all the money in the world...

[Heitz]

Here's a question:
If money was no object, would you always buy Nikon/Canon lenses? If not, for which lens in particular would you substitute a Sigma or Tamron? Basically the question is, is there any specific lens that Sigma or Tamron just make better? Curious to know.

 

[photoshutter]

Why not Leica?

 

[edddial]

If I have all the money in the world... I would buy both Nikon & Canon. I won't bother buying 3rd party lens too.... if I have that much money of course..

 

[480sparky44 44]

If I had all the money in the world, I'd buy one of everything. Then I'd test them to my satisfaction and sell what didn't work for me.

 

[edddial]

Yes agree with 480sparky, and then perhaps give-away whatever didn't work for me.. give fund to Nikon & Canon to make much more better quality camera but at lower cost.. and let all forum's friend be the beta tester..

Really if you've all the money, get the genuine lens from Nikon/Canon! Then if you really need huge heavy good telephoto, get Sigma 200-500mm fast lens.

 

[Derrel]

BOTH Sigma and Tamron have a few lenses that are flat-out unavailable in either Canon or Nikon mount, or unavailable in BOTH mounts. For example, Sigma's EX series 150mm macro--MAN, what a GORGEOUS image that lens creates! Beautiful drawing style, lovely bokeh, reasonable price, and a prime macro lens focal length that Canon does not make and which Nikon does not make. The Sigma 150 EX Macro is popular in Malaysia and other Asian countries for glamour, beauty, and fashion photography; it is a beautiful imager! Nikon has made 200mm macros and Canon has long had its 180mm macro; the Sigma's image "look" is gorgeous. I would choose the Sigma 150 in a heartbeat, today, if I did not already have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro for Nikon and the Canon 100/2.8 EF Macro and the Sigma 180mm /3.5 EX Macro in Nikon mount.

Tamron's 28-75 zoom is one of the best 3rd party lenses of the past decade. Same with Tamron's 24-135 SP zoom. Sigma's 50mm 1.4 produces a higher-quality image than the Canon 50/1.2-L does. The new Sigma 85/1.4 appears to have pretty good IQ as well. Tamron's 90mm SP series macro lens is a "prettier" imager than the Canon 100mm EF USM macro (not the old 100, but the newer internal focus model that is in the lineup below the new L-series with IS).

I have not shot it, but Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape says that the NEWLY re-designed Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 lens is a superb quality lens; very high praise from a man whose lens tastes are as discerning as Recihmann's tastes are. No other maker offers a 120-300 with f/2.8 speed.

Sigma's 100-300mm f/4 EX zoom is a lens I own...I really,really wish Canon or Nikon made a lens like it. It's a fantastic lens for some situations, it really is. It has just the right focal lengths, f/stops, and size/weight and price. So, the answer is YES! there are some specific lenses that Sigma and Tamron make that are the best in their field--or are the "only" lenses in their category.

 

[edddial]

Derrel, you mean Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is better than Tamron 90mm f/2.8? What about Sigma 105mm f/2.8 compare to Tamron 90mm f/2.8?

 

[Overread19]

Derral's already made and pulled up some good examples of where 3rd party lens makers can make lenses that are simply not sold by Canon nor Nikon and also have a very high quality to them. In addition to that there are some examples where the 3rd party lens can also beat out a lens by Canon and Nikon - the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a prime (yes pun intended ) example of a lens which is capable of optically beating the current canon brand option (not as sure about the nikon).

I've also seen impressive results comparing a canon 500mm f4 against sigmas 300-800mm lens at the 500mm mark where the sigma was standing on par image quality wise - not what you'd expect from a lens with a long zoom throw.



In short the best advice is to:
1) Decide what use/limitation you have with your setup that needs resolution via adding new glass - ie have a clear and defined use for the item - criteria.

2) Work out a budget - might be totally ballpark at this stage, but it gets you somewhere to start from.

3) Look at the market and consider all the options - own brand and 3rd part and see which ones fit into your budget; but also look at what lies below and above. Sometimes you might find something cheaper that is more ideal and other times you might find something that, with a little more waiting and saving, gives you a significant advantage.

If I had no budget limits and remained with 1.6 crop you'd probably see me buy most of the setup I own now - which has 2 canon, 3 sigma and 1 tokina lens in it at present. Though with the added budget there'd be a few more canon added to the list, but not to replace the 3rd party options that I currently own (possible exception on the 35mm, but its not a major pressure point for me that focal range so I'd probably save the money and keep the tokina).

For reference : Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII; Canon MPE 65mm macro; Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro (someone please buy the darn thing from me so I can get the OS edition! ); Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro; Sigma 8-16mm; Tokina 35mm f2.8 macro

 

[Overread19]

Derrel, you mean Sigma 150mm f/2.8 is better than Tamron 90mm f/2.8? What about Sigma 105mm f/2.8 compare to Tamron 90mm f/2.8?

Speaking purely of sharpness and general optical properties they are on a very even footing; the added background blurring of the 150mm comes partly from its increased focal length (at macro work and with regular shooting from its increased lens to subject and background distance).
The differences are more rendering quality, which can come a lot down to personal preferences and experiences as well as how you use the lens itself *ie pure/dominant macro or portrait/other work.

 

[table1349]

If I had all the money in the world I Obama would want to raise my taxes and the Republicans would be falling all over themselves trying to kiss my butt. :lmao:

I wouldn't buy any camera. Then I could afford to get into auto racing.

 

[usayit]

Here's a question:
If money was no object, would you always buy Nikon/Canon lenses? If not, for which lens in particular would you substitute a Sigma or Tamron? Basically the question is, is there any specific lens that Sigma or Tamron just make better? Curious to know.

This question at it essence is asking whether or not third party lenses are as good. Can't really answer because all manufacturers have good and bad lenses as well as a selection that is unique. Generalizations are not really useful in the context of money.

 

[usayit]

If I had all the money in the world I Obama would want to raise my taxes and the Republicans would be falling all over themselves trying to kiss my butt. :lmao:

oooOOOooo... not touching that with a 10 foot pole in this forum.


<hopefully smart enough to finagle earnings via capital gains rather than salary>

 

[Overread19]

Now I'm not sensing politics in this thread am I

 

[Derrel]

Here's a question:
If money was no object, would you always buy Nikon/Canon lenses? If not, for which lens in particular would you substitute a Sigma or Tamron? Basically the question is, is there any specific lens that Sigma or Tamron just make better? Curious to know.

This question at it essence is asking whether or not third party lenses are as good. Can't really answer because all manufacturers have good and bad lenses as well as a selection that is unique. Generalizations are not really useful in the context of money.

Agreed--all manufacturers have some good and bad lenses...some even have a few superb lenses, as well as many excellent lenses. Third-party lenses must be evaluated on their own merits, as well as how well they compare to, or even out-perform, the lenses the camera manufacturers offer. "Some" third-party lenses are clearly better than older, or less-advanced camera-maker lenses. Individual samples of lenses can have better or worse performance than other apparently identical examples. Manufacturing tolerances and the actual component parts used inside lenses to hold elements in position can affect how well a lens performs. The very hard-core lens testing web sites often note high levels of optical decentering, which just kills lens performance. There is one test of multiple samples of Canon and Nikon 50mm f/1.4 lenses that showed a systematic assembly or component defect to the Canon lenses; the authors speculated what might have been the cause; as I recall, it was an assembly-line procedure, or perhaps slightly out of specification spacer components. They pointed out that EARLIER examples of the Canon 50/1.4 EF performed better than the batch of four or five lenses they were testing. For example, Sigma's new, aspherical 50mm 1.4 lens design is like 20 years newer than Nikon's longtime 50/1.4 AF-D design--and the Sigma has lower CA than the Canon 50/L...but when it comes to real, quality 50's, Leitz is the company that can make the best ones....at what are they now? $3,495? Cosina's 50/3.5 apparently out-tests almost any 50 ever made...but it costs less than the Leica models...

That kind of dovetails into what I have learned from reading the Lensrentals.com web site's article son lenses and lens problems; most camera makers buy components from OTHER manufacturers, and those components are often sub-par or slightly out of spec. Like the "bubble holes" found in the front element spacer ring in the new Nikon 70-200 VR II lens...kind of shoddy manufacturing process on a highly visible component....did not affect optics, but looked like crap, and was the result of sloppy manufacturing and QC on the supplier. Also, lenses are made in batches or production "runs" where the line is set up, and from XXX to XX,XXX number of lenses produced, then the line is disassembled, and the next lens model's line is set up.

If you're buying a Sigma or a Tamron lens, my opinion is that the chance for a decentered element or a technical/assembly flaw is much higher than if you're buying a Leica lens, where tolerances are check on a lens-by-lens basis,and if the components used to make the lens are not 100 percent up to snuff, the lens never leaves the assembly area...and somewhere in the middle with Canon ang Nikon lenses. So, it's not very useful to generalize about lenses when the specific, individual sample one owns and shoots is all that matters. Lensrentals and their lens breakdown figures show that lens assembly quality varies quite a bit; it seems to me that the earlier lenses of each design often show some problems, which the makers try hard to resolve in later runs of the same lens model.

 

[KmH]

if you had all the money in the world... [sic]

I would be racing the various Formula cars, Sprint/Midget cars, racing Sports cars, and karts I would own, and pay someone else to take photos of me persuing my 'hobby'.