CanoNikkor Lens Snobbery

[NorthernFocus]

A few years ago I swore off of third party lenses and since then have purchased nothing but Nikkor. I have to admit back then I did so more out of a desire to improve my overall kit and with the assumption, not based on fact, that OEM lenses would help. Recently the need to replace my APS-C format 16-85 Nikkor lens put me in the market for a similar focal range. Since I was there anyway I figured I might as well look for something that would be an optical upgrade. Among the available factual data that I could find available (i.e. test scores, not just subjective reviews), several third party lenses kept popping up purely for technical performance without consideration of cost.

To make a long story short, I ended up purchasing a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8. I haven't done any serious work with it yet but have to say that for overall build quality, AF functionality, etc., I 'm pretty impressed. Sigma has come a long way since my last one and for any Nikkor snobs like me, I highly recommend giving some of the newer Sigma models a look.

The Sigma lens I was really impressed with was the APS-C format 18-35 1.8. But I was looking for the proverbial travel/walkaround lens and the 18-35 is a little to restrictive, is HUGE and has no VR/OS for shooting handheld.

When I get some useful results with the new lens I'll report back and post a few. May be a while though as I have a lot of both business and personal travel coming up in the next few weeks.

[davidedric]

I have the Sigma 17-70mm with the Canon mount, on a 600D . I don't have anything to compare it with, but I am very happy with the results.

P. S. I should have said, I don't have anything to compare with Dan's stuff.

[dje]

Well I can't be accused of lens snobbery - I have two Sigma's and a Tamron for my Canon 600D - no Canon lenses.

Dave

[John 2]

I have a mixture. I have two Nikkor tele zooms and two Tokina lenses - a 100mm macro and an 11-16 super wide. All were chosen on reviews rather than the label. None have disappointed. I would like something a lot longer than I have at the moment for wildlife once I can afford to part with the readies. I would be looking at the Tamaron 150 -600mm rather than say a Nikkor 80-400mm - again based on current reviews and, inevitably, bang for buck.

[ajohnw]

Usually when the real tests are examined the brand lenses often have more even resolution across the frame. Sigma seem to like doing well in the centre but not so well at the edge. I don't think that matter much except maybe to full frame users. The shots produced with cheaper lenses by the time they are processed, maybe cropped and bit and often reduced in size from how they appear at 100% res on a PC sceen show that in most cases resolution doesn't always matter with reason. Contrast really does but most lenses seem to be well coated these days.

Personally from early film days experience I would always have a nose at what Tamron have on offer. Sigma at that time was often unusual, cheap and not so good but very good value. Tokina have always seemed to turn out good glass but so far no IS. Tamron seem to be fixing that now but there are warnings about panning problems around.

John
-

[Manfred M]

While I prefer sticking with Nikon glass; I certainly won't hesitate to buy from other manufacturers, if Nikon does not have a lens that I want or at a pricepoint I am willing to pay. I have lenses from Tokina, Sigma and Samyang.

[PhotomanJohn]

I suffered from this affliction as well but not for snobbery reasons but, like Dan, I was looking for the best product. I developed this pattern 45 years ago when it was probably true and didn't change my habits until recently. I now buy based on the serious technical reviews and personal impressions of the feel and operation of the lens. Each of the three major third-party lens manufacturer's have one or more models that are as good or better than the equivalent Nikon or Canon lens for less money and should be considered by anyone that is in the market for a similar lens. There is nothing magic about the Nikon or Canon lenses. My Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 lens has the worst barrel distortion at 16mm of ANY lens that DXO has ever tested, period. Also, the service provided by the third-party lens manufacturer's is generally much better than provided by Nikon, but that's not saying much.

Fellow photographers, open up your eyes to these lenses. They are rapidly getting better.

John

[ajohnw]

I think price comes into it especially from Nikon but only really at the very top end of each type and particular pieces of glass. As a for instance if I wanted a F2.8 70-300mm it would be the Nikon one but it comes at a cost and a need to ask if the performance it offers is really needed. Actually the F4 is pretty good too. What muddies the water is more run of the mill lenses.

I probably have the worst example of this running m 4/3. I would just love a 300mm F2.8 lens but would I pay over 5000 quid for it? I might also find that it would miss focus on my camera some of the time.too but 5000 quid even if it didn't.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

It is interesting how things have changed. Nikon used to be primarily an optics company. Along came digital and they started making boatloads of money on compact cameras and DX(aka APS-C) format DSLRs. In spite of booming DX sales they apparently decided that DX shooters aren't serious enough to warrant a full line of lenses designed for DX. So they left a door open in what used to be their core business for third party lens makers to get a foothold. Now camera sales are dropping like a stone and competition is heating up for lens sales that Nikon willingly gave up.

We could debate Sigma lens quality from now till rapture. But probably the most telling indication is the market. Sigma lenses aren't cheap any longer. They still don't bring the premium of CanoNikon, but they have closed the gap substantially and market conditions obviously support the pricing.

[Colin Southern]

I wouldn't call myself a "snob" as such, but none-the-less, I never go off-brand when it comes to lenses. Why? Dunno really. In the context of Sigma / Tamron / Tokina lenses (a) I don't like the look of them and (b) I've heard too many horror stories about their (lack of) performance & (lack of) build quality. Have they improved? Quite possibly so, but I still don't personally see the logic in buying a Ferrari and then adding Porsche wheels when Ferrari wheels just fit in perfectly with what I already have.

If I needed a specialty lens that Canon didn't make then it may be a different story, but that hasn't happened to date.

Not saying my approach is right or wrong - it's just my personal thinking on the topic

[Polar01]

John as a Nikon shooter myself I must correct you as Nikon does not offer a 70-300 f2.8 lens, however it is f4.5-5.6, but you are correct that the 300mm is a f2.8 and both are FX lens.

Allan

[RichardTaylor]

As a Canon shooter I mostly shoot with Canon lenses. along with a Tokina (12-24) and a Tamron (18-250) lens.
I was shooting with another three Tokina olenses however due to reliability probelms I will not touch them anymore.

[jimd]

I can't be accused of CanoNikkor lens snobbery.

Almost all of mine are Pentax

[ajohnw]

John as a Nikon shooter myself I must correct you as Nikon does not offer a 70-300 f2.8 lens, however it is f4.5-5.6, but you are correct that the 300mm is a f2.8 and both are FX lens.

Allan

My mistake Allen. I meant the 70-200mm and had forgotten the number on the end. The 300mm I refereed to is an Olympus 4/3 lens. The 150mm fast lens is a bit more affordable.

The reason they don't make many specific quality crop lenses is simple really. People will buy the full frame lenses. There are some good crop lenses though. As a for instance if I wanted a Nikon brand macro lens for a crop camera I would probably buy the 85mm crop lens.

As to the rest lens quality is part determined by what people buy. Taking Nikon for instance they found that people seem to like buying 18 to something or the other so produce a range and there are penalties as the zoom range goes up. Going on the quality of the 18-55 dx lens I did own it seems to have had an effect even when it could be better. I like to be able to double the focal length by cropping or even post web shots based on 100% res crops.

Noticing a comment about specific crop lenses as far as I know all Sigma,Tamron,Tokina lenses are full frame lenses and I do feel that in many instances full frame users may notice a difference between these and their camera manufacturers lenses comparing like to like. What isn't clear is if this really matters. My view is that when the images ends up being huge it will so the question is how huge is acceptable. Taking a DX lens as an example I posted a link to a test of an DX 18-105mm that showed that the extreme corners were nvg. That has to be related to the fact that these crops came from an image with something like 1.4m diagonal on a PC screen. Even the centre was lacking in some respects - contrast. 1/2 the diagonal and there is a fair chance that all will look ok especially after a bit of post processing. Up the pixel count of the camera and more reduction would be needed.

I'm tempted to add that there are a number of m 4/3 lenses that can be pixel peeped as far as you like. I do wonder how long this will last though. They need to keep it up really as the sensor is smaller but if people are just going to post uncropped images 1000px or even smaller on the web why bother? Even Nikon are providing extra resolution on the even smaller V range cameras.

John
-

[Mike Buckley]

I have five lenses -- a Tokina 12-24 zoom that is renowned for its value, two Nikon lenses still being made and two Nikon lenses that had been discontinued long before I bought them.

I'm not a gear head, so I buy my glass mostly based on reputation. Part of the reputation is knowing that we can rarely go wrong when we buy Nikon or Canon.

However, this discussion shouldn't overlook the fabulous lenses made by the high-end companies, such as the Leica 50mm lens that costs more than USD $10,000 and the Zeiss lenses.

[John 2]

Jim, I nearly said the same about Fuji x lenses but that's a different story.

Richard, I know that some years ago, Tokina had an iffy reputation but I don't think it's true today. Incidentally, apparently Tokina was started by some Ex Nikon lens designers.

I know what you mean Colin, sticking with Nikkor or Canon I guess just gives you a safer feeling but there have been lenses like the two Tokina examples mentioned above that a broad spectrum of reviewers (and you always need more than one) have determined are actually better. A good example is the Tokina 100mm Macro which (apparently - I don't own both) not only at least matches Nikons offering in resolution and sharpness but in addition, doesn't suffer the problem of the macro frame changing size (magnification) as the lens is focussed. The same is also true of Tamaron's macro equivalent. Add in the bang for buck factor and it was no contest for me. Other factors also come into play. I would like a Fish Eye lens but given that I wouldn't use it that often, why would I pay Nikon prices when Samyang manual lenses are reputedly as sharp as they are?

John, going on memory, the 18-55mm DX Nikkor didn't have that good a reputation but the 18-200mm DX certainly does. I use it continuously as my carry around every day lens on the D7100.

[chauncey]

In part I agree with Colin but, I am a snob in that, I want any image error to be user based, not gear based. One early excursion into the third party realm was disappointing, to say the least. As my skill set improved, so did my anal retentiveness and now all lens purchases are based on MTF charts.

Rant time...wide angle glass...with current technology in the photo-merge process...why do WA lenses, with all their inherent distortion problems, as born out by the severe nose dive on those MTF charts, continue to be used. The sheer number of threads, on this site alone, related to lens distortion is staggering. Why use them?
OK...rant done.

[Donald]

...why do WA lenses, with all their inherent distortion problems, as born out by the severe nose dive on those MTF charts, continue to be used. The sheer number of threads, on this site alone, related to lens distortion is staggering. Why use them?

Because, I'd suggest, when mastered and used properly, they can help you produce wonderful images that are just not possible with standard or telephoto lenses.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Mostly Nikkor. Just one Tamron 18-200mm.

Doesn't really matter , as long as the lens is what I need and affordable.
( my #01 hobby is motorcycle-touring. It usually gets more budget/time/effort. )

[Brev00]

Whether a lens is third party or o.e.m. has never concerned me. The first lens I ever bought separate from an slr kit 50 was the Tamron 28-300. At the time I knew little about brands or specs and nothing of reviews but I thought the range was way cool. I decided after shooting the Tammy for years on film and then my D90 that I would get those Ferrari wheels and buy a Nikon 70-300. But, I walked out of the store with the newly released Tamron 70-300 vc. Again, no reviews or spec data. Just a clerk's recommendation (a real store!--which has since closed and miraculously reopened but in a smaller space) and a five day trial period. The idea of scrupulously testing a lens on my own was new and the first attempts convinced me to keep the lens. But, my next purchase was more paradigm shaping. I wanted a midrange and wound up choosing the Sigma 17-70 os. No local stores I knew carried Sigma. But, by now I was more well versed in lens website reviews and discovered what to me is a guiding principle: each lens is different. There is no Nikon lens that is identical to the 17-70 is specs and design and results. While I looked long and hard at the 16-85, its features just didn't match up to my needs as precisely as the 17-70 particularly in the area of close focusing. So, now I try to buy based on features rather than brand, which lens suits my needs the best. I eventually bought a Tokina 12-24 dx II after renting a Nikon 12-24. I was not amazed enough to warrant buying a used Nikon for more money than a brand new Tokina. So, I have the third party trifecta. Now I am looking to possibly replace my Samsung compact with the Samsung nx300--amazing results using DPReview's lens comparison tool. Kinda odd to be a photographer yet be so blind . . . to brand identification.