3rd Party lenses: what if

Shuttrfingr wrote:

With my former Nikon system, I had two Nikkor lenses and three 3rd party ones. I found the Nikkors held their value better and were quicker and easier to sell. I lost more value with the 3rd party lenses and they took longer to sell.

It rather depends on the specific lenses than brands. In general more expensive things depreciate more than less expensive in %.

Had this discussion here some months ago and it showed Sigma did depreciate much less than Nikon. If I remember well it was about 105/1.4s.

I know that everybody's trying to save a buck/pound/euro, etc. by getting 3rd party glass and/or trying to thumb one's nose at the big guys like Canon, Nikon, etc.,

Or just wants to buy lenses those big ones do not offer.

but with my R6 purchase last summer I've resolved to buy RF-only glass. I'm hoping that by spending more in the beginning on brand recognition and better quality

Not always the better quality is really there.

, I might lose less in the end, i.e. less % of depreciation when it comes time to sell.

This is interesting to me. Never was choosing gear based on an assumption about its hypothetical price in couple of years. Always chose it based on its specs, qualities and my needs.

But to each his own.

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

Perhaps that is why you bought the 40/1.4, no :-)?

(It is a pure BS)

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses. Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

-- hide signature --

Portraits - https://instagram.com/stephane_james
Nature - https://instagram.com/stephanejames_nature
Street - https://instagram.com/stephanejames_street
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154854356@N08/

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

Perhaps that is why you bought the 40/1.4, no :-)?

(It is a pure BS)

I regret that purchase. I used to have the 35mm HSM too, and that one was good. But it seems that they have dropped the ball after that lens was released. The modern Sigmas seem to be made only to shoot test charts with. They are over-corrected and probably suffer from a lot of internal lens flare.

Compare the Sigma 105mm f1.8 DG HSM Art (left) with the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 (right) and you can see the difference.

This is what we call "flat" vs "3D" rendering. In the Sigma image there is no sense of depth.

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Bested on MTF charts? Or is it your subjective opinion after comparing images taken by each lens?

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

Perhaps that is why you bought the 40/1.4, no :-)?

(It is a pure BS)

I regret that purchase. I used to have the 35mm HSM too, and that one was good. But it seems that they have dropped the ball after that lens was released. The modern Sigmas seem to be made only to shoot test charts with. They are over-corrected

Could you please leabortae what exactly do you mean by that? This implies that the more vignetting, aberrations, distortions etc. len has the better.

and probably suffer from a lot of internal lens flare.

No relevant evidence to this from any established reviewer. Perhaps you are the only one to think thos.

Compare the Sigma 105mm f1.8 DG HSM Art (left) with the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 (right) and you can see the difference.

Different FL, different apertures, different results. Says nothing about all sigmas in general.

This is what we call "flat" vs "3D" rendering. In the Sigma image there is no sense of depth.

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

Same as above: different FL, different focus distance, different aperture = different result.

Take same FL, same aperture, same framing, same focus distance and only the you can make any statements.

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

Perhaps that is why you bought the 40/1.4, no :-)?

(It is a pure BS)

I regret that purchase. I used to have the 35mm HSM too, and that one was good. But it seems that they have dropped the ball after that lens was released. The modern Sigmas seem to be made only to shoot test charts with. They are over-corrected and probably suffer from a lot of internal lens flare.

Compare the Sigma 105mm f1.8 DG HSM Art (left) with the Yongnuo 85mm f/1.8 (right) and you can see the difference.

This is what we call "flat" vs "3D" rendering. In the Sigma image there is no sense of depth.

The Sigma 105mm doesn't give you a whole lot of contrast, which is a good thing in a portrait lens if you want smooth back grounds and don't want to overaccentuate the pores of the subject. There is a crazy amount of detail though, but it's more subtle. Contrast can look more punchy, but actually rub you of some detail.

To my eye the Sigma is more efficient with DR as well.

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

I am actually getting pretty nice 3D rendering and separation pop with the 105/1.4:

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66466142/cda48689395746a791669a65530a35b7

https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66513022/38274a2aae3e46e1820ae63326eaf601

And the same applies to the 40/1.4:

https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66524998/e35d81ee4bcf40c597f53302b2aae729

https://1.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66524998/91fe677a93de497a858725acdd682de4

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

If you want contrast and deeper blacks to suggest depth the Sigma 105mm Art won't give you that SOOC. Again, I think that is a good design choice for a portrait lens. It's made for a dreamy (yet detailed) look. If you want depth in another type of image you should do a little work in post, which will help, as the detail is definitely there.

The 40mm Art has a complete different character, with that contrasty punch, even wide open.

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

Same as above: different FL, different focus distance, different aperture = different result.

Take same FL, same aperture, same framing, same focus distance and only the you can make any statements.

I have done that a lot with my 40mm. The images it produces are all flat with low contrast and unsaturated colors.

thunder storm wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

If you want contrast and deeper blacks to suggest depth the Sigma 105mm Art won't give you that SOOC. Again, I think that is a good design choice for a portrait lens. It's made for a dreamy (yet detailed) look. If you want depth in another type of image you should do a little work in post, which will help, as the detail is definitely there.

The 40mm Art has a complete different character, with that contrasty punch, even wide open.

I don't agree at all. The 40mm is the flattest, dullest lens I have ever had and extremely similar to how the 105 renders images in the examples above.

LennyLevino wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

If you want contrast and deeper blacks to suggest depth the Sigma 105mm Art won't give you that SOOC. Again, I think that is a good design choice for a portrait lens. It's made for a dreamy (yet detailed) look. If you want depth in another type of image you should do a little work in post, which will help, as the detail is definitely there.

The 40mm Art has a complete different character, with that contrasty punch, even wide open.

I don't agree at all. The 40mm is the flattest, dullest lens I have ever had and extremely similar to how the 105 renders images in the examples above.

Your claims about both lenses are exactly opposite from what all the respected reviewers all around the world say. So either you had a really bad copies of both lenses (very unlike) or you just have an incomprehensive urge to defame.

Especially with the 40/1.4 the excellent microcontrast and rendering wide opened is jawdropping as you can see on my samples.

You can check out more samples here:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66524998

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

If you want contrast and deeper blacks to suggest depth the Sigma 105mm Art won't give you that SOOC. Again, I think that is a good design choice for a portrait lens. It's made for a dreamy (yet detailed) look. If you want depth in another type of image you should do a little work in post, which will help, as the detail is definitely there.

The 40mm Art has a complete different character, with that contrasty punch, even wide open.

I don't agree at all. The 40mm is the flattest, dullest lens I have ever had and extremely similar to how the 105 renders images in the examples above.

Your claims about both lenses are exactly opposite from what all the respected reviewers all around the world say. So either you had a really bad copies of both lenses (very unlike) or you just have an incomprehensive urge to defame.

Especially with the 40/1.4 the excellent microcontrast and rendering wide opened is jawdropping.

So you haven't actually used the lens yourself? It sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you have read or heard from Youtubers.

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

If you want contrast and deeper blacks to suggest depth the Sigma 105mm Art won't give you that SOOC. Again, I think that is a good design choice for a portrait lens. It's made for a dreamy (yet detailed) look. If you want depth in another type of image you should do a little work in post, which will help, as the detail is definitely there.

The 40mm Art has a complete different character, with that contrasty punch, even wide open.

I don't agree at all. The 40mm is the flattest, dullest lens I have ever had and extremely similar to how the 105 renders images in the examples above.

Your claims about both lenses are exactly opposite from what all the respected reviewers all around the world say. So either you had a really bad copies of both lenses (very unlike) or you just have an incomprehensive urge to defame.

Especially with the 40/1.4 the excellent microcontrast and rendering wide opened is jawdropping.

So you haven't actually used the lens yourself? It sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you have read or heard from Youtubers.

Yes, exactly :-D. That is why I am sharing my pics and posting the link to my thread about this lens... .

I do not know what is your motivation but it is a pure BS what you are writing.

Canon_Guy wrote:

I am actually getting pretty nice 3D rendering and separation pop with the 105/1.4:

https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~forums/66466142/cda48689395746a791669a65530a35b7

In this scene the back light causing silver linings is doing a great job to create depth. The subject is darker than the background, the shadow of the trees are working as a huge lens hood, so the "weakness" of the lens for not giving so much contrast isn't an issue here.  Bokeh does the rest.

Very nice shot by the way.

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Canon_Guy wrote:

SNJops wrote:

LennyLevino wrote:

Sigma lenses nowadays are awful and I hear the same thing about Tamron. Flat and lifeless rendering.

But Zeiss Batis or some new autofocusing lenses from Zeiss would be interesting.

The Sigma and Tamron were making great glass before mirrorless and have only gotten better since it could argued. In particular Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art, 20mm f1.4 Art, 50mm f1.4 Art, 85mm f1.4 Art and 65mm f2 are excellent lenses.

I would add 40/1.4, 105/1.4 and 135/1.8 to your list of excellent Sigma lenses. All of them render stunningly beautifully.

Tamron’s 28-75mm f2.8 and their 35-150mm f2-f2.8 are staples for many professionals.

As for the Zeiss Batis range they are good options if bought used. They have long been bested by both Sigma and Sony however.

Sigma 105mm vs Yongnuo 85mm:

On the left image, you can tell which leaves go in front of each, where as on the Sigma picture on the right, they all look blended together.

If you want contrast and deeper blacks to suggest depth the Sigma 105mm Art won't give you that SOOC. Again, I think that is a good design choice for a portrait lens. It's made for a dreamy (yet detailed) look. If you want depth in another type of image you should do a little work in post, which will help, as the detail is definitely there.

The 40mm Art has a complete different character, with that contrasty punch, even wide open.

I don't agree at all. The 40mm is the flattest, dullest lens I have ever had and extremely similar to how the 105 renders images in the examples above.

Your claims about both lenses are exactly opposite from what all the respected reviewers all around the world say. So either you had a really bad copies of both lenses (very unlike) or you just have an incomprehensive urge to defame.

Especially with the 40/1.4 the excellent microcontrast and rendering wide opened is jawdropping.

So you haven't actually used the lens yourself? It sounds like you are basing your opinion on what you have read or heard from Youtubers.

Yes, exactly :-D. That is why I am sharing my pics and posting the link to my thread about this lens... .

I do not know what is your motivation but it is a pure BS what you are writing.

You are free to like the lens. But to me the pictures it takes look lifeless. And I tried to show what I meant with that using comparison pictures.

It is possible to take great pictures with these lenses, as you showed in your examples. But those pictures could've been taken with smaller and cheaper lenses too. I much prefer my RF 50mm f1.8 STM to my 40mm Sigma. Stopped down it is equally sharp (aside from in the extreme edges). It has much more contrast and color saturation, and the images just looks better (in my opnion).

It is a shame that this is the case because I liked the older, smaller and cheaper 35mm a lot. Perhaps this problem is mainly there in the 28, 40 and 105mm lenses, although I would assume the 135 is suffering from it as well.

These lenses seem to have been created solely to perform well on MTF charts, so that youtubers and other reviewers  who shoot bricks walls and pixel-peep at 300% will praise them. But the trade-off for this is not only weight and bulk but a lack of soul and a sense of artificialness in the images they render.