Yes or No to third party equipment

P

Paul Parker

Messages
56
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi TP
Im just asking your opinion on i suppose on third party equipment in this case Lenses. In an ideal world buying manufactured and a named brands you'd expect the best, It'll come with a good reputation and customer support but in this world is third party equipment getting a raw deal? Is it equally as good in your opinion for a cheaper price or is it for peace of mind do you just stick with the big boys?
 
Impossible to give a straight yes/no answer, as I'm sure you realise.
DXO tested the Tamron 70-200 against the Nikon 70-200 and concluded that the Tamron was better in the test than the Nikon: Test Results
One potential problem with 3rd-party lenses is the possible need for firmware updates when getting a new camera or for firmware updates on an existing camers. Sigma have sort of addressed this with their newer range of lenses that can be updated via the dock. Some users have 'raved' about the Sigma 'Art' lenses, others recount poor quality control in previous Sigma contributions.
I think the answer is do your research on the lens that you are considering, try it if you can and get it from somewhere where you can return it if it is a dud. :)
 
Last edited:
Third party lenses can and do give good results, but my experience with them in the past has been build quality,
had some bad experiences where the same thing happening with my \Nikon lenses has result in no damage, but there are
others that will tell you differently.
Apart from one cheapish walk around (Nikon 18-300) lens all mine are higher end so perhaps that makes a difference
 
Never had much trouble with any of them. My AF Tamron 90 macro was superb and is still going over a decade later and my old tamron adaptall-2 lenses are all around 30 years old or more and still in fantastic working condition. (manual focus so less to go wrong I suppose, but the swappable mounts means they have been used on everything) The only sigma lens I've owned was a 15mm fisheye which also worked perfectly while I had it and was sharper than the canon I'd been borrowing. Of all of them though, the Tokina 100 macro seems to have the toughest build being pretty much all metal and the hood is velvet lined, otherwise it's remarkably similar to the tamron 90. All of them had accurate AF performance and excellent build quality.
 
In my Nikon bag there are a few 3rd party lenses - in fact, IIRC, there are 3 3rd party and 3 Nikkors. In the Fuji bag, all are Fuji but that's because there are very few 3rd party lenses available for Fujis and I have all I need in terms of focal length using Fuji's XF lenses.
 
Some third party manufacturers have more experience in designing and making lenses than either Canon or Nikon do. As Kei mentioned, my Tamron 90mm macro is excellent while my 75-300 mark III Canon lens is quite badly made.

And do you actually know Canon or Nikon lenses are both designed and made by them? Cosina certainly does contract work for both, although I do not know whether this includes lenses or not. Cosina standards are good enough for Carl Zeiss!
 
Paul Parker said:
Hi TP
Im just asking your opinion on i suppose on third party equipment in this case Lenses. In an ideal world buying manufactured and a named brands you'd expect the best, It'll come with a good reputation and customer support but in this world is third party equipment getting a raw deal? Is it equally as good in your opinion for a cheaper price or is it for peace of mind do you just stick with the big boys?
Click to expand...

I don't think you can generalise as third party lenses aren't always the cheap option and run from all the way from Chinese companies no one has ever heard of before to the Sigma Art range and Zeiss. In some cases the third party alternatives are the expensive option and not only as good as the Canikon alternatives but (arguably) clearly better.

When I had DSLR's I always had good luck with Sigma lenses and I never had any of the focus issue that plagued others. in those days the best lenses I had were the Sigma 12-24mm, 150mm f2.8 and the 50 and 85mm f1.4's and all were IMO clearly better than the alternative Canon lenses, so I bought the Sigma lenses. More recently with MFT the best lens I've had was a third party Voigtlander. I also have a Sony A7 and Zeiss make some very nice lenses for that system.

I'd say that if you don't at least look at the third party options you could be missing out, big time :D
 
I mostly use Canon lens-wise, but you would have to pry my Sigma 100-300 EX F4 out of my cold, dead hands. Love it to bits, and despite 'upgrading' a couple of times I still come back to it.

Had bad luck personally with Tamron, as every single lens of theirs I've bought has had some sort of fault or weirdness, but other people seem to get the good ones so it's probably just my bad luck! :D
 
each case is very individual.

My 35/1.4 Art Sigma is stellar lens. In such case there is no point to pay 3x more for Canon or Nikon version. If something happens with new cameras, it can even be flashed via USB dock.
 
With lenses it's almost never about brand, a cheap Nikon lens is not as good as a mid range Sigma and miles behind a Sigma Art lens. But then the Nikon top of the range will be maybe a little better than the Art but at a price.

Generally you get what you pay for, third party lenses tend to be better value than the camera brands, but plenty of cheap lenses are simply 'cheap'.

But it's impossible to generalise too much, each lens needs to be taken on its merits.
 
hi i do belive that you get what you pay for in most cases but it does pay to shop around and test all of waht you are intrested in as in some cases you stick to your brand and you will come unstuck and pay heaverly for it i would say dont alway go by the name just becuse it looks good to read nikon or cannon which ever brannd you got at the end of the day your photos are more important than the name on the equipment unless you got more money than you can ever spend sorry to but in IM NEW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top