Confused over the Nikon lens range

tummelv

tummelv

Messages
85
Edit My Images
No
I don't understand, which lens manufacturer is generally considered the best for Nikon cameras? Is it the official Nikon range? What about Sigma? They seem to make good lenses also...

Help! :thinking:

Thanks,
 
IMO "best" comes down to cost and what you need it for.

Generally, Nikon lenses will have gone through more quality control than Sigma or tamron etc and "should" use better optics, have better AF motors etc but at a cost.

However, if you get a good copy of a Sigma or tamron lens then there will be little in it in terms of IQ.
 
dizzledazzle said:
IMO "best" comes down to cost and what you need it for.

Generally, Nikon lenses will have gone through more quality control than Sigma or tamron etc and "should" use better optics, have better AF motors etc but at a cost.

However, if you get a good copy of a Sigma or tamron lens then there will be little in it in terms of IQ.
Click to expand...

Nikkor lenses are optically the best, Nikon Quality Control is the best, Sigma Quality Control is the end user.
 
Thanks guys...

I was trying to figure out potential upgrades for the future even though I'm not even close to being held back with my D40.

This business is addictive. :lol:
 
Dont pixel peep or read too deeply into reviews and MTF charts. It can be very misleading.
 
Martyn... said:
Nikkor lenses are optically the best
Click to expand...

puddleduck said:
I can think of several cases where this is not the case.
Click to expand...

I think what they mean is that Nikon make some very very very good lenses. You can generally tell which ones these are because they're very very very expensive. They also make some much less good lenses. You can tell which ones these are because .... well, I expect you can see where this is going!

Third-party manufacturers such as Sigma and Tamron do make some very good lenses too, but they know they can't charge a premium for their names and so they're generally targetting the more budget-conscious photographer. That doesn't mean they don't have some absolute gems in their ranges. For example the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (£300) is optically right up there with the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (£900), but it's nowhere near as well built and doesn't feel as durable.

When you pay a high price for an own-brand lens (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc) you're generally paying for one or more of:
* better (sometimes much better) build quality
* higher spec compinents, eg faster and more accurate focussing
* brand name premium
* (perhaps) better quality control
 
StewartR said:
When you pay a high price for an own-brand lens (Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc) you're generally paying for one or more of:
* better (sometimes much better) build quality
* higher spec compinents, eg faster and more accurate focussing
* brand name premium
* (perhaps) better quality control
Click to expand...

And Dont forget guaranteed compatibility with future cameras using the same mount.

some old sigmas etc will not work on modern DSLRs as they require rechipping.
 
StewartR said:
They also make some much less good lenses. You can tell which ones these are because .... well, I expect you can see where this is going!
Click to expand...

I think that you will find that the cheap Nikon kit lenses are very good value for money, and sound optically for the price, they just are not f2.8.

The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is right up there optically with the 17-55, and the same can be said of the Canon version, however that is providing you get a good one. I read too many times how good a lens is, once it has been exchanged several times, to my way of thinking that means that 1 in 3 are good, and regardless of how cheap they are, that is not acceptable to me.

What makes Nikon, and Canon optics expensive, is not so much the cost of the glass that is in them, but the cost of the lens blanks that get rejected and discarded before they get in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top