3rd Party Lenses

[pshopper]

Is there any difference between the image quality of an original lens, such as a Nikon Nikkor or a Canon, and the image quality of a 3rd party lens such as one from Tamron, Sigma e.t.c. I have certainly noticed that Sigma lenses are a lot cheaper than original lenses and was wondering if using such a lens would impact my photography, or if using an original lens would be of significant benefit to me.

[tamlin]

I use both Canon and Tamron lenses. My first Tamron was an 11-18mm zoom which I mainly bought because I wanted an ultra-wide angle but I felt that the Canon version was ridiculously expensive. I read lots of reviews of Tamron and Sigma, and finally decided on the Tamron. I liked it so much that when I came to choose an all-purpose zoom, I immediately plumped for the Tamron 28-200mm. I now use this lens more than any of my others, apart from my Canon 60mm macro.

[chad.palmer]

Hi there, in response to your question pshopper, although cheaper lenses are attractive because of their cheaper prices they do however produce inferior results compared to lenses that you pay more for. This is worth baring in mind when purchasing a lens, there is a trade off between price and quality. If your serious about your photography go for quality, if you just want alright photos for your albums go for the cheaper Tamron and Sigma lenses.
Hope this helps.

[tamlin]

Originally Posted by chad.palmer

If your serious about your photography go for quality, if you just want alright photos for your albums go for the cheaper Tamron and Sigma lenses.
Hope this helps.

Based on my experience, I disagree. A large number of the photos in my gallery were taken with Tamron lenses, and they suffer no degradation of quality even when printed at 13" x 19". I'm not necessarily saying that Tamron (or Sigma) lenses are better than Canon or Nikon, but they certainly give them a good run for their money - and can even (in certain circumstances) outperform them. Have a look at this comparison, for example: Lubow Photography -- Lens comparison: Tamron vs. Canon

The thing is, you can't really simplify this into Expensive = Good and Cheap = Poor, because (as with most items of technology such as computers, cars, MP3 players etc.) it's not a case of Expensive v Cheap, it's Expensive v Less Expensive. A Tamron 17-50mm zoom currently retails at around £280 which (unless you're Rich Uncle Pennybags) is not what you'd call "cheap", although it is less expensive than a Canon EF 17-55mm (£680) or a Nikon AF-S DX 17-55mm (£850). As in a lot of cases, what you're paying the extra for turns out to be the brand name and enhanced details like a faster or quieter autofocus motor - things that don't have a direct effect on the quality of the final image.

[cantrunforever]

I have taken photography classes at my school and our school only uses tamron lenses. I think the quality of the lenses are excellent for the money, they are not the fastest lenses, but for the money you can't go wrong. Our teacher has been a commercial photographer for 35 years now and made the switch to digital a few years back. He shoots canon and tamron lenses and he can't really see that much of a difference between the two. I am going to be putting up some of my pics up soon from in a studio setup to the outdoors, and they were all shot with tamron lenses. Once they are up take a look and you can judge for yourself.

[fortanelli]

I use sigma lenses. These are highly comparible when you put them side by side with the nikkor lenses.

In fact sigma lenses will produce a much sharper image than the nikkor lens will. I have put the images taken by the same type lens but one is sigma, and the other nikkor and the sigma is so much sharper and crisper.

Don't get me wrong, i think nikkor lenses are good, but at the price they go for, i think it is a little bit high for my pocket book. In general sigma lenses are 50 to 65 percent cheaper.

I am a pro photographer, and i shoot with 2x Nikon D200 + Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 & Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8.

Hope this helps you decide in what to look for.

[dunner]

I have a Sigma 70-200 mm and have seen the quality that a friend gets with his Canon 70-200 mm (that he's paid a lot more for). If you're a professional and selling photos, there's likely a quality difference but I couldn't see the difference that justified a whole lot more $$$. I generally believe that you should invest in good glass; however, I think knowing what you're doing with the camera can make any lens standout.

[squashed]

+1 dunner !! The best equipment wont do much good if you do not know photography.. "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Petersen is an excellent read.

[Gjbphp]

Hmm I used to have some sigma lenses years ago, purely because I could not afford the canon lenses that went with the camera at the time. I bought them both new, and they were both OK, but not great, the sigma zoom was one that you slid up and down, like a telescope, and it was really really hard to get it to the right zoom point (This was years ago so don't bite my head off). When back in the late 90's I bought an EOS 3, I also bought some canon lenses to go with it. The quality difference between the new canon and the older sigma was tremendous. For this reason, I've always since then bought canon lenses to go with my canon cameras. I also have a canon G7 for taking in my bag if I'm going somewhere and don't want the full setup. It takes some brilliant photos.

Anyway, in my experience the canon lenses were far superior to the sigma, but maybe in the last 14 years or so this has changed..