Good 3rd party glass.

[Mike Kennedy]

I had posted regarding good lenses for my Nikon N90s.Thanks to all who replied.
When I looked up the prices on KEH my jaw dropped.I can't afford those prices.Are there some good quality 3rd party AF lenses?

Thank You

 

[mtnbkr]

Based on what I've heard, it depends on the specific lens. So Tamron's 80mm F2 (just making up things here) might be great, but their 100mm F2.8 might be merely ok, while their 28-80mm F3.5 is a dog.

You probably don't want to hear this, but why buy a Nikon if you're not going to use Nikon glass? I just went back and reread the post. Personally, I'd dump the Tamron and Nikon 35-89 because they're redundant and replace them with a 50mm 1.8 (less than $100) and save you nickels for a 24 2.8 or some other wide lens. If you sold those two lenses, you'd probably have enough cash for the 50mm and a hefty downpayment on the 24 if not enough for outright purchase.

I have an N80. My lens collection consists of a 24 2.8, 50 1.8, and 70-210 4.5-5, all Nikon. The zoom is slow and a PITA when the light is low, but delivers pleasing images. The 24mm is a bit too wide most times, so it rarely gets used (but delivers good results, just not my "style"). The 50 is what I use the most because it's light, inexpensive should I break it, and good for most uses. I bought those lenses over a period of 3 years (bought and sold some non-Nikon glass in the meantime), but tallied up, they cost me roughly $400 via local shops, local private sales, and ebay.

If I were to add anything, it would probably be a moderate tele prime such as something in the 85 to 180mm range.

Chris

 

[Soeren]

What Chris said
you should also keep in mind that Sigma lenses turn anti clockwise (Nikors turn clockwise) when focussing towards infinity. Not a problem if you only use AF but......
It can really be a PITA

 

[Pinholemaster]

A camera is a box that keeps the light off the film. Your image is constructed by the lens. Unless you buy a Zeiss made for Nikon, all other 3rd party lenses are inferior to Nikon's designs. You get what you pay for, so if you want to save a money but still have the superior optics of a Nikkor, get a manuel focus lens. Auto-focus is overrated, it can be wrong. Tamron, Sigma, etc, on a Nikon is like putting cheap tires on a quality sports car.

KEH is a very good company, but there are other sources for Nikon lenses that are not as expensive.

 

[ath]

I've no experience with Nikon, but sometimes I prefer 3rd party lenses to go with my Canons. Especially the Tamron 28-75/2,8 XR Di.
Why? Well, it fits my needs. Canon does not in this range. I was looking for a fast, small and lightweight standard zoom to accompany my EF 70-200/4L for traveling and there is simply none with "Canon" on it.
What is a slight disadvantage for me is good for Nikon users: the zoom and the distance rings turn in the "Nikon direction".

I'm quite the opposite of a "why buy a Nikon if you're not going to use Nikon glass" guy, but in case of Canon I try to choose Canon wherever possible to avoid incompatibility issues. But the Tamron was worth an exception...

 

[ehparis]

...

You probably don't want to hear this, but why buy a Nikon if you're not going to use Nikon glass?...
Chris

I'm not a lens snob. But I also bought Nikons to get Nikon glass. Cameras don't make pictures, lenses do. Good glass, one lens or more, is the best investment you can make.

 

[PhotoJim]

There are lots of good, inexpensive Nikkors.

AF 50/1.8
AF 35/2
AF 28/2.8D
28/2.8 or /3.5 AI-S or AI (AI-S is better if you get the 2.8)
135/2.8 or /3.5 AI/AI-S
200/4 AI/AI-S

You can get all of these under a hundred bucks (some consistently other, some requiring a bit of luck and perseverence).

If you have to get zooms, then you have to compromise some more.

The AF 35-80/4-5.6D with metal mount is fantastic. It's about $50. You may already own one.

AF 28-70/3.5-4.5D
AF 28-85/3.5-4.5
AF 70-210/4-5.6 (D or non-D)
AF 35-105/3.5-4.5D

I'm sure there are some good third-party zooms, but the only ones I've been happy with have been expensive. The Nikkors are not that much more money when you are buying at the low end.

Buy one lens at a time. You don't need to own them all in one day. Build your system over time like most of us here on apug have done. Get one good lens you can afford, and use it. Then, save up and buy a second good lens you can afford. Better to buy lenses you will like and want to keep a long time than to buy a lens that won't satisfy you.

 

[film_guy]

Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lens if you want to go with a 3rd party lens. I had the Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 once, and it focuses slower than the Tamron.

 

[spiralcity]

You can shoot great photos with third party glass and depending on the lens the glass will last as long as you take care of it in the proper maner.
I own a 24mm 2.5 Tamron BBar that I had forever. This lens still functions great and is optically fine. It may be a bit slow but it's perfect for the type of shooting I use it for.
I have a 135 2.8 Albinar that may not be perfect but it does the job plus it has held up to the test of time. This lens is well over 20 years old and still function perfect.
Sure their may be better glass, but third party lenses can and do hold up to the test of time and also can perform quite well.

Nobody owns a third party lens that they have had for over 10 years? I find that hard to believe.

 

[snapdragon]

3rd Party Glass

I had posted regarding good lenses for my Nikon N90s.Thanks to all who replied.
When I looked up the prices on KEH my jaw dropped.I can't afford those prices.Are there some good quality 3rd party AF lenses?

Thank You

I'm not an AF guy, so I can't comment on AF lenses. When it comes to glass, which you must focus yourself, however, I have a comment. My system, which I will not name, has extremely good glass, in all the usual focal lengths. I own nearly half of the name-brand lengths. And I use most of those from 24 to 50 when the situation calls for it.

But, the lens I use most, and have more or less permanently mounted to three bodies (yes, I have three of these lenses) is the Tamron 35-80 SP, which IMHO is just about the best lens for its range anyone could consider. Its performance has never failed to meet my best expectations. It is relatively fast (f2.8) at its wide setting, it has separate rings for focus and zoom, it can go to macro good enough to fill a slide with a postage stamp, etc., etc.

I bought my first one retail in the 80s and guess I paid over $300 with tax. I bought my most recent (mint, maybe unused) on ebay for about $55 as I recall.

You would need an adaptor, to fit your brand, but if you could stand to focus for yourself, this is a lens that fits the most common focal lengths with shining performance. It's almost like having a normal lens with the added zooms in and out, plus a macro. Best lens I've ever used, bar none.

It's just my opinion, of course, and there will probably be those who will flame me. But, I thought I would offer you this as a thing to think about. AF is fine, I suppose. We all have digitals (yikes, should I confess?), and they're all AF. Big deal! My wife brings the D to gatherings and takes snaps. I bring one of my OLD 35s, take a slide or two, and when I scan those on my Nikon slide scanner, and send those to family and friends, comments come back.

For serious sessions, including photographing art that is going into publications, I use the Tamron on a tripod, zoom to best fit to fill the film, easel and tripodon same plane to insure squareness, shutter released by cable, and artwork illuminated by the sun (yes, outdoors), I have been paid bonuses for the outstanding clarity every single time!

There may be inferior 3rd party lenses (why 3rd -- isn't 2nd more accurate). I can't comment. But the Tamron 35-80 SP is _not_ to be counted among those. That is, if you are willing to focus on your subject, and not leave that to the equipment )

Jim Burke (aka snapdragon)

 

[snapdragon]

3rd Party Glass

I had posted regarding good lenses for my Nikon N90s.Thanks to all who replied.
When I looked up the prices on KEH my jaw dropped.I can't afford those prices.Are there some good quality 3rd party AF lenses?

Thank You

I'm not an AF guy, so I can't comment on AF lenses. When it comes to glass, which you must focus yourself, however, I have a comment. My system, which I will not name, has extremely good glass, in all the usual focal lengths. I own nearly half of the name-brand lengths. And I use most of those from 24 to 50 when the situation calls for it.

But, the lens I use most, and have more or less permanently mounted to three bodies (yes, I have three of these lenses) is the Tamron 35-80 SP, which IMHO is just about the best lens for its range anyone could consider. Its performance has never failed to meet my best expectations. It is relatively fast (f2.8) at its wide setting, it has separate rings for focus and zoom, it can go to macro good enough to fill a slide with a postage stamp, etc., etc.

I bought my first one retail in the 80s and guess I paid over $300 with tax. I bought my most recent (mint, maybe unused) on ebay for about $55 as I recall.

You would need an adaptor, to fit your brand, but if you could stand to focus for yourself, this is a lens that fits the most common focal lengths with shining performance. It's almost like having a normal lens with the added zooms in and out, plus a macro. Best lens I've ever used, bar none.

It's just my opinion, of course, and there will probably be those who will flame me. But, I thought I would offer you this as a thing to think about. AF is fine, I suppose. We all have digitals (yikes, should I confess?), and they're all AF. Big deal! My wife brings the D to gatherings and takes snaps. I bring one of my OLD 35s, take a slide or two, and when I scan those on my Nikon slide scanner, and send those to family and friends, comments come back.

For serious sessions, including photographing art that is going into publications, I use the Tamron on a tripod, zoom to best fit to fill the film, easel and tripodon same plane to insure squareness, shutter released by cable, and artwork illuminated by the sun (yes, outdoors), I have been paid bonuses for the outstanding clarity every single time!

There may be inferior 3rd party lenses (why 3rd -- isn't 2nd more accurate). I can't comment. But the Tamron 35-80 SP is _not_ to be counted among those. That is, if you are willing to focus on your subject, and not leave that to the equipment )

Jim Burke (aka snapdragon)

 

[Nick Zentena]

The only non-nikon lens I have is a Tamron 35mm-105mm f/2.8 [not variable f.2.8 the whole range] I think it supposedly doesn't work on the digital thingies so the price was well under $200. IIRC at the time I got it from KEH it was about 1/2 the price of the Nikon 35mm-70mm F/2.8.

New you can't beat the 50mm f/1.8 for price. The 35mm and the 85mm are more expensive but relatively not too bad.

I disagree with the postings about the MF being cheaper.Many of the nicer ones are selling for good money.

 

[waynecrider]

The Nikon 70-210 F4-5.6 is a good lens off the extremes and I have seen some pretty decent prices occasionally being just over a $100. Going short, I'd prefer either a 50mm F1.8 N lens or slightly wider a 35mm AF D, but the 35's run around $200 usually. I have a 24mm Tamron that I just got an adapter for and an 18mm Vivitar that seem's pretty good but I have yet to really put it thru it's paces, but it was rec'd. Both the 24mm and 18mm were under $50.

 

[Russ - SVP]

I love my Nikon glass. But, I have some third party glass, every bit as good or better, than some of the Nikon glass.

Kiron Kid

 

[Paul Howell]

From the reviews and test data I have seen over the past 20 years it seems that Sigma and Tamron make very good glass lens, even the Vivitar Sieris 1s were excellent. I have Sigma SA 7, 9 and D10 so I have all Sigma lens, consumer and pro level, image quaility is excellent.. The issue is mechanical reliability. When I had Nikon I dont ever recall having to have a lens sent in for repairs unless I dropped it, cant say the same for my Sigma. For that matter I have Pentex 42mm which I have owned for over 30 years, finally had a screw come lose on my 200mm and needed to have it fixed.

 

[BobbyR]

Modern Photography and Popular Photography used to put out "annual" or at least frequent camera and lens review type magazines.

For various reason ten years ago I quit reading the photography magazines regularly and finally as close to totally as one can and still read one at times.

Are there any such "yearbook" or occasional reviews still being printed.
I used an old one to help me decide about three years ago (I suddenly felt totally ignorant about a subject I had studied and practiced semi-continually for twelve years) on some purchases, but I find the magazines of today to be less informative.
One item that used to be printed was often exactly who made what for whom, and how various functions differed, and where the differences excelled or fell short.

Barring digital, do such articles get printed yet, or is there a place to purchase those printed in the last ten years.
The best and worst of the third party, and or generic lenses is what I would really like to find.
I know Modern Photography used to often mention oddball lenses that were oddly superior.
Bobby

 

[mawz]

For AF lenses Tamron's SP and Tokina's AT-X Pro series lenses are almost uniformly excellent. Sigma's EX stuff tends to be more of a crapshoot due to variable qualitybut a good example will usually deliver. For the ost part I don't recommend bothering with 3rd party consumer glass, buy their pro-level stuff, which usually only costs around as much as 1st party high-end consumer kit.

For MF stuff I'm partial to Tokina, non-Cosina Vivitar Series 1, Kiron and the new Cosina Voightlander stuff. All are generally excellent.

 

[Russ - SVP]

My Tamron SP's, Kiron and Vivitar Series 1 lenses have all been stellar performers.

Kiron Kid

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Even Contax, Leica, Canon, Nikon & Hasselblad have dog lenses.

It is beyond the point of hubris, to believe that EVERY Lens, that a camera manufacturer produces is " Great ".
The whole purpose of this site, is to be able to cherry pick the best equipment, according to your needs.
Believe me, there are some 3rd party lenses, that Canon & Nikon, either won't or can't duplicate.

Here are 2:

Tamron's 35 - 105 mm f 2.8 ASL. This constant aperture zoom, is small, light weight & amazingly sharp.
This is due to the use of the first molded aspheric lens.

Tokina's 100 - 300 mm f 4.0 SD. Again constant aperture, Kind of heavy, but one stop faster, ( constant aperture ),
than the factories f 5.6's. It's a good compromise between the 300 f 2.8 & the 100 - 300 mm f 5.6 of the factories.
It's also " L " sharp, due to the use of " SD " glass. Think Nikon " ED ".

 

[mudman]

why in the world are you dragging up threads that are a year to two years old? Bored recently?

 

[John Koehrer]

why in the world are you dragging up threads that are a year to two years old? Bored recently?

Less of a life than I have.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

why in the world are you dragging up threads that are a year to two years old? Bored recently?

Do you really want to know ?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a Nikon N-75 and a Nikon F-100. I have:
Nikon AF D f/2.8 20mm to 35mm zoom lens
Nikon AF ED f/2.8 28mm to 200mm zoom lens
Tamron AF XR f/3.5 28mm to 300mm zoom lens

The 28mm to 200mm is very barely sharper than the 28mm to 300mm, as one would expect for a short zoom focal length. All three lenses are about as sharp as can be expected for zoom lenses. The contrast is the same for all three.

Fixed focus lens may be slightly better than the zooms. I have not compared them.

I am very pleased with these lenses. I save my money for Sirius Glass for the Hasselblad.

Steve

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

If you need a macro lens, the Sigma 50mm f2.8 AF macro is excellent. I have not tested it against any of the Nikons in its focal length range (they made a 50/2.8 macro and a 60/2.8. I think the 60 was recently redesigned). I can say it is very sharp and I am happy with it. I've had it 15 yrs.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Hi Mike,

In the UK (and probably elsewhere) there's a resurgence of interest in Nikkor film lenses (primes and zooms). Why? Because of the FX sensor that's now installed in the D700/D3/D3x.

Not everyone can afford the new FX-coded lenses but the AF-D (and earlier non auto-focus ranges) will work equally well on the new FX sensors. This is driving up the cost and, therefore, scarcity of good quality s/hand Nikkor glass.

Thankfully, as I also have a Nikon F100 (together with several other film cameras of various makes) I already had the 24mm/f2.8, 50mm/f1.8 and 85mm/f1.8. I recently added the 35mm/f2.0. Okay, I have to 'zoom with my feet' and change lenses more than I had to with the D300 and 17-55mm/f2.8, but it's a small price to pay for the quality I get with both F100 and D700.

Yes, there is some 'okay' third-party glass out there but I honestly believe that it's better to have a small selection of quick prime Nikkors than to spend a bit less on something next to which you will always have a question-mark. Also, when you come to sell or trade the third-party lenses, they will not have retained a great deal (in % terms) of their original cost in comparison with Nikkors.

PJ.