third party VS nikkor lenses quality

[Charliedelta]

Yesterday I went to the store to look at a couple of Sigma and Tokina wide angle zooms. The clerk showed me what I had asked and when I asked about the quality of those lenses, he said that they are all equivalent being that they are third parties and the none will ever get close to Nikon lenses. He also claimed that if I want to enlarge my photos to a poster size and bigger, I will need a Nikon lens. All third manufacturers would not give enought quality.

It sounds a little absurd to me, but does his statement come near to reality?

Thanks

 

[480sparky]

OEM doesn't always mean 'the best'. Neither does being 3-rd party.

There are fantastic OEM lenses, and there are fantastic 3-rd party lenses. The claim that one is always better than the other is utterly false.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Sounds like a salesmen selling Nikon gear.

Should be plenty of online samples to look at for any given lens out there .

 

[Overread]

+1 to Sparky's post.

You can't compare whole brands against each other easily - Sigma, Tamron, Tokina have whole ranges of lenses from very affordable and cheap ones up to very big and very expensive options. They also make things for which there is no own brand equivalent (Sigma, for example, makes the only 500mm f2.8 lens on the current market).

As a result you have to compare like for lie - if you want a wide angle compare the own brand with the 3rd party options. See which ones do well side by side, which win out and which might have a specific focal length (or focal length range), price, quality and features that best fits your requirements.

The whole "3rd party is cheaper, slightly worse" line is often used because its simple, quick, easy to understand and can be sort of right most of the time. Most shop keepers are not looking to give long lectures; they have quick easy answers for hte customer to understand.

 

[Derrel]

Sounds like a poor salesman. I bet he sold you NOTHING, right? You walked out of the store without buying.

Sigma and Tokina each have some good lenses, as well as some that are pretty poor. Tokina's 80-400 for example is really a dog. Also, Tokina's 28-80mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO, one of their their "best series" of lenses, was utter rubbish! I dubbed my copy "Der Flaremeister". It was utter crap, and was positioned against the Nikkor 28-70 f/2.8 AFS, which was a dead-on solid performer.

Sigma's 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM OS...read the review of it at dPreview...as they say very subtly, so as not to offend AMazon.com, the company that bought dPreview...the Sigma comes up decidedly short in performance at f/2.8 compared to both Canon and Nikon 70-200 lenses. YES, the Sigma costs significantly less money than the Nikkor of the same spec, and yes, the Sigma is decidedly optically weaker.

Nikon USA gives a full, 5-year warranty on its lenses. Most other companies stand behind their lenses for one year. A person needs to compare one,specific lens model against another,specific model that it competes with. And decide what is worth paying for and what is not worth paying for. Sigma makes some good macro lenses.

However, please note: Sigma lenses are now NOT FUNCTIONING RIGHT with Nikon's new D5300 model. Look into that. Nikon had re-engineered the focusing system of the D5300, and Sigma lenses that have not been updated are now not functioning right, so there is no guarantee moving forward that Sigma lenses will work properly with future Nikon cameras. The SAME problem occurred back when the Nikon D200 came out.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/12/03/sigma-issues-advisory-on-lens-compatibility-with-nikon-df

EDIT: OH, apparently the issues ALSO exists with the new Nikon Df. See the pattern?

 

[pixmedic]

Tamron actually offers a 6 year limited warranty on their lenses.
i dont know how their warranty stacks up against Canon or Nikon's, (i would guess not quite as good) but it does appear to be pretty decent.
the "limited" part seems to be mostly to exclude gray market purchases and lenses not purchased from authorized Tamron retailers.

Warranty, Tamron USA, Inc.


This Tamron lens is warranted against defective materials or workmanship for Six Years from the date of original purchase, and is limited to repair, adjustment and/or replacement of defective parts. This Warranty covers all defects encountered in normal use of the lens. This Limited Warranty does not cover normal wear and tear such as scratches, etc.
This Warranty does not apply to defects due to abuse, mishandling, tampering or removal of serial number, repair by a non-authorized agent, unsuitable storage, transport damage, sand damage, liquid damage, fungus damage, impact damage, or tampering.
This Warranty also does not cover defects due to the use of accessories, attachments, product supplies, parts or devices that do not conform to Tamron specifications. This Warranty does not cover lenses that have been serviced or modified by anyone other than Authorized Tamron Service Agents.

 

[Overread]

Sigma is now selling some lenses with a USB port - I think they are slowly going to introduce it over much of their upper end line simply to counter the changing systems that Nikon and Canon offer up.

 

[JTPhotography]

Nikkor lenses are, on the whole, far superior in every way. As Derrel says, you have to compare specific lenses and weight the good and bad against your intended need/want/use.

Right now, there are only three third party lenses I would consider owning right now. Tokina 100 macro, Sigma 85 1.4, and Tamron 24-70.

 

[pixmedic]

Nikkor lenses are, on the whole, far superior in every way. As Derrel says, you have to compare specific lenses and weight the good and bad against your intended need/want/use.

Right now, there are only three third party lenses I would consider owning right now. Tokina 100 macro, Sigma 85 1.4, and Tamron 24-70.

well, i think far superior in every way is a bit of a stretch.
plenty of third party lenses get rave reviews, and plenty of people use them with fantastic results.
sigmas 30mm f/1.4 is really nice. as is sigmas 17-50 f/2.8 OS.
Tamrons 28-75 f/2.8 has worked great for us for years.

my mother in law has a $5k bernina sewing machine, which is arguably "far superior" to my wifes $1500 Husqvarna sewing machine.
Apart from Bernina having an electronic stitch regulator foot, and a few more stitches, there is nothing that can be done on the bernina that cant be done on the Huskvarna.

I think third party vendors like Tamron and Sigma are significantly stepping up their game. I am seeing much less of a difference between third party and OEM lenses than there was several years ago. each year that passes, the quality and performance gap shrinks just a little bit more, and you spend more money for the brand name than you do for higher quality.

 

[KmH]

Nikon's USA warranty for Nikon lenses is for 1 year. However, if the lens buyer registers the lens at Cameras from Nikon | D-SLR and Digital Cameras, Lenses, & More the warranty is extended for 4 additional years making Nikon's USA lens warranty a total of 5 years.

A possible issue with 3rd party lenses is that they may not be forward compatible with a Nikon camera that as yet is not available.

Third party lens electronics to camera communication protocols have to be reverse engineered by the 3rd party lens makers.
The camera makers do not provide proprietary information like lens to camera communications protocols to competitors.

So while that 3rd party lens you got works just fine today on a Nikon D7000, it may have compatibility issues when mounted on a Nikon D7400 Nikon launches in 2016.

 

[Derrel]

>SNIP>>>>Right now, there are only three third party lenses I would consider owning right now. Tokina 100 macro, Sigma 85 1.4, and Tamron 24-70.

I think the Sigma 150mm was a nice lens; not sure if they ruined it when they updated it to OS or not; Tamron's 90mm AF SP (SP meaning their Superior Performance series) macro has long been an excellent macro (I've owned the Tamron 90mm for years now and think it's pretty good). Tamron's 180mm SP macro was also a beautiful imager. Cosina assembles some REALLY GOOD lenses under the Zeiss brand, for both Nikon and Canon bodies. The Tokina 100mm ATX macro is highly thought of.

 

[Overread]

I've not heard anything bad about the new Sigma 150mm OS, 180m OS or 105mm OS although I must admit I've not actually heard that much going on either with them. I just put it down to us not having many new users of those lenses present at the moment (plus Canon side the Hybrid IS of the 100mm macro L is likely a bigger draw over the focal length differences on offer from Sigma).

 

[robbins.photo]

I've not heard anything bad about the new Sigma 150mm OS, 180m OS or 105mm OS although I must admit I've not actually heard that much going on either with them. I just put it down to us not having many new users of those lenses present at the moment (plus Canon side the Hybrid IS of the 100mm macro L is likely a bigger draw over the focal length differences on offer from Sigma).

Most of what I heard about the Sigma 150, OS or otherwise, was resoundingly negative - but then again a lot of Sigma lenses get a pretty bad rap from the "professional" reviewers. Weird thing though, when you check the ratings and comments from actual users they are by and large pretty positive. Guess it just might be a different expectation level. Me personally I've got my fingers crossed that the 70-200 mm F/2.8 Sigma OS I have on the way turns out to be a keeper. I'm not expecting the same IQ as I get from the 70-300mm Nikor VR I already have - because boy if they can get even anywhere near that I'd be stunned - but as long as the IQ is acceptable I'll be a pretty happy camper.

 

[coastalconn]

Don't forget about the ol trusty Tamron 90mm either. I see many reports on-line that Nikon claims "Impact-damage" on many lenses they receive now for warranty work.. Google it, it must be true.. I personally think Sigma and Tamron are closing the gap very quickly. I'm sure the next 10 or so lenses that Sigma announce this year will be just about as good as Canonikon. I also see the new Tamrons getting very good reviews and receiving good dxomark scores... I think many people are stuck in the mindset that Tamron and Sigma sucked in the 80s and 90s so they must still suck. I'm sure that most Canonikon lenses are better, but often costing 2-3x more than the "3rd" party lenses. So the question... is 2-3x more money worth 1-5% increase in performance?

 

[Overread]

robbins that's honestly surprising; I've never heard bad things said of the original 150mm macro from sigma. About the only downside was that its AF wasn't as fast as Canon's own in their macro lens, but that was really about it for properly negative viewpoints. Most others were more in the line of "Oh its 3rd party, its not that good" kind of viewpoints based on the whole 3rd party thing rather than actual use.

I think 3rd party mantra has a lot to answer for and many people have come to assume it rather than really find out if its true. For my part my 150mm has always stood up well even to a monster like the Canon MPE 65mm macro and my Sigma 70mm I think is even a touch sharper at f2.8 (although in all honesty side by side they were all three great performers for sharpness with very minor differences).