Why do so many overlook non Sigma/Canon/Nikon Lenses?

G

Graelwyn

Suspended / Banned
Messages
848
Edit My Images
Yes
I have noticed there seems to be a sort of idea that only proprietary lenses, or sigma are good, yet, I have been reading reviews across the web, as an example, for the Canon,sigma and Tokina macros and the 10-20mm sigma vs the tokina 12-24, and across the board thus far, especially on that FredMiranda site, the tokina gets incredibly positive ratings, with many even comparing the quality to that of L glass. (Obviously, I cannot compare myself as of yet)

Does anyone here go for brands like Tokina and Tamron, or are they looked down on from a lofty height? :p I think too much importance is placed on name, regardless of the fact that some other non canon/nikon brands get better reviews. Personal opinion, anyway. I don't think expensive always = best.
 
Tamron are ok, just slow focusing etc etc..

Nah, i don't really give any other makes any thought apart from Canon, and Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.......................... i can't say it because it ant true :lol:
 
Have seen some lovely results from the tokina-ken rockwell thinks they are better than sigma-build quality especially.

I have all sigma
 
My tamron is great. I'd upgrade if I had money to waste. The Nikon 17-55 2.8 would be good, but for the difference in price my work isn't suffering without it.
 
Eh, tamrons are plasticy?
Tokinas seem to be renowned for being built to withstand a lot...ie... like tanks.
Read that in many reviews, so shall be interested to see if the 100mm lives up to it's reputation.
On that Fredmiranda review section the tokina 12-24 got over 9 score, as compared to the sigma 10-20mm which got an 8 and quite a few very low scores due to endless copies having to be returned to the store. That has put me off that particular lens somewhat, regardless of the praise some bestow on it.
 
Every manufacturer has their gems.

For tokina its their 12-24, for Tamon its the 90mm Macro and the 17-55/2.8 / 28-70/2.8

Sigma's 30/1.4 and 100-300 are sweet-as.

Nowadays the 3rd party manufactutrers are right on the heels of the major manufactures in the mid bidget lineups, which is great for us consumers!

My Tokina was great until I dropped it. Build quality doesn't seem to matter one jot when a lens hits the concrete from 4ft, so I have no concerns whatsoever using the "plasticky" Tamron 90mm Macro.
 
i have looked at them, given the choice(and money) every lens i had would be canon L.
but in real terms, sigma, tamron, tokina are probably all bout the same. the major problem i find is learning what all the letters mean on all the ranges. gets real confusing when there is 3 generations of each lens with varying problems with each.

i have 1 sigma(50-150), looked at the tokina equiv(50-135 i think)but the two seemed to be very similar by reviews, so went witht he longer range.
 
The Tokina 12-24 is a gem of a lens. Built like a brick and sharp as tack....but it is not L. The focussing is slower and motorised (not that this is a problem in a landscape lens) and it shows a fair amount of CA. Their 80-400 on the other hand is beaten (I have tested them personally) by the 70-300 + TC...for about the same price and you get IS...

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a good lens, but again the focus motor drives me crazy, when the GF is anywhere near me trying to focus...but IQ is great

The Tamron 180mm macro is apparently brilliant.

But it is one or two gems from a whole bunch of average lenses.
 
Some third party lenses are great, some are not. Exactly the same as with original manufacturer lenses. In fact, there are certain models of lenses branded by Sony, Canon, Pentax etc. but made by Tamron or Tokina... Or Cosina. Normal thing.

I still prefer original lenses, but purely for the reason of having less backfocus/frontfocus problems. Brand does not matter to me.

:)
 
Another thing to watch is the quality control on 3rd party lenses. Sometimes you get a bobby dazzler, sometimes you get a duff copy. Nikon's QC seems a lot more consistant.

I have to vouch for Sigma UK support, though. They were rapid, courteous and very straight to the point in fixing the end back on my 100-300 after it kissed a doorframe... French kissed. Hard. :(
 
I would class the Sigma along with Tamron and Tokina myself, rather than put them with the name brands.

All three of the 3rd party manufacturers make *some* good lenses hidden amongst a range of mainly cheap, ordinary lenses. If the lens you want is one of those hidden gems, it's a great bargain, but you shouldn't let that fool you into buying their other stuff. (Your level of "ordinary" might not be the same as mine, as might your level of 'good' :) )

Personally, I have two Tamron's (17-35 and 28-75 f2.8) and a Canon 70-200 F4) and find all three to be as perfect as I need on a 30D. Yes, the Tamron's are a touch "plasticy" and don't focus quite as fast or as quietly, but neither problem has been an issue for me (the lens are kept in a camera bag, so don't get damaged, and you don't need fast focusing on trees) I can very happily recommend all three lenses, the only caveat being the 28-75's range on a crop body.
 
Every manufacturer has their sweetspots and the duffers.

I think you have to consider what camera people are using when they make their views too - a Sigma that looks good/ok on a crop sensor body might reveal hidden issues to a critical eye on a full frame sensor body.

Add in the various levels of IQ people are looking for (looks good on A4/A3/A2/A0 etc etc) and its difficult to for any view from general statements.

Years ago on my 300d i had the 70-200mm f4 L lens - didnt think IQ has any better than my Sigma lenses at the time, but i bet if i did the same on my 5d now i would see a difference. Whether that is enough to swing L glass for my use is another matter, but a lot of factors need to be considered.
 
I prefer tamron lenses to sigma stuff based on the experience I've had with them. They don't look as expensive so to other they aren't anywhere near as pimp but my pictures are always better and I've read the Tamron 90mm macro lens is sharper than nikon's own macro VR lens which is fairly expensive. For telephoto lenses I probably wouldn't bother going non nikon though as that's where they really excel imo.

as has been said though, you gotta judge each lens on its own merit - you can just say its good or bad without seeing it (or someone seeing it) first.

oh, btw - my tamron 'gem' wouldn't be the macro but rather the 17-50mm 2.8 - I've had it for ages now and it still pleases me every time I use it.
 
I have a Tokina 12-24 and I have to say it's my favourite lens, well built and as sharp as a needle. I would recommend it to anybody. I looked at the other choices available but this won out for me.
 
I use a Tamron 18-250mm as a walkabout and it's pretty good. Not the best but great value for money...
 
I don't think anyone buys Sigmas for the name. :) They buy them because Sigma is nifty at filling empty market segments, like the 30mm 1.4 or 10-20mm, and because they use ultrasonic motors.

Expensive may not always be best but Nikon and Canon have the biggest development budgets, the most experienced designers and the largest unit volumes. For the 3rd parties to produce a cheaper, better product under those conditions would be pretty remarkable hmmm?
 
If I could have any one lens for free it'd be sigma's 200-500mm 2.8 lens probably. :)
 
Sigmas 30mm is excellent I was thinking about it for a next lens but I want a wide angle first
 
I stick with canon as a rule as I find the focusing fast and quiet
but I have a sigma 105 macro 2.8
a sigma 30mm F1.4
because nothing else did that at the price required.
same with my walk about
dumped the 17-85 IS canon for a Tamron 17-55 f2.8 through the range.
works a treat. a bit noisy focusing but pretty nice.
build quality>??you get what you pay for. can't afford 17-35L glass or something like that so for F2.8....excellent
personally I haven't used a sigma zoom I like apart from the 10-20mm ish and have heard good things about the 70-300mm APO's.

the problem with "tokina lens almost L glass quality" is that is seems tokina, tamron etc have wider margins for error. so you may get an awesome lens but the box next to it would be an inferior sample. Canon and Nikon have great quality control I think
 
DizMatt said:
Canon and Nikon have great quality control I think
Click to expand...

Get your tin hat on my friend, expect this thread to fill up with flak for suggesting such a thing! :thumbs:
 
I would only buy canon lenses for the simple reason I use a canon camera. Anything else would be like putting Skoda wheels on a Jag. :shrug:
 
I have a tokina 28-80, and i will be buying the 12-24 next month. If its built anything like the 28-80, then its worth it. It also gets better reviews than the sigma and is cheaper.
 
my tamron rocks and was a fifth the price of the Nikon for no major quality difference
 
It does seem that some people only go with "manufacturer" lenses when many of the alternatives are at least as good, infact the funny part is that companies like Tokina/Tamron actually make/design the lenses for the "big guns" & give them the appropriate "badge", of course a nice little mark-up is added to the price at this point too !!

simon
 
You should get all your queries and put them into one massive equiptment thread, ive seen millions of em!
 
If money was no object and Nikon made all the lenses that I need want then that's all I'd buy!

I have no problem with buying Tokina (built like a tank) or Tamron (pin sharp), but I always feel as if I'm rolling a dice when I buy a Sigma lens, hence why I end up buying them locally if I have to. I'd love the 120-300 f/28 (okay I'd really love the 300mm 2.8 Nikon VR, have you seen the price though :eek:) but locally it is quite a few hundred more than buying from HK and I don't fancy that much of a gamble :nono:
 
Threads like this always lead to opinions that will result in every lens out there being good in some way or other. All our lenses are great if they were better than the previous one and we haven't tried the more expensive one. My 300/4L is only great until the day I use a 300/2.8L and then it won't be so great anymore.

Bob
 
I bought Canon cameras, so I could use Canon lenses,in the days before digital imaging had been thought of, and because since I only shoot film, marque lenses are coated to all produce the same colour balance, which is important if you are shooting slides, so you're not switching from a cool lens to a warm one ( I don't do Photoshop )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top