Aftermarket lenses

Ambermile

Ambermile

A Whole Lot of Sparkle..
Messages
4,126
Name
Arthur
Edit My Images
No
Hi all - after a lens for a Nikon, looking at options other than oem, is there anyone I should look for/avoid?

To be more specific, I am looking at similar lenses from Cosina, Tamron, Quantaray and Vivitar? All have the lens I am after in their lists, all similar spec... I realise they may be made in the same place but that's not what I want to hear! (well, it is, but...) I am really interested only in performance, not badges here.

Arthur
 
Tamron make some very nice stuff, vivitar used to make some nice stuff, cosina have very rarely made any nice stuff and quantaray have never made nice stuff!!

:lol:

If you can find a Tamron within your budget, you won't go far wrong. I'd stay well clear of the others....
 
Pity - there's a rather nice Vivitar for sale in Japan! I shall look at the Tamron a wee bit closer then as the Vivitar is only MF and I want to be lazy :D

Arthur

PS - Soligor?
 
Well I have to point out in my defence that until now I have tended to buy on price, I think I have reached the point where I need to consider quality though as I can see where my pics, while similar to others, may be lacking a certain punch, or impact.

Two for Tamron so far then.

Arthur
 
The Tamron Adaptall range have some nice glass, but you do need to buy a Nikon adaptor but they come up regularly and quite often cheaply on fleabay.

Andy
 
Hi Andy - not too keen on the Adaptall stuff, more to go wrong with cold fingers?

Arthur
 
I really rate the Tokina 12-24 f4 and 50-135 f2.8, both very high quality image and construction and constant aperture. The AF/MF switch is real bonus as it means you can easily switch between the two without taking your eye away from the finder.

Most of the architectural stuff on my flicker site is taken with the 12-24.
 
one name not mentioned in the above posts is Sigma, they do some very nice lenses. I've got the 10-20mm ultra wide zoom and used to have the 18-125mm OS standard zoom and been very happy with both. Ok these were mounted on a Canon body, but must assume that the nikon fit versions are just as good
 
There are some fine old MF lenses from Vivitar and Cosina, but you have to research the specifics. The build quality of similar vintage Sigmas is a lot worse.

My vote goes for Tamron Adaptall, but I have enough mounts to not need to change when out and about.
 
I'm looking at a 17,18,19-35 right now, got pretty much everything else covered I think, hence this thread.

Arthur
 
Really, if you want punch and quality then try a Tamron SP 35-80 f/2.8. It's an absolute cracker for virtually nothing these days. But an adaptor and leave it on the lens. No worries for fingers.
 
Well, I have a Nikor 35-70 to leave on, (and a 75-300 sigma apo thing for odd long shot), but I just wanted something a bit wider - for those times when you hit the wall walking back to get the shot in.

Arthur
 
Tokina and Tamron both did 17mm MF primes. There's an AF Tokina 17mm in the USA on eBay right now, but the Tamron AF ƒ/2.8-4 17-35mm isn't much more. It's full frame and quite well regarded: the first lens I bought with digital in mind, thinking I would use it on a film camera when ultrawide was required and nothing was available at a reasonable price to do the job on a crop sensor.
 
Not [primes, I mean I want a 17, 18 or 19 to 35mm zoom! No way can I afford a 17mm prime right now as I only just got the camera so have had to spend on a couple of "normal" lenses first.

Arthur
 
Well, a 17mm MF prime would be £50-£150.

The Tamron AF 17-35mm would be £100-£250. Cheaper than the 17-50mm, but larger and not constant ƒ/2.8.
 
Ooo - just seen the Tamron 17mm :D
 
OK, looks like it may be a sensible choice... 18-50mm maybe for now (Sigma, £40 so not the 2.8) and keep an eye out for a decent-priced 17-35mm since I cannot even think about paying for a 17-50mm yet!

Arthur
 
I really like my high end Sigma lenses. They feel very solid and it all works well. My better half as a Nikkor nut and like for like I think most people would be pushed to tell the difference. The only thing is Nikkor does tend to be a generation ahead all the time. Just avoid the cheap Sigma lenses, I have two and there very nasty.
 
Been looking, can't find a bad review for this (Sigma 18-50mm DC) lens, so I think on balance it's a good choice. [1]

Arthur

[1]Unless, for the price, anyone knows better?
 
... umm... er, is the Nikon 18-50 significantly better than the Sigma does anyone know? A couple of reviews say def. not and the Sigma outshines the Nikor but I'd like confirmation if possible before deciding... this is the f/3.5 I am talking about here.


Arthur
 
Lot of people say very good things about the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8.

Edit: sorry just read its not the f2.8 you were looking at. Sorry dont know then
 
Arthur, I think you'll find the Canon 18-55mm IS kit lens is even better than the Sigma. The addition of IS really helps in low light.
 
Ah - how do yyou know it is IS then? Doubtless a silly question, but none of the ones I am seeing say anything like that.

Arthur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top