Nikon lenses always better than off brand?

[Odot]

I got this Sigma 28mm 1.8 (aspherical) for cheap and i wonder how much edge in terms of AF speed, reliability and image quality am i losing out on compared to the Nikon AF-S 28mm 1.8 G, while shooting with a F100? Can this even be determined?

While we at it, can analog cameras also be sent in with their lenses for AF fine adjustment? I did this with my digital stuff and it made all of the difference so i wonder if this applies for analog as well?

 

[Cholentpot]

This may be sacrilege this site...

35mm is a small format, it's not an high-resolution format for the most part. I've found that using off brand or 3rd party prime lenses have rarely made a difference. I really only use older lenses though, I can't tell you about modern lenses with AF and other bings and whistles. I do know however that the majority of zooms up until the 90's are terrible. If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.

 

[chuck94022]

There are plenty of technical evaluations of this lens posted on the net. You should be able to find what you need there for critical elements you care about. In terms of AF speed, as far as I can tell it depends on the camera's screw drive (assuming I looked at the right lens when I did a web search), so the F100 screw drive motor would be the limiter on AF speed.

[Edit] Oh, and it looks like one thing you GAIN with the Sigma is an on-lens aperture ring. The Nikon G lenses only work on more modern Nikons that can electronically set aperture. Also, the Nikon is an AF-S focus, so the motor is in the lens (so-called Silent Wave focusing). The Nikon's focus will be quieter, and if the F100 screw drive motor is anything like the F5, the focusing will be smoother and less noticeable. At least on my F5, the screw drive motor is really powerful, so when AF engages, I know it. It isn't a problem at all, and it is damn fast, but compared to a Silent Wave design, it is obvious when it engages.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...The Nikon G lenses only work on more modern Nikons that can electronically set aperture. ...

The G lenses, while not having an aperture ring, still have the body setting the aperture mechanically by the coupling at the rear of the mount.

The new E lenses (not to be confused with the old Series E) have fully electronic aperture control (similar to Canon EF lenses).

I use a 60/2.8 Micro-Nikkor G lens on my F4 in either Program mode or Shutter-priority mode.

 

[benveniste]

I got this Sigma 28mm 1.8 (aspherical) for cheap and i wonder how much edge in terms of AF speed, reliability and image quality am i losing out on compared to the Nikon AF-S 28mm 1.8 G, while shooting with a F100? Can this even be determined?

There are several models of the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. I own the last one, the 28mm f/1.8 EX DG, and these comments are based on that lens.

AF Speed and accuracy on an F100 -- The Sigma is at a disadvantage here for a couple of reasons. First, at least my version focuses more closely than the Nikkor, which means the AF system has to work harder over the common range. Second, it's a "screwdriver" lens instead of one with a built-in motor. Slightly OT, but since you mentioned "my digital stuff", you may find it interesting to know that my Sigma had to be rechipped for full compatibility with my dSLRs. Depending on which model you got, this may or may not be possible.

As for so-called "IQ", there's no gentle way to say this. On 35mm film, my copy is soft in the corners until you stop down about f/5.6, and somewhat soft in the center at f/1.8 to f/2.5 or so. By all accounts, the 28mm f/1.8G is a significantly better lens. I would attribute this less to brands than differences in price point and technology over time. More recently, Sigma's been putting out some very nice lenses that more than give Nikon a run for their money. But had I been able to sell my copy of the Sigma for $200 or so, I'd own the 28mm f/1.8G today.

While we at it, can analog cameras also be sent in with their lenses for AF fine adjustment? I did this with my digital stuff and it made all of the difference so i wonder if this applies for analog as well?

The short answer is that in theory it's possible to adjust the Sigma for optimum performance with your F100 at a given distance. However, given that such adjustments are usually made by taking a series of shots and comparing the results, the cost could easily exceed what you paid for the lens, or even that of a new 28mm f/1.8G.

 

[blockend]

This may be sacrilege this site...

35mm is a small format, it's not an high-resolution format for the most part. I've found that using off brand or 3rd party prime lenses have rarely made a difference. I really only use older lenses though, I can't tell you about modern lenses with AF and other bings and whistles. I do know however that the majority of zooms up until the 90's are terrible. If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.

Wise words. There are a few stinkers and a few stellar lenses, but most Japanese glass of equivalent focal length and maximum f-stop look more like each other than anything else. At 8 x 12" it's hard to tell any difference.

 

[Sirius Glass]

In the 1960's and 1970's there was a big difference, but with modern lenses and modern multilayer coating it would be hard to tell the difference in 35mm lenses which are in the lower resolution realm. If you want better lenses with higher resolution and sharpness, at least start with medium format.

 

[Odot]

There are several models of the Sigma 28mm f/1.8. I own the last one, the 28mm f/1.8 EX DG, and these comments are based on that lens.

AF Speed and accuracy on an F100 -- The Sigma is at a disadvantage here for a couple of reasons. First, at least my version focuses more closely than the Nikkor, which means the AF system has to work harder over the common range. Second, it's a "screwdriver" lens instead of one with a built-in motor. Slightly OT, but since you mentioned "my digital stuff", you may find it interesting to know that my Sigma had to be rechipped for full compatibility with my dSLRs. Depending on which model you got, this may or may not be possible.

As for so-called "IQ", there's no gentle way to say this. On 35mm film, my copy is soft in the corners until you stop down about f/5.6, and somewhat soft in the center at f/1.8 to f/2.5 or so. By all accounts, the 28mm f/1.8G is a significantly better lens. I would attribute this less to brands than differences in price point and technology over time. More recently, Sigma's been putting out some very nice lenses that more than give Nikon a run for their money. But had I been able to sell my copy of the Sigma for $200 or so, I'd own the 28mm f/1.8G today.



The short answer is that in theory it's possible to adjust the Sigma for optimum performance with your F100 at a given distance. However, given that such adjustments are usually made by taking a series of shots and comparing the results, the cost could easily exceed what you paid for the lens, or even that of a new 28mm f/1.8G.

I have the Mark II, which has gotten decent user reviews.

http://www.photographyreview.com/ca...mm-f-1-8-ii-aspherical/prd_83587_3111crx.aspx

I forgot to mention that i used to have the Nikon 28mm which i loved but i used it on digital so i cannot compare it too much. The optics, speed and overall reliability was great so i wanted to find out if it would make sense to get it again. the Sigma was 120€ and a used Nikon would set me back for 380€ (used).

 

[Dan Fromm]

This may be sacrilege this site...

35mm is a small format, it's not an high-resolution format for the most part. I've found that using off brand or 3rd party prime lenses have rarely made a difference. I really only use older lenses though, I can't tell you about modern lenses with AF and other bings and whistles. I do know however that the majority of zooms up until the 90's are terrible. If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.

For a dissenting view, see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Colin Corneau]

The only off-brand lenses I'd compare to Nikkors are the Sigma Art series and Zeiss' Otus and Milvus offerings.

 

[Cholentpot]

For a dissenting view, see (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'm not sure whats going on in that post...

 

[Cholentpot]

Wise words. There are a few stinkers and a few stellar lenses, but most Japanese glass of equivalent focal length and maximum f-stop look more like each other than anything else. At 8 x 12" it's hard to tell any difference.

I have on the other hand, gotten some very interesting looks out of cheap lenses. I like those interesting looks too. If I want sterile I'll shoot digital.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I'm not sure whats going on in that post...

The OP is a leicanut, believes and has said here that E. Leitz made better taking lenses in the 1920s than any other firm has made since then. To him, all other brands including Nikon are off.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . . If you must, stick with name brands or well known runs like the Vivitar 1 Series.

I bought several 0ff-brand 400mm lenses for Nikon before getting a 400mm f/5.6 Vivitar (not Series 1). It seems to be sharper than my Nikkor 200 and 300 mm lenses. Before then on one photo vacation I carried a Pentax Spotmatic just so I could use its decent Soligar 400mm f/8.

 

[Jim Jones]

The OP is a leicanut, believes and has said here that E. Leitz made better taking lenses in the 1920s than any other firm has made since then. To him, all other brands including Nikon are off.

My first Leica, a new IIIf in 1953, came with the renown Elmar f/3.5 Elmar. The five element 3 group 45mm f/2.8 lens from a Minolta rangefinder camera seemed sharper.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I'm not sure whats going on in that post...

Tripe and kanga tail, that's what.

 

[Cholentpot]

Tripe and kanga tail, that's what.

For what its worth I jumped into the fray. Why not?

 

[Leigh B]

The problem with off-brand lenses is poor process control and poor quality control.
Both of those functions cost money.

Process control is the real sleeper.
Since you get a wider range of quality in the resulting product, you sometimes find stellar examples.
It's just as probable for a particular example to be better than average as to be worse than average.

The problem with this is that you cannot expect any particular lens to be as good as someone else's lens.
People only brag about good examples, not about duds.

With Nikon and other high-quality lenses, one example should be exactly like any other, within a very narrow tolerance range.
So if your buddy has a great one and loves it, you can be confident that your recently-purchased copy will be just as good.

- Leigh

 

[kobaltus]

Not allways. I have many excellent nikkors, but my nikkor Nikkor 35mm f2 Q is a bad joke comparing to East german CZJ 35/2,4. For Nikon bodies I now use off brand 35mm lens. Dirt cheap, but far better than Nikkor.

 

[blockend]

I have on the other hand, gotten some very interesting looks out of cheap lenses. I like those interesting looks too. If I want sterile I'll shoot digital.

I'm talking about branded Japanese lenses. Some lenses do give a different look - I'm a big fan of triplets - but they're not usually Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc.

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm talking about branded Japanese lenses. Some lenses do give a different look - I'm a big fan of triplets - but they're not usually Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, etc.

I have a Voigtlander Vito II. I'd assume that's a pretty good lens manufacturer. The lens on that camera is loaded with interesting stuff going on.

 

[blockend]

I have a Voigtlander Vito II. I'd assume that's a pretty good lens manufacturer. The lens on that camera is loaded with interesting stuff going on.

The Vito II had a Color Skopar 50mm 3.5, I can't recall the Skopar configuration, but it was probably well corrected for its era. The point I was making is Japanese lenses of the late 60s to the millennium usually had similar designs (e.g. double Gauss) which gave a similar look. Other manufacturers opted for Biotar or Tessar construction. Japanese lenses avoided some of the characteristics that are prized today. My old Taylor Hobsons were once considered a poor relation, now they sell for a premium. Three element triplets, especially ones from a good manufacturer like Cooke or Schneider, give an amazing appearance at the expense of uncorrected astigmatism. Such a look was anathema to a maker like Nikon.

 

[blockend]

I got this Sigma 28mm 1.8 (aspherical) for cheap and i wonder how much edge in terms of AF speed, reliability and image quality am i losing out on compared to the Nikon AF-S 28mm 1.8 G, while shooting with a F100? Can this even be determined?

While we at it, can analog cameras also be sent in with their lenses for AF fine adjustment? I did this with my digital stuff and it made all of the difference so i wonder if this applies for analog as well?

I have an early AF iteration of the Sigma 28mm 1.8. It got rave reviews when it came out, I always found it a bit soft but useable. Sigma build quality was always hit or miss. If you got it cheap and it works, don't blow your budget on the Nikon unless you consistently shoot wide open, and even then I'd want to see results before I parted with the cash. Best thing about the 1.8 is the bright screen for focussing in low light.

 

[Cholentpot]

The Vito II had a Color Skopar 50mm 3.5, I can't recall the Skopar configuration, but it was probably well corrected for its era. The point I was making is Japanese lenses of the late 60s to the millennium usually had similar designs (e.g. double Gauss) which gave a similar look. Other manufacturers opted for Biotar or Tessar construction. Japanese lenses avoided some of the characteristics that are prized today. My old Taylor Hobsons were once considered a poor relation, now they sell for a premium. Three element triplets, especially ones from a good manufacturer like Cooke or Schneider, give an amazing appearance at the expense of uncorrected astigmatism. Such a look was anathema to a maker like Nikon.

It makes sense, when film was king all we wanted was perfect, sharp, distortion free photos. Now when a lot of us shoot film we want character and oddball stuff in our photos. I have an MC Focal 135 2.8 that was and is junk. However I prize it for the weird bokeh and odd distortion.

 

[Dan Fromm]

The Vito II had a Color Skopar 50mm 3.5, I can't recall the Skopar configuration, but it was probably well corrected for its era.

...

My old Taylor Hobsons were once considered a poor relation, now they sell for a premium. Three element triplets, especially ones from a good manufacturer like Cooke or Schneider, give an amazing appearance at the expense of uncorrected astigmatism. Such a look was anathema to a maker like Nikon.

Skopars and Color Skopars are tessar types. If the Color Skopars on my and the late Charlie Barringer's Perkeo IIs are typical, they're not particularly good. I recently mentioned the Skopar to my friend Eric Beltrando (visit his site dioptrique.info). He agrees with Charlie and me.

Sorry, but the older TTH lenses that sell for absurd prices -- I'm not thinking of their current cine lenses -- are mainly OPIC types. Speed Panchos and the like, all 6/4 double Gauss types. The expensive triplets are soft focus lenses for large format.