View Full Version : Forget the price - why buy a non-genuine lens?
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away ..........
I don't play with non-Canon stuff.. Its like buying an Astra door to fit a Pulsar, yeah they fit.. And it will work.. But every one will know you're just cheap.
OK, it was a silly thing for the Nameless One to say, but doubtless it was just one of those off-the-cuff remarks we all make now and again more-or-less in jest. We won't crucify him just yet. But it does raise a really interesting issue.
FORGET THE PRICE, why would you want to buy a third-party lens? Forget the price! If the reason you bought your Tamron 70-200 was that you could afford it and you couldn't afford the Canon, then find another thread. If the reason you own a Sigma 10-20 is that it seemed to be about as good as the Canon, more-or-less, and half the price, find another thread. If you shoot Nikon or Pentax, stick around, just replace "Canon" with your brand. The question is the same.
I only want to hear about the third-party lenses you own or want because they are the best or only lenses in their class. I only want to hear about the lenses you get from Sigma or Tamron or Tokina because you can't get an equivalent product from Canon (or Nikkor or Pentax, as the case may be), or because the equivalent product from Canon (Nikkor/Pentax) is inferior. Not "about the same", not "much of a muchness", not "they are both pretty good" ... tell me about the third-party lens that is better!
So let's have 'em!
THIRD-PARTY LENSES YOU WOULD LIKE REGARDLESS OF THE PRICE
My first example:
Tokina 10-17mm fisheye zoom. No other manufacturer has a zoom fish. None of them. If you want one - and they are brilliant - you either buy the Tokina or else go without. (Unless you shoot Pentax, in which case you can't buy the Tokina, but you can get the same glass, with a better focus motor, much higher price, and a Pentax badge.)
My second example:
Tokina 35mm f/2.8 macro. Canon don't make one. Canon don't make anything even remotely close. I think Sigma have something in a short macro, but so far as I know, Canon and Nikon don't. (Pentax, once again, have the same glass with a Pentax badge instead.)
The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a really nice piece of glass.
It is reported to have issues on FF; but on APS-C it rocks. Great IQ.
Light and is my walk around lens.
Tokina 11-16 f2.8 is a great lens and Canon don't make one. Also it is half the weight of the nearest L series lens. I have trouble holding a heavy lens steady so the Tokina was a good choice and has tough build quality and good IQ. This lens is tack sharp and I love it. If Canon had made 11-16 2.8 I would have bought it.
There's nothing that I want from a 3rd party manufacturer - I've been burnt once albeit a long time ago with a Tamron 70-300 and will never buy another 3rd party lens. Not ever
Couldn't be happier with the Sigma 100-300 F/4 with or without a 1.4x on it. Bought cheaply S/H, Nikon only make a 300 prime at F/4 at similar cost and from all I see it is not optically better, more robustly constructed or faster in the AF dept.
KevPride
22-01-2010, 7:05pm
Both my Sigma 17-70 & Sigma 100-300 f4 I consider are brilliant lenses - the similar Pentax 17-70 from what I have read doesn't come close & Pentax don't have a 100-300 equivalent.
2nd hand Tokina lenses that have Pentax mount & AF are very rare but desirable.
My Vivitar Series 1 105 Macro, in Pentax mount the only one close is Tamron 90.
However on saying this if money was no object I would have a bag full of "A", "FA" & "DA" Limited lenses.
Voigtlander lenses look pretty sexy, if that is a requirement.
This is all very interesting. I keep saying things like "Oh, read the damn question, you idiot - the lens you are talking about isn't unique, it's just a cheaper equivalent to the ... no! wait! This is in the Brand X world, which is different to the Canon world I'm used to thinking in terms of. Sorry, as you were - good answer!"
Sigma 50/1.4 is much better than the Canon 50/1.4 . The latter also suffers from a weak design in its USM AF motors with a relatively high percentage of repairs needed.
Further more, I own a Tokina 24-200 which is actually a below-average performer but built like a tank, it fits fullframe and there's no Canon equivalent that starts shorter than 28mm. It's quite an interesting lens to bring on a holiday where you don't want to switch lenses in the field.
There's nothing that I want from a 3rd party manufacturer -and will never buy a 3rd party lens. Not ever
Slightly modified quote, but I'm with him.
Pinheadion
22-01-2010, 11:27pm
Sigma 50-150 f2.8
Tokina 50-135 f2.8
both great lenses with an aperture, focal range and size that isn't covered by Canon. 70-200 is nice but much much bigger and impractical as an everyday lens (for me).
arthurking83
22-01-2010, 11:56pm
Sigma 50/1.4 is much better than the Canon 50/1.4 ......
I felt the same way with the Siggy over the newer and smaller Nikon equivalent(the AF-S version)
Ultimate IQ was, if not the same, possibly better but the bokeh of the Sigma sold me, in that brief instance in the store. Cost me about $50 more too, and I've never regretted getting it over the Nikon.
Back when I got my Siggy 10-20mm, Nikon didn't have a rectilinear 10mm lens(the 12-24DX being the widest lens in their range, then) and I didn't think that the 5% higher sharpness/resolution figures of the Nikon 12-24 was worth the loss of 4° in the FOV.
Tokina and Nikon subsequently introduced newer designs(11-16/2.8 and 10-24mm respectively) and having a wider choice of lenses now, I think I'd have gone with the Tokina instead(but not the newer Nikon 10-24mm).
Tannin
23-01-2010, 12:12am
Then there are the two gigantic Sigma super teles - the 300-800/5.6 and the 200-500/2.8. At one time the 300-800 had a bit of a reputation as a birding lens, but since the advent of the Canon 800/5.6 IS no-one seems to talk about the Sigma unit anymore. And let's face it - would you want to buy a $8000 800mm lens that didn't have IS?
As for the 200-500/2.8, it's probably just too big and heavy. Doubtless there is the odd wealthy photograpger who wants one, but they would be few and far between.
The $10,000 Sigma 800/5.6 prime is, I believe, quite elderly now, and once again does not have IS. I don't think anyone has taken it too seriously for a long time.
Conclusion: when it comes to the long glass, neither Tamron nor Tokina really tries; Sigma has three lenses on the books, none of them likeley to attract your dollar, and the ones to have are undoubtedly the ones with the Canon and Nikon badges.
Calxoddity
23-01-2010, 5:53am
hmmm... evening forgetting the price, what about lenses like the Bigma, or the Sigma 150 macro? I can't find the equivalent in the Nikon catalogue. Even my favorite walkaround lens - the Sigma 17-70 - this was chosen in preference to the similar focal length Nikon 18-70 because it was faster and did better macro.
When it comes to buying my 70-300 though, it will be the Nikon VR even if it does cost more, because it's the benchmark for that range zoom and what's the point of laying out any dollars on a lens if it can't focus properly or is rubbish at its intended purpose?
As for:
- long lenses, I can only dream....
- the original quote in the first post, I'd just think they were over-compensating....
Regards,
Calx
OzzieTraveller
23-01-2010, 6:49am
G'day all
My love affair with zoom lenses started back in the 60s with a Tamron, 80-250 f3.8 blunderbus (by today's standards
At the time, the closest that Pentax were offering only a 70-210 f4.5, and I didn't want it. I wanted a longer mm and a wider f-stop, so I went with the Tamron and never once regretted it.
Cameras are the same ~ I look at the features offered and choose the camera body with 'bits' that are important to me and my style of photography. In the 70s I moved away from Pentax because their bodies at that time did not have features that I considered 'basic' to my needs
Since then, I choose lenses (& cameras) to suit my needs ~ and yes, price comes into it too
Regards, Phil
jibbonpoint
23-01-2010, 7:16am
The 70-210 SP f3.5 Tamron 19AH is generally regarded as the best lens of this type ever produced
http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/19AH.html
A word of warning, though, to avoid a stampede towards B & H (where I bought mine), Pentax users, if they need the electronic connections, need to fork out a significant premium over Nikon or Canon for the adapter & for everyone, it's heavy (just under 1kg) so a tripod is required & the Tamron tripod mount is rare & expensive so I adapted a Canon unit lining with velcro to reduce the inside dia. . This also makes it effectively a 90 - 210.
2 examples off the top of my head. At the time I bought a sigma 10-20 there were no nikon options but yes, if I was buying today, it'd be a different story although it'd not necessary be the nikon 10-24 I'd buy.
If I was buying around the 50mm fl today i'd look at the sigma 1.4 version over nikon's. Another caveat though since u say no price restrictions, I'd take a nikkor 58 1.2 noct over any current lens around that fl so I guess nikon wins again.
Calxoddity
23-01-2010, 8:32am
oh, and another thought - what's this "non-genuine" labelling? All of the 3rd party lenses are genuine lenses - they're not trying to pass themselves off as a brand they're not. That "non-genuine" label that sometimes gets applied is just a clumsy attempt at psychological manipulation.
I'm an individual - you can't fool me. :D
Regards,
Calx
Longshots
23-01-2010, 8:41am
FWIW when I was using Nikons, in the 1980-1990's I had an amazingly good Tamron 300mm 2.8 - mainly because I couldnt afford the Nikon 300mm 2.8. So price was the factor in my reason for buying it. However after 8 years use, I finally managed to do a side by side comparison with the Nikon. Yes, the Nikon had a slight edge over sharpness, but it was vastly more contrasty, and as a result my preference with money as no object, would still have been the Tamron.
oh, and another thought - what's this "non-genuine" labelling? All of the 3rd party lenses are genuine lenses - they're not trying to pass themselves off as a brand they're not. That "non-genuine" label that sometimes gets applied is just a clumsy attempt at psychological manipulation.
+1
I was thinking that; came back to post and you nailed it.
Some alternate brand glass out does the ones labelled the same as your camera body.
On the "non-genuine" point, I agree. I never use that term, for the reasons you have outlined - but I made an exception with the title of this thread because I wanted to get your attention.
arthurking83
23-01-2010, 9:17am
FWIW when I was using Nikons, in the 1980-1990's I had an amazingly good Tamron 300mm 2.8 - ....
Do you remember which version it was?
I have one of those monsters too now, and apart from the awkwardness of carrying it around(with all my other gear that is) it works well enough for my purposes, and even with the 2 Tc's I have(1.4x + 2.0x).
The 2x TC is a bit of a dog, and I'd love to get the uber expensive(for what it is), and rare 200F version.
If anyone has an Adaptall 200F model 2x TC, or knows of its whereabouts, give me a holler!
Another lens I thought of, but have no experience with is the Sigma 12-24mm.
It's on of the widest rectilinear lenses available for the 35mm format, and the widest available for Nikon and Canon, and it's a zoom too. The test results seem to indicate that it's distortion performance is better than any other UWA lens that it competes against, which includes Canon's and Nikon's 14mm primes.
Resolution is about on par, and in many cases slightly better than these primes, but the Nikon 14-24 has superior resolution capabilities, and CA is only bettered by the Nikon 14-24 again.
When I eventually go full frame, the Sigma 12-24 is the first lens on my hit list, mainly due to it's lower price, which when coupled with an expensive camera purchase makes for an easier/earlier purchase timeframe :D .. and then eventually the N14-24 to complement it.
Calxoddity
23-01-2010, 9:21am
On the "non-genuine" point, I agree. I never use that term, for the reasons you have outlined - but I made an exception with the title of this thread because I wanted to get your attention.
Is that all? You should have just labelled it "I have three elbows" and you would have had my attention immediately! :lol:
(oh hahahaha etc etc. I crack myself up sometimes. overnight travel will do that to you....)
Regards,
Calx
arthurking83
23-01-2010, 9:33am
One thing that 'irks' me about the non genuine branding(which sometimes seems to be a cheap shot at implying lower quality lenses).. is that it includes the likes of Zeiss lenses, Voightlander(Cosina, or whatever other brand they may eventually appear as), Schneider(if you can make them fit) .. and any others I can't think of now.
The other day I was in at Camera Exchange, and the shop assistant chap was playing around with a newly acquired lens(which may or may not be for sale), which was an Angenieux 180mm f/2.3.
I've heard about them, and Angenieux make some of the most expensive lenses available, mainly for non-still imaging needs, and military applications...etc. And their quality is some of the best.
The particular lens mounted on a D700 at Camera Exchange was to die for :p
But at $1700(maybe more, now that the shop assistant noticed my drooling :rolleyes:) it seems rather expensive for a manual focus lens, when modern new AF lenses of similar design can be had for a lot less.
bigdazzler
23-01-2010, 9:54am
The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a really nice piece of glass.
It is reported to have issues on FF
Huh ?? What issues Kym ?? It is A1 on my A850 ... :confused013
RE: the OP ... Sigma 12-24 ? The widest lens that Sony make for FF is the CZ 16-35 ... I dont have the Sigma but I would have to go for it if I were after an UWA.
jibbonpoint
23-01-2010, 11:26am
FWIW when I was using Nikons, in the 1980-1990's I had an amazingly good Tamron 300mm 2.8 - mainly because I couldnt afford the Nikon 300mm 2.8. So price was the factor in my reason for buying it. However after 8 years use, I finally managed to do a side by side comparison with the Nikon. Yes, the Nikon had a slight edge over sharpness, but it was vastly more contrasty, and as a result my preference with money as no object, would still have been the Tamron.
Plenty of good old Tamrons here:-
http://www.adaptall-2.com/
Go for the SP's.
I can well live without autofocus; I do like the focus confirm, though.
lolz cant afford the expensive stuff so this thread doesnt apply... but non-genuine stuff rocks.
Tannin
23-01-2010, 11:45am
Darren, 16mm on full frame is UWA. That's the standard for a UWA focal length. Canon do the same as Sony: a 16-35/2.8 L is the standard Canon ultrawide (for full frame); similarly, all those 10-xx lenses for crop cameras. On APS-C, 10mm is equivalent to 16mm on FF.
So if 16mm on FF is a UWA ..... what is a 12mm lens? UUWA? SUWA? RRUWA? WTUWA?
bigdazzler
23-01-2010, 11:49am
of course it is ... :o I think im still asleep ... I cant imagine what the 12mm will look like then ?? Super Fish ??? :D
EDIT: actually Sony make a 16mm 2.8 fish prime too come to think of it ..
arthurking83
23-01-2010, 1:41pm
....
So if 16mm on FF is a UWA ..... what is a 12mm lens? UUWA? SUWA? RRUWA? WTUWA?
OTTUWA I reckon :p
BTW, those 10mm UWAs are 15mm (equiv) on the 1.5x crop sensors(Sony/Pentax/Nikon).
the small FOV gain may seem almost irrelevant, but going by the test results on the Siggy on the Canon vs the Nikon mount versions, the waveform distortion seen in the Nikon results, is much more reduced in the Canon mount results.
The link to the Tamron Adaptall mount site(which I have bookmarked, due to my T300/2.8 lens) brought back memories of my desire to acquire another fast-ish telephoto prime lens.
I read the review of the Tammy 180/2.5(reviewed by some magazine in the early 17th century, when magazines were the most common form of communication between photography reviewing staff, and the general public :p) and they compared it to the Nikon, Olympus and Minolta equivalents, and the Tammy version won out in 99.9% of the results, with the bonus of it being 1/3 of a stop faster than the f/2.8 lenses from the genuine manufacturers.
I searched high and low for this lens, and when one popped up on ebay for over $800... my head proceeded to self destruct against the brick walls in my house!
(which, BTW, are not actually brick!.. but in fact faux faux brick, in the form of wallpaper, so it wasn't as dramatic as I may have lead you all to believe :D)
In that case, the idea of getting the Tammy(which I assumed was to be in the <$200 region) was thrown out and I went with the eminently more affordable Nikon(ie. genuine version) for approx 1/4 of the price!
That Tamron lens is very rare, and I dare say more of a collectors item now. But I don't care for it's collectible value, only price/performance value.
brings me to two basic conclusions:
1. Who'd have thought it possible, that a Tamron lens would be more valuable than a genuine branded version.
2. and the person responsible for the brick wallpaper covering 90% of the interior of my house, probably saved my life! :lol2:
I suppose the only benefit of having this brick wallpaper is that I can take a photo of brick walls in the relative comfort of my living room too, but only with the 180/2.8 Ais Nikon, of course.. not the Tammy f/2.5 version.
Problem is that available light may be an issue, so I may have to refer to Tony's rule 14, or bite the bullet and spring for the more expensive Tamron lens!
:D
you've answered your own question. forget the price, why would you buy a third party lens.:)
Tamron 90mm f2.8 - it wasnt so much that the lens was better better than the Canon 100mm Macro - it's more I found the lens way easier to use than that 100mm that I had a chance to play with it at a meet up a while ago
Your point, Zollo?
not so much a point, as an opinion. I've always found the camera brand lenses to be equal or better performing than equivalent third party lenses - under 300mm - (i dont have any experiences with lens over this focal length)
example - tried a sigma 18-200 before buying my nikon 18-200vrII for a weekend. the sigma failed miserably at something i had never even considered - camera battery life. yep it sucked batteries like a german drinks beer at oktoberfest. seeing as i take a lot of photos per day on location, it was not the one for me.
I will not buy a non Nikon lens. Ive had and sold Sigmas, Tamrons and Tokinas. Nikon has something close to whatever you come up with, so, Id rather not take the punt. I like consistency and brand loyalty.
I don't really get why people bag the 3rd parties, they are often the ones that push lens designs and canikony designers to the limit. Sometimes they come out with a god and at other times a dog but at least they are pushing the envelope which is more then can be said for the majors.
Anywho thats enough of a rant here is what I have.
Tokina 11-16 at the time nikon had nothing wider, faster or sharper they only had a 12-24(?) and the super expensive 14-24 which doesn't quite cut it in AP-C land.
And I recently aquired a 100-300 siggy which will be booting my 80-200 2.8 nikkor out of my camera bag, nikon still don't have a lens in this range at the same spectacular IQ.
arthurking83
23-01-2010, 5:55pm
Waveform distortion?
otherwise known as moustache distortion.
It's not standard barrel distortion, where the arc of distortion is a constantly shaped arc.
It starts off more level at the far edges, and then(at approximately 5% from the edge of the frame) starts it's arc that forms the barrel looking distortion.... and harder to correct in basic editing programs like CaptureNX as they (probably)assume a standard barrel distortion in the lens.
PT Lens is a good program for correcting for lens distortion as it has more flexibility in it;s correction procedure(and many lenses have already been added to the database of lenses that need correcting anyhow, so all you have to do is choose it from the list.
I came very close to buying a 120-300/2.8, Would have been nice.
Wouldnt mind the ziess 21.
Either way most of the time there is a canon alternative that gives a strong arguement.
maccaroneski
24-01-2010, 9:54am
I've always wondered who the 2nd party is....me? I'm certainly not manufacturing any camera gear.
arthurking83
24-01-2010, 10:26am
Technically you are the first party.
The camera manufacturer is the second party, and any non second party lens manufacturer is the third party!
if you don't want third party lenses... get a P&S or bridge camera, where you have no option! :p
...I like consistency and brand loyalty.
Sorry to pick out just one small part of your argument, but loyalty? It's a commercial transaction you know, they don't love you or anything.
[QUOTE=Slide;494742]I don't really get why people bag the 3rd parties, they are often the ones that push lens designs and canikony designers to the limit. Sometimes they come out with a god and at other times a dog but at least they are pushing the envelope which is more then can be said for the majors.
Anywho thats enough of a rant here is what I have.
QUOTE]
sorry to spoil this quote but nikkor were pushing the boundaries in the 40's and 50's when glass had to be polished by hand - supplying both glass and lens to the military and LEICA and Canon. Lens development wouldn't be where it is today without nikkor
Sorry to pick out just one small part of your argument, but loyalty? It's a commercial transaction you know, they don't love you or anything.
I realise that. I just like to follow a brand. Similar handling, finish, contrast, colours etc
I do the same in golf where everything I have is Taylormade, or appliances where everything is F&P, and home entertainment where everything I have is LG, and children where I have all boys etc etc....you get the idea
Tannin
24-01-2010, 12:58pm
Maybe so. The 1940s were, in case you haven't noticed, rather a long time ago. In fact, it was long before most people here were born.
The real question is what have they done lately to push the envelope?
They have continued to improve quality across the board, notably with the 14-24, now regarded as the industry benchmark for an UWA zoom. But actual new stuff? Been a long, long time. They didn't invent image stabilisation just copied Canon (and even that was a long time ago now), they didn't pioneer the superzoom revolution (the third party makers did that) ... so what have they pioneered this century? Ans: nothing in particular.
Now, can we get back to the actual question please?
Now, can we get back to the actual question please?
my post above is another reason i choose genuine over third party. totally relevant to thread. mmmkay?
griffljg
24-01-2010, 1:20pm
I use Olympus DSLRs. That does tend to limit my chances of buying 3rd party lenses ever so slightly. - Not many third party lens manufacturers make lenses for the 4/3 mount and in any case the Olympus Zuiko lenses are of a good enough standard and cheap enough for me to not really need to look at third party lenses. - Another of the advantages of most Olympus bodies having built-in image stabilisation.
My reason to look at a third party lens would therefore have to be than the third party lens would fill a gap in the Zuiko range AND would have to be available with a 4/3 mount.
Soooo...... The Sigma 50-500mm F4-6.3 EX DG HSM 4/3 Mount (aka "Bigma") is very definitely on my "when I can afford it" list. 50-500 is equivalent to 100-1000 on 35mm cameras. Very nice for photographing leetle birdies that are verrry far away.
Andrew
24-01-2010, 11:15pm
I have a Sigma 150-500 because it has 100mm more reach and 2 stops better IS than the Canon 100-400L. Image Quality was my only concern and I read enough reviews to know that I would be more than happy with it. 18 months later Im still very happy with my purchase. Bought this one from a shop instead of online as there seemed to be a hit&miss quality issue when they were first released. Buying in a shop meant I got to try before handing over the $$$ :th3:
I have a Sigma 12-24 because no-one else makes a zoom that wide for a FF Canon. Dont use this lens a lot but everytime I do the results are STUNNING. Love it. :th3:
I have a Sigma 150 macro because the Canon 100 was too short for a FF 5D (in my opinion) and the 180L was out of my price range given the minimal use I knew it would get. The reviews of the Sigma 150 were overwhelmingly positive to the point of fanatical love. :th3:
My other 3 lenses are all Canons: 50F1.4, 24-70F2.8L and 70-200F4L IS. All great lenses too. :th3:
Calxoddity
25-01-2010, 7:07am
Nano lens coating
new, in that marketing attached a new label to an existing technique/feature?
Regards,
Calx
R1titan
25-01-2010, 3:51pm
+1 for the Siggy 50/1.4 EX, Canon just dont make a 50 lens to lust after....
A couple more to consider;
Circular fisheyes, no Canon equivalent
Sigma 50-150/2.8 for crop
Audible
26-01-2010, 1:08pm
Sigma 135-400mm F3.5-4.5 DG.
Canon has nothing like this lens in its range apart from the 100-400mm IS drain pipe but it's 2.5 times the price. I find the sigma 135-400mm gives you good IQ and isn't too heavy for hand holding and comes complete with all the accessories such as carry bag, tripod collar and lens hood which are all usually extra's on canons.
Yes, I know about trying to hand hold a non IS lens @ 400mm. But if this is your only telezoomer you can use the shorter lengths quite nicely hand held. Pair it up with a nice 18-135mm or something like that and you have a good two lens package covering a huge zoom range.
Another lens often overlooked is the sigma 15-30mm F3.5-4.5. On a FF camera you can configure this lens to give fish eye @15mm, something No canon UWA will do and it's priced well and gives good IQ for the money. Nothing wrong with 15mm either on FF.
Sigma 30mm f1.4
Tokina 50-135mm f2.8
No Canon equiv available. I'm not hung up on having everything the same brand, i read lots of reviews and get what i think will best suit my needs not my budget.
Jcas, just to give a thought to your point. Canon has a perfect answer to your lenses. They have full frame. That means they have the equiv to the crop lenses. A 50/1.4 and 70-200/2.8. Though I may be wrong if the 50-135 can be used on full frame.
sigma 50mm 1.4 is probably the best 50mm out there, unless you're with Canon.
DAdeGroot
30-01-2010, 1:16pm
Sigma 135-400mm F3.5-4.5 DG.
... comes complete with all the accessories such as carry bag, tripod collar and lens hood which are all usually extra's on canons.
Just to correct this misconception, all Canon L lenses come with a hood and lens pouch and those that require tripod collars come with those too. It's only the consumer lenses that are lacking these accessories.
James Axford
30-01-2010, 1:42pm
only ones i would get would be the zeiss, but i would like to try them 1st to see how they feel :)
someone bring theirs on a melbourne meet for me pleaseeeee :D
The 70-210 SP f3.5 Tamron 19AH is generally regarded as the best lens of this type ever produced
http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/19AH.html
A word of warning, though, to avoid a stampede towards B & H (where I bought mine), Pentax users, if they need the electronic connections, need to fork out a significant premium over Nikon or Canon for the adapter & for everyone, it's heavy (just under 1kg) so a tripod is required & the Tamron tripod mount is rare & expensive so I adapted a Canon unit lining with velcro to reduce the inside dia. . This also makes it effectively a 90 - 210.
Sorry if I'm resurrecting a dead thread but I have the Tammy SP 70-210 and today have ordered a chinee adaptor to try it on my K20D.
It's part of my plan to keep throwing cheapish glass and TC's together in the hope of finding a combination that may come close to the DA* 300 or the Sigma 100-300 f4.
And I have no brand loyalty when it comes to value for money. If a 3rd party lens does an equivalent job, or better, for less, or similar bucks, thats where my money goes.
Kevin
dche5390
18-06-2010, 7:09pm
I've owned the Nikkor 50 1.4. I've owned the EF 50mm 1.4. I've owned (owning) the 50 f/1.2L. I still prefer the Sigma 50mm 1.4. There is no substitute. The Sigmalux shits all over the rest.
bigdazzler
18-06-2010, 8:39pm
I still prefer the Sigma 50mm 1.4. There is no substitute.
The Sony 50 1.4 is pretty damn good ;)
I love my SIGMA 100 - 300mm F4 zoom, it's IQ is exceptional and it does the job "I" want.
As far as I know no other manufacturer makes a 100-300 f4 zoom.
James Axford
19-06-2010, 5:14am
The Sony 50 1.4 is pretty damn good ;)
I want a shoot out! :)
sigma f1.4 vs Sony f1.4 vs canon f1.2
oh and chuck in the zeiss f1.4 too.
Now the impossible, to get them all together.
Steve Axford
19-06-2010, 7:15am
The Sigma 180mm macro is pretty good. I sometimes wonder if the Canon would be better, but I own quite a few Canon L lenses and the Sigma still rates in with them. Focus speed and accuracy maybe a bit lacking, but I don't need that for macro.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.