Nikon lenses always better than off brand?

[flavio81]

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?

It depends.

For example the newest "G" Nikon AF lenses have mostly very good optical designs, at the expense of being UGLY AS HELL, and unusable on most analog cameras because of not having an aperture ring.

But even Nikon, even in the "G-series" era, has made some "dogs", that is, lenses that are underperforming. This is an excellent chance of going for an alternative brand like Sigma. A classic example of a "dog" is the 1960s' Nikkor 43-86/3.5 zoom. Another example is the early Nikkor 35/2.8 lens (Note: This pre-AI lens went through several optical designs in its lifetime, so perhaps there are also very good 35/2.8 variations.)

In the G-series era an example of an underperforming lens is the 24-120 "VR" "G" lens.

So in those cases there is a big chance than a competing Sigma or Tokina or Tamron lens could be better. Tokina is a very respected manufacturer and their pro lenses have very good build quality. Current Sigma 'ART' series lenses are also offering something that not always is offered by a manufacturer: Lenses that are designed for all out performance disregarding compactness or weight.

Now, going back to the 60s-early 70s the picture is very different and i don't think you could say that any third-party lens of the "Sun" or "Spiratone" or "Carenar" or "Samyang" (and many other) brands could be better or even as good as a Nikon/Canon/etc lens. In particular if the lens was made in Korea, then even worse performance.

Mid-70s Vivitar made a hit with the Series 1 lenses, but those lenses weren't really inexpensive. Later in the 80s Vivitar retained the "Series 1" labeling for sub-par lenses, so watch out.

There are some third-party lenses that have well established reputations, such as the 90mm macros by Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/etc.

Personally, i only owned one third-party lens, a Sigma "Super-Wide II" 24/2.8 for Nikon AF-mount. It was compact, reasonably well built, contrasty, and very sharp in general. The downside is that it had quite pronounced distortion. My favorite 24 was the Canon FD 24/2.8 and that one was compact, well built, contrasty, very sharp AND with zero distortion, so in the end i sold the Sigma.

But the Sigma was a good lens and indeed i've seen some good pictures made with it.

 

[blockend]

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.

I recently put a book together of photos taken twenty years ago on a 300mm Sigma at minimum focal distance of a few feet. Objectively it's a bad lens. Subjectively I love those shots, especially on slow slide film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have a Nikon 28mm to 200mm zoom AF lens and a Tameron 28mm to 300mm zoom AF and other than the focal length range, I cannot pick out which one was used for a photograph. There is not a discernible difference between them.

 

[benveniste]

For example the newest "G" Nikon AF lenses have mostly very good optical designs, at the expense of being UGLY AS HELL, and unusable on most analog cameras because of not having an aperture ring.

G lenses can be used on all Nikon Autofocus bodies, although before the F5/F100/N80 generation of cameras you were limited to P and S exposure modes. I've used mine on an F100 and a Pronea S. But I do keep around lenses like an 80-200mm f/4 for use on my Nikon FA.

In the G-series era an example of an underperforming lens is the 24-120 "VR" "G" lens.

There are actually two flavors of this 24-120mm VR lenses. I've owned both of them. The first, the 24-120mm f/3.5~5.6, was never the sharpest lens in my arsenal, but I'd rank it on a par with my 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5 AI-s before adding the advantage of VR. It put a lot of shots "in the can" for me on both the F100 and digital bodies, mainly on color negative film and Tri-X. Call it underperforming if you must, but only by 21st century standards. The current 24-120mm f/4 VR, while not quite as good optically as the 24-70mm f/2.8, is a very nice combination of versatility, optical performance and value.

The worst F-mount lenses I own are both IX-Nikkors allegedly made by Nikon -- the 30-60mm f/4~5.6 and the 60-180mm f/4.5-5.6. And yes, that includes a 43~86mm f/3.5 AI.

 

[Les Sarile]

This may be sacrilege this site...
35mm is a small format, it's not an high-resolution format for the most part.

Not sacrilege just very gross generalization.

 

[Cholentpot]

Not sacrilege just very gross generalization.

Generalization has its uses, notice how I used an addendum 'For The Most Part.' What this does is absolves me from adding every exception to the rule, thus saving me time and energy.

Find me an example of 135 that can out resolve its counterpart on a larger high resolution format. For example; slow slide film, say something way down around 25 ISO would pale if it were put next to the same film shot in medium format or large format.

I don't remember any pro's back when film was king shooting 35mm unless it was street or photojournalism. Studios, portraits, weddings, even JC Penny all shot larger than 135. Even 645 was said to be too small and only a 'Super 35mm'!

I personally shoot 35mm and love the look, this doesn't make me blind to the fact that I am for the most part shooting a lofi format. I don't care, I like how it looks and feels. But it still ain't High Resolution.

For the most part.

 

[Les Sarile]

Generalization has its uses, notice how I used an addendum 'For The Most Part.' What this does is absolves me from adding every exception to the rule, thus saving me time and energy.

It doesn't absolve you of laziness. Resolution is a relative matter and you will note we are in the 35mm forum and therefore resolution is based on this format and the only variations in resolution are the varieties of films in this format.

 

[Les Sarile]

I don't remember any pro's back when film was king shooting 35mm unless it was street or photojournalism.

"Pros" is yet another gross generalization.

 

[narsuitus]

Nikon lenses always better than off brand?

On my Nikon 35mm camera bodies, I have used Nikon lenses and the following off-brand lenses:
Vivitar
Sigma
Zeiss
Tamron
Tokina
Soligor


In all cases except two, the Nikon lenses had better image quality and better construction than the off-brand. The two cases where the off-brand lenses were better than their Nikon equivalent were:

Zeiss 135mm f/2 better than Nikon 135mm f/2 AIS

Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 better than Nikon 28mm f/2.8 AIS

 

[MattKing]

General use 35mm film such as (on the Kodak side of things) the T-Max films, Tri-X, and the Portra films has amazing capacity for resolution, acutance, colour fidelity, tonality and all the other qualities that contribute to accurate and faithful rendering of photographic detail. And there is a large variety of easily obtainable lenses and cameras that are fully capable of taking advantage of the capabilities those films.
Some of those lenses are the same brands as the cameras they are used on, and some aren't.
If you wish to compare the results from different formats, there are advantages to the larger formats, but the qualities of 35mm are very high indeed.
And by the way, I saw a lot of the wedding pros transitioning to 35mm in the lead up to digital taking over most of the business. The pressures for higher and higher volumes of photos were appearing at that time.

 

[flavio81]

Find me an example of 135 that can out resolve its counterpart on a larger high resolution format. For example; slow slide film, say something way down around 25 ISO would pale if it were put next to the same film shot in medium format or large format.

You should keep in mind that there are many medium-format and large format shooters on APUG and probably many of them are on this very same thread, because one does not just limit to one format.

As for your claim, the opposite is correct -- usually the smaller the format, the higher-resolving is the lens, because:

1. The smaller format requires a higher resolution lens to keep quality reasonable. The extreme of this is the COMPLAN lens on the classic Minox subminiature cameras, which are supposedly some of the highest resolving lenses ever put on a production camera.

2. Since the smaller format lens needs a much smaller coverage on the image plane, it can be more easily made into a higher resolving lens.

There is a page of tests of large format and medium format lenses out there on the web, and only the very best medium format lenses (i.e. the normal lens for the Mamiya 7) can hit levels that surpass the very best 35mm lenses. But also because they are lenses of small aperture (i.e. F/4.0) -- much easier to optimize than a normal lens of f1.4 or f2.0 aperture.

The unquestionably and dramatically higher resolution of larger formats is because the larger negative more than compensates for the lens resolution. That's why a large format image will look stunning even if using a 3-element triplet. And if the larger format lens is a premium lens then the resolution is out of this world.

I used to swear by the 6x7 negatives of the RB67, which are stunning indeed, but last time i shot 35mm carefully with Delta 100 and my best lenses, the results were very good. Still not like medium format, but very good.

Finally, you can't compare a "135mm lens on 35mm format" with a "135mm lens on large format" because the angle of view of both lenses is dramatically different.

 

[narsuitus]

I don't remember any pro's back when film was king shooting 35mm unless it was street or photojournalism.

Back when film was king, I remember shooting medium and large format color and B&W film for portraits and weddings because the 35mm negatives were too small for retouching. I also remember shooting 35mm transparencies because that is what my customers needed for their slide presentations.

 

[Cholentpot]

You should keep in mind that there are many medium-format and large format shooters on APUG and probably many of them are on this very same thread, because one does not just limit to one format.

As for your claim, the opposite is correct -- usually the smaller the format, the higher-resolving is the lens, because:

1. The smaller format requires a higher resolution lens to keep quality reasonable. The extreme of this is the COMPLAN lens on the classic Minox subminiature cameras, which are supposedly some of the highest resolving lenses ever put on a production camera.

2. Since the smaller format lens needs a much smaller coverage on the image plane, it can be more easily made into a higher resolving lens.

There is a page of tests of large format and medium format lenses out there on the web, and only the very best medium format lenses (i.e. the normal lens for the Mamiya 7) can hit levels that surpass the very best 35mm lenses. But also because they are lenses of small aperture (i.e. F/4.0) -- much easier to optimize than a normal lens of f1.4 or f2.0 aperture.

The unquestionably and dramatically higher resolution of larger formats is because the larger negative more than compensates for the lens resolution. That's why a large format image will look stunning even if using a 3-element triplet. And if the larger format lens is a premium lens then the resolution is out of this world.

I used to swear by the 6x7 negatives of the RB67, which are stunning indeed, but last time i shot 35mm carefully with Delta 100 and my best lenses, the results were very good. Still not like medium format, but very good.

Finally, you can't compare a "135mm lens on 35mm format" with a "135mm lens on large format" because the angle of view of both lenses is dramatically different.

Can't argue with #2. You're right, I was thinking in terms of size of the negative.

 

[Cholentpot]

Back when film was king, I remember shooting medium and large format color and B&W film for portraits and weddings because the 35mm negatives were too small for retouching. I also remember shooting 35mm transparencies because that is what my customers needed for their slide presentations.

Slides are the exception to 35mm. A nice slow slide can resolve very well.

 

[RichardJack]

My Two cents. Nikon has made some cheap consumer lenses in the last few years. Some aftermarket lenses are as good or better. But, the Nikon Gold Ring pro lens are better than the aftermarket and will certainly out last them under heavy usage. I'm referencing FX lenses here.

 

[fstop]

Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Olympus lens are always better than aftermarket counter parts.When I buy a camera outfit to get a body or lens I want, I usually throw the aftermarket lenses out.

 

[dynachrome]

One poster referred to a 35/2 Nikkor as a Q. I have a relatively early 35/2 Nikkor O. It doesn't have the same improved coating at the later models but is a very good lens in its own right. I don't think there was a 35/2 Q Nikkor in F mount. Are there good independently made manual focus 35mm focal length lenses in Nikon F mount? There are the 35/1.9 Vivitar and the 35/2 Soligor C/D lenses. Are they better than the 35/2 Nikkor O? At this point there is the condition of each lens to consider, the camera to subject distance and the f/stop used. Were all 35/2.8 Nikkors bad? No. The six element 35/2.8 K/first version of the 35/2.8 AI, are excellent. How good is the 105/4 Micro Nikkor. It's very good. Is is better than the 100/2.8 Vivitar Macro or the 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 Macro or the 90/2.5 Tamron SP 52B/52BB? Not as far as I can tell. One poster writes "Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 better than 28/2.8 AIS." The 28/2.8 Vivitar (28XXX...) is quite a good lens even if it's not impressive mechanically. I don't have a 28/2.8 AIS. My 28mm Nikkors include a 28/2 'K', two 28/3.5 AI, an old 2.8cm f/3.5, a 28/3.5 H and a 28/3.5 'K'. The older ones are decent for their time. The f/2 and the two 28/3.5 AI lenses are quite good. Were there other good independent 28mm lenses? Yes. These include the 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, the 28/1.9 Vivitar Series 1, the 28/2 Vivitar (22XXX...) and others. Each lens must stand on its own merits whether Nikon made it or someone else did.

 

[chip j]

Any 14mm Sigma will beat the pants off of the Nikon 14mm (what hideous distortion w/the Nikon!).

 

[narsuitus]

...what hideous distortion w/the Nikon!

What type of hideous distortions?

 

[M Carter]

We can argue over this all day, but it really comes down to researching the competing glass you're interested in (if new enough to have solid online testing), or buying and testing and comparing older glass. Especially considering sample variation, it may be hard to generalize unless you're comparing a Nikkor to a Sear-Roebuck lens.

I'd head the Vivitar Series-1 28mm was an amazing lens; I had a Nikon Series E that was a dog. But man, it still beat out that POS vivitar (which may have been a post-heyday lens for series 1? I dunno). But I only found out by fairly methodical testing (which only took 20 minutes or so).

 

[dynachrome]

I have two 28mm f/1.9 Vivitar Series 1 lenses. Both are very sharp. If you can't get a similar result then your example may not be in good working order. What about Sears-Roebuck lenses? The ones I have used were standard lenses for SLR cameras and were made for Sears by Ricoh and Mamiya. They were all good.

 

[chip j]

What type of hideous distortions?

Linear distortion-"moustache" effect in spades.