OEM vs. 3rd party glass, whats changed..

Jeff Morris said:

Jayeye,

Once in a while I will read a thread where someones glass is not
working with a new digital body or specific features do not work.

I have seen this on the Nikon and Canon forums. This reason alone
makes me want to stick with OEM glass.

I picked up a 12-24 Nikkor lens which is VERY nice. I read about
all of these posts on the Tokina 12-24. Only $499, super sharp,
super build, everything else is junk etc. Then I do a google
search and find out it does not have AF-S, or as Canon calls it
USM. Manual focus is through Tokinas Clutch system by pushing and
pulling the focus ring to engage MF.

Hey, I don't want to spend $500 on an OEM wannabe that does not
have a modern focus motor. With Nikon we would end up focusing
through a Rube Goldberg type slot and cam motor in the body early
eighties system that I don't care for so I am keeping my 12-24.

Click to expand...

OTOH, I'm in my 50s and I utterly despise variable aperture lenses. But Canon won't make an ultra wide (I mean less than 20mm) lens for the 20D that isn't variable aperture--and the Canon lens is slow at that. I'm definitely not going to pay 800 or more dollars for a slow, variable aperture lens. That is a worse headache for me than Tokina's focus clutch--which won't bother me because I won't be using it anyway. But that variable aperture would torque me off every day.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Seriously, what difference does it make. Nikon, Sigma, Tokina Tamron...who cares. We're so concerned about the specs, what about the picture. Are third party lenses optically superior to anything used by Aansel Adams. I believe they are, but look at the quality of the images he took.
I know of a well known photog who captured amazing images on a Brownie camera.

Its a poor musician that blames his instrument.

Was the Tokina 12-24. Compared it directly to the nikkor version, could see no significant differences in image nor build quality. If anything, the lens is sharper than what I like from an artistic standpoint, and I apply a little blurring and grain in post to images that are f/8-f/16 from it. Seriously. The lens is too sharp, stopped down, real life doesnt have that kind of edge clarity.

Was quite a bit cheaper, though than the nikkor. $540 new, with thin hoya UV filter. I'm a highly discerning, and satisfied user.

Jeff Morris said:

Wayne,

To quote "Leslie Nielson"

"And Don't call me Alice! er Shirley"

Thanks for everyones responses.

My problem is that I don't want to spend big bucks on non OEM
glass. I think you are right, the introduction of cheap OEM glass
to penitrate the market really blured the field.

I purchased a 12-24 Nikkor for $800 used with a Nikkor 77mm filter.
So, my actual cost was around $720 and this lens for all practical
purposes is like brand new. It performs very well.

Yes,

I am very disapointed with the amount of plastic in this lenses. I
am flabergasted (Spelling, sorry) The 12-24 is sweet but when i
turn that zoom barrel I feel plastic. I am from an age when
plastic was cheap and metal was the norm. I have a 70-180 Micro
Nikkor, it is razor sharp, I love the ability to zoom with a macro.
BUT when I grip the zoom ring the lens binds up. if I hold it
liitely it is o-k. i can not comprehend how these manufacturers
can get away with this. The 70-180 is a $1200 plus lens and the
12-24 is a $1,000 lens.

I guess OEM manufacturers don't think the competition is a real
threat.

Regards,
--
Jeff Morris
Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

Click to expand...

Jeff Morris said:

Has something happened. Has the 3rd party glass goten better, or
are these forums full of young kids who don't have a clue what they
are talking about.

Click to expand...

I hate to burst your bubble, but lenses aren't made by magic Nikon elves and are not hand-crafted by old-world Canon artisans. These days, everything is computer designed and manufactured with considerable automation and technical expertise. This has gone a long way towards allowing third-party lens manufacturers to make excellent lenses-- many of which are as good as the 'name-brand' lenses, and usually at considerably less cost. Don't just look at the Nikon or Canon name on the lens and assume unparalleled quality. Likewise, don't just look at a third-party name on the lens and assume inferior quality. All the manufacturers these days seem to be able to make excellent lenses. And all of the manufacturers these days seem to also make a few less-than-stellar lenses (even Nikon and Canon). So don't be a snob. You need to judge and evaluate lenses on a case-by-case basis. A lot has changed in the last few decades. For one thing, there is more computing power in your cell phone than there probably was in an entire lens manufacturing facility from 30 years ago. These days, all the manufacturers have access to state-of-the-art design and manufacturing methods.

Jeff Morris said:

I am 53 years old. I own a D70 and all Nikkor glass.

12-24 DX
18-70 DX (Kit lens w/D70)
70-200 VR
70-180 Micro Nikkor
TC 20e II Converter

I have seen many comments on Sigmas, Tokinas, Tamrons etc. And in
many cases these threads are saying many of the non Nikkors are at
least as good as the Nikkors.

Back in the Late 60's and 70's pros shot with OEM glass. 3rd party
glass was felt to be inferior. Now people on these forums act as
though it's no big deal. But I would still rather have a 12-24 or
a 70-200 Nikkor in my bag than a Sigma or a Tokina.

I think this is a lot of BS from kids who are new to photography,
who never cut their teeth in a darkroom and basically don't have a
clue.

Click to expand...

I'm 79 and try not to 'work' at anything, these days, but some of 'us kids' do an awful lot of research for the truth and not only in advertising. There have been aftermarket lenses for decades, particularly Zeiss, one of the early ones being the Olympic Sonnar, available for several cameras. Also, everyone and his brother made lenses for plate cameras. I have a 24mm f/2 Tamron with Adaptall Nikon mount for our old FE and FE2 that's over twenty years old, sharp as a tack, neutral colour and virtually no distortion or CA and the Vivitar Series 1 lenses were much sought after.

As for OEM, I've been waiting over 5 months for Nikon Canada to come up with an AF-S 300 f/4, one of the sharpest, fastest tele lenses; tired of waiting, I bought a Sigma 100-300 EX HSM, fast, sharp, almost the same weight and size as the Nikon, but more importantly, AVAILABLE!!!

As of now for the Fuji S2 Pro, we have Tamrons 17-35 Di, 28-75 Di and 70-300 macro, all excellent buys which perform well. Pop Photo said the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 was the sharpest lens they had ever tested. A search through samples and photo sites should convince you that the better lenses by Tamron, Sigma and Tokina are second to none and sometimes superior to OEM.

On the other hand, some of Nikon's low-priced lenses are sharp, but poorly made and quite nasty for distortion and CA. Also, some of their expensive ones aren't great, either, and this probably goes for Canon, Pentax, et al. Try here for Bjorn's Nikon reviews:
" http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html "
Skipper494.

I am looking for a long lens. Something around 500 to 600mm. It would be used for surfing and stationary shots. My current camera is a D70 and I will get the D100 replacement if it is a viable product.

As I go through the web I start getting info on Non Nikkor glass. Then I read about older AF Sigmas and Tokinas that need chip updates to work with newer cameras. One lens I think a Sigma 400 APO f5.6 had a blown chip, but Sigma no longer has the chip available for that lens.

I am not bringing this up to justify my stance on Nikkor only glass. To be frank I am starting to realize that things have changed a great deal in the last 20 years regarding 3rd party glass. But I am very concerned about purchasing glass that is compatable today and not tomorrow. Yet I realize that There is glass out there that has the features I want and fits my budget. I am concerned about purchasing a 5, 10 or 15 year old lens that even though it is "AF" it will not work with modern cameras. I have been reading about various Tokinas that have had numerous chip versions for the same lens with the same model number. How does the photo community work around this issue?

Jeff Morris
Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

Most old lenses being 'chipped' are pros' Nikon and Canon (see Bjorn's accounts of his chipped lenses). Re long, long lenses, they all cost two arms and a leg and are usually comparable in price, as well as performance, regardless of make.

I would probably go for a prime, say the Nikon 500 f/4, but Sue Trantor takes great bird shots with a Sigma 300-800 f/5.6:

" http://www.suesbirdphotos.co.uk/ ". That lens weighs 13 pounds and, like all extra long lenses, requires special mounting equipment, such as Kirk and Arco. Prices for the lenses are US $6,000 and up, up and up. Regardless of AF, those super teles need manual focus touch up, to get the part you want in focus, which is why people buy older MF lenses, as well as the price.

Have fun and let us know what you come up with and send some sample shots.
Skipper494.

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example. - And they all used third party optics from Rodenstock, Schneider and others !!!

I am sure they did not care. They were concerned about the end result.

They did not have microprocessor based cameras with IC's in AF lenses. Back then it was Leica 35's and sheet film with Gossen and Weston meters. We had gear that could be bought in the 20's and still used in the 50's. In todays digital world The Grandfather of affordable DSLR's is a D30 now almost in the trash heap as Canon stops supporting it in some software. (A fine camera that I did own and is still used by many.)

Regards,
--
Jeff Morris
Homecinemaman

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

Sigma in particular has improved immensly over the years with their EX line up. I have 3 EX lenses: the 70-200 EX 2.8, the 120-300 EX 2.8 and the 100-300 EX 4.0. All are professionally built, top grade optics. The two latter, the 120-300 EX and the 100-300 EX have been rated as tops in their class (over Nikon, Canon, Zeiss) by several publications.

Remember the Hyundai cars when they first came out in the late 80"s? Garbage. Look at the now, on top of quite a few JD Power quality surveys. Same as Sigma.

I fit your age profile, go down and handle a few Sigma EX lenses and you'll see what I am tallking about....
--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,20D and lots of typos

The third party manufactures are getting much better in their lens design because:

• Digital sensor is smaller than the 35mm, design the lens for such sensor is much easier.
• Computer aid design.
• Return of R&D money is much better for 3rd party manufactures (the same design can be used for many mounts). More ppl buying DSLR = better cash flow for them.
• OEM quality is about to hit the diminishing return point for lens design. The new lens (17-55/2.8) is not any better than it’s older cousin (17-33/2.8). Better computer technology makes the wider range possible but the picture quality doesn’t really improve.

I'm a little younger than you're looking for but I completely agree with your point of view.

In my experience, the best optics from 3rd parties can produce images that are just as sharp as nikon glass. However, the build quality almost always suffers, and things like AF performance are rarely up to the same standard. The overall fit and finish of Nikon lenses, and Canon "L" lenses, are pretty much as good as they come (I'm sure some Zeiss enthusiasts would disagree, I haven't spent much time with those optics) whereas even the higher-end Tokina, Tamron, Sigma lenses feel chintzy by comparison.

I really like my Tamron 28-75 optically, but it is already beginning to fall apart, and I wish I had put the money towards a Nikon 28-70 or 17-55 instead.

--
Charles Bandes
http://www.bandesphoto.com

Check the price of an used 3rd party lenses. You may find out the selling price of them will be 1/4 or less of the original purchased price. 3rd party lenses rarely held their values very well over time except very few examples.

High quality glass is always pricy, no matter how good the design is. You can not ask a cook to make chicken taste like beef. Even a cook can make the taste similar, chicken is still chicken. Many 3rd party lenses perform well when purchased. But, because they used too many plastic elements in the lenses, the performance degraded rapidly after the first few years of uses. So overall they may not be a very good investment. However, every one has his or her own needs. Just make sure understand that what you get is always justified by the money.

Falling apart? Could you be a little more specific?

I just switched from a Nikon 28-105 to a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and I'm delighted at the improvement at wide apertures. My tests show the lenses about equal from f5.6 on, but at wide apertures, my Fuji S2 focuses more reliably and produces considerably better images with the Tamron.

I'd like to know in advance if build issues are a problem.

Thanks,

Chris Butler

If you really want to be disheartened, you need to find a stripdown comparison of a Canon or Nikon lens with a Leitz or Zeiss lens. The mechanical construction of Leitz and Zeiss lenses are a magnitude superior to Canon and Nikon...and always have been.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

Gtank said:

High quality glass is always pricy, no matter how good the design
is. You can not ask a cook to make chicken taste like beef. Even a
cook can make the taste similar, chicken is still chicken. Many 3rd
party lenses perform well when purchased. But, because they used
too many plastic elements in the lenses, the performance degraded
rapidly after the first few years of uses. So overall they may not
be a very good investment. However, every one has his or her own
needs. Just make sure understand that what you get is always
justified by the money.

Click to expand...

However a number of the Canon lenses are pure plastic except for the mount (and sometimes the mount is too). You can't say "Canon" and only talk about the L lenses. When talking about "what happened," part of what happened is that the OEMs started making chintzy lenses.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

My current problem is that the little "lock" switch which holds the lens at 28mm is faulty, meaning that sometimes when the lens is at 28, it will lock there and make zooming impossible until I fiddle with the switch. This is a massive hassle even though it sounds like a little thing. I've moved the lens to my backup camera and gone back to my "inferior" Nikon 28-85 2.8/4 which has never given me any trouble even though it is a little less sharp. Generally speaking, although I am happy with the optical performance of the Tamron, the poor construction leaves me very worried about the future of the lens.
--
Charles Bandes
http://www.bandesphoto.com

If you go back for the last few years and read my posts they are usually thoughtful and respectful.

In the last week I was talking to so fellow that was hawking a lens grip for the D70 and I had to put him in his place for promoting his grip on these forums. (His only posts ever were on this grip)

When I started this thread I was really shocked at how little respect was left for OEM glass. I don't know for sure how much of this is held by pros and this is why I posted my question on this forum. To me a PRO is a person that obtains most of his living from phoography. I don't care if it is with weddings, fashion, sports or whatever. I made the comment about above 40+ because I felt the older photographer would have a better understanding of where I was comming from at my age. It was not due to there ability. That said, there are a lot of advanced amatures on these forums that collect equipment and have a lot of money to spend, this is their "Hobby". There are also (The vast majority) a large number of really talented people here who I can only hope to someday emulate in regard to their PS skils.

I have what I feel is some nice glass. I love the four lenses I have.

The 12-24 DX is sharp, fast and well built enough. (Pricey and I would love all metal, just don't make it any more heavy.)

The 70-180 Micro is a real treat. Tack/Rasor sharp and fun to use. (Pricey and much more metal but still to much plastic. It already weighs a ton for its size.)

The 70-200VR is the finest lens I have ever owned. It has the performance and build that every pro Nikkor and Canon "L" glass should have. (I wish Nikon had a designation for their "Luxury" glass. The 70-200 is very heavy and long for me so I do not use it often.

The 18-70 dx "Kit" lens is very nice. I just wish it was more metal and a little bit more solid like the 17-55 Nikkor.

Nikkon has a real need for a high end 17-80 or 90 priced around $650 street and a replacement for the old 70-210's at the same price. Make that a f4 to keep the price and weight down. Nikon is really missing the boat on this!

I did not start this thread to get us moaning about how good OEM vs. 3rd. party glass is. It may seem like it because of some of the comments I have made, but that was not my intention. I find it difficult to support the same OEM companies that rest on their laurals not revamping their lines more often. But that presents another problem. If you revamp to often, then your glass looses to much value to soon.

But, as I mentioned before Nikon has done some dumb things in their time. Nothing from now on should be released that does't have full USM/AF-S style focusing, period. They need to move all of their glass over 150mm to VR or at least make those lenses available as a "VR edition".

Respectfully,
--
Jeff Morris
Homecinemaman

Sorry about my grammar, I am tired and I am typing on a high res screen that I can barely read.

Adams, Gutmann, Steichen, Stigletz, Weston. they lead by example.

Yeah, I believe it. I've spent a little time with the Contax 645 and its zeiss optics, but not enough to really get a feel for it. But I can definitely tell that there's a difference.
--
Charles Bandes
http://www.bandesphoto.com

RDKirk said:

Gtank said:

High quality glass is always pricy, no matter how good the design
is. You can not ask a cook to make chicken taste like beef. Even a
cook can make the taste similar, chicken is still chicken. Many 3rd
party lenses perform well when purchased. But, because they used
too many plastic elements in the lenses, the performance degraded
rapidly after the first few years of uses. So overall they may not
be a very good investment. However, every one has his or her own
needs. Just make sure understand that what you get is always
justified by the money.

Click to expand...

However a number of the Canon lenses are pure plastic except for
the mount (and sometimes the mount is too). You can't say "Canon"
and only talk about the L lenses. When talking about "what
happened," part of what happened is that the OEMs started making
chintzy lenses.

Click to expand...

When I say plastic, I mean plastic optical element. Plastic optics will change its property gradually after the UV light pass through it and is more sensitive to the heat. If you leave the lens in a car under the hot summer sun for an extended period, I am sure the lens will not perform the same anymore.