Link: Selling All Nikon Glass?

Ran across a very interesting blog post by Scott Jarvie. I won't ruin the entire article but he has decided to change his reliance on Nikon lenses pretty significantly. I first read it as slightly inflammatory with a few digs at NPS. I reread it and have to agree with the majority of his points regarding price and repair costs. Then I realized that by adding a Tamron 70-200/2.8 this week to my Tamron 24-70/2.8 and Sigma 12-24, I had made a similar decision - maybe a little less dramatic though.

I thought this might cause an interesting conversation. I'm going to send Scott a note and invite him to join.

The newer generations of third party lenses are in some cases better than Nikon. I owned the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art and it is exceptional, the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC is excellent as well.

I love my Sigma lenses.

Having said that, I wouldn't go one brand on anything... I agree with him that Nikkor lenses aren't worth the premium, but Tamron, Tokina, and some others are getting great reviews.

I'd sooooo let go of my Nikon lenses before I would my Sigma; hands down. There's nothing to even consider.

...

The statement that the blogger made about being a hipster is reason enough for me to disregard his everything he said. :nevreness: I have about $8K in Nikon glass that is not going anywhere except out on shoots. I don't care who has the latest big thing, I'm done buying glass. Btw, I had a Sigma 200mm back in the 80s and it was an OK lens. Not the crap that everyone says Sigma was back then. Maybe I got lucky.

I think we have to really look at each lens individually now. The blanket statement that just buying one brand and it is the best is no longer true. Nikon and Canon have both produced some poor glass mixed in with the good stuff. It really pays to research and not limit ourselves.

Good for him for doing what he feels is best for himself. For me it's too broad of a stroke to just stick with one lens manufacturer. The expense of maintaining resonates with me, it all goes into the consideration of TCO (total cost of ownership). If the cost of the lens and maintenance costs outweigh the quality then I too would consider other brands. To me, third party manufacturers are bringing the expensive argument to the forefront simply by raising the quality of their products. Anything is TOO expensive if it's not worth it, but if the quality is superior then the expense is warranted. IMO Nikon will not go down in price so to keep more of these blogs from popping up they really need to raise the bar.

You gotta love competition.

Not looking for new glass right now, with the possible exception of a 105 macro or there about; but as much as I like my Nikon cameras, I would have to choose any new lenses based on critical reviews, not by brand name. And I am fascinated by Tamron's 5 year warranty and the solid build of the Tokinas I have owned and of course, am quite concerned withe country of manufactury of any lens I purchase. I do not buy products produced in the PRC. I think that lens choice is too critical to leave to brand loyalty alone.

RON said:

And I am fascinated by Tamron's 5 year warranty...

Click to expand...

Tamron's warranty is 6 years in the US.

Eduard said:

Tamron's warranty is 6 years in the US.

Click to expand...

Better still. So let's ask ourselves how come Nikon is so stingy with their warranties if their glass is so superior?

The thing is that it is so easy for Nikon's Service Center to deny warranty because they say the lens was damaged by a fall or something else. And it's kind of hard to win with them.

Have never needed to send a lens back but have dealt with their customer service dept. on several occasions and I can attest to the fact that they suffer from a bad case of hubris and general detain for customers.

Not to defend Nikon, but unfortunately the level of dishonesty of the public is astounding. Our society is fixated on being a victim to get something out of it. Unfortunately the customer is not always right anymore due to the high level of dishonesty. False claims are destroying many businesses so I can understand some of their reluctance to fix/replace everything. It's too bad for us honest folks, but once again we pay the price.

Thank heavens no one on this site is guilty of that. But i agree that the general moral tone of the country is not always what it should be.

How do the non-Nikon lenses fare when sold on the used market in comparison to Nikon lenses? I ask only because I sold a number of my Dad's c. 1968-1975 Nikkor lenses at very high valuations some years ago and I wonder if I'd have had as much interest if they had been non-Nikkor. [This is just a question for when I buy my next lens.]

I've had severals dealing with Nikon repair, warranty and not, and they have all been good. Quick turn around, good communication and good fix.

Sandpatch said:

How do the non-Nikon lenses fare when sold on the used market in comparison to Nikon lenses? I ask only because I sold a number of my Dad's c. 1968-1975 Nikkor lenses at very high valuations some years ago and I wonder if I'd have had as much interest if they had been non-Nikkor. [This is just a question for when I buy my next lens.]

Click to expand...

I wondered the same thing and so I took a very non-scientific quick look at some new prices vs. used prices (Tamron and Nikon). In general all lenses hold their value relatively well. Nikons hold their value very well in my opinion. Pretty much to the point if you bought a used Nikon lens today and then turned around and sold it 8-10 months from now, chances are pretty good you'd get your money right back. Going from new and selling as used you'd see some depreciation. But if you use Adorama as an example, their used Nikon 70-200 2.8 vrII goes for just a couple hundred dollars less than new (from $2,396 to about $2,199 in great condition). You'd get lower prices through Craig's List or eBay of course but still the value is there imo. I would add if the right sale or rebate is available then it always makes sense to buy new for my money. Tamron doesn't seem to perform as well but their latest lenses seem to be bucking that trend. I'm not finding any exceptional deals on their current 24-70 2.8 lens just yet.

I will say that the Primes have lived up to expectation as really quite amazing. I have actually liked the 70-200 much more than i expected. The 24-105 has been sharp and fast to focus however I'm not in love with the amount of vignetting at f/4 , sometimes a vignette works for the pictures but in skies I don't like it. However I may still consider it a win, I'll give it a little more time. I still may end up getting the 14-24 Nikon again, that lens really is incomparable, but I'll give the 12-24 a bit more time and see how I like the extra 2mm

Scott Jarvie said:

I still may end up getting the 14-24 Nikon again, that lens really is incomparable, but I'll give the 12-24 a bit more time and see how I like the extra 2mm

Click to expand...

I've never shot with the Nikon 14-24, but I picked the Sigma 12-24 up a couple months ago. My decision was purely based on how stellar their 10-20 was when I was still shooting my D300. I haven't used it too much yet but the perspective is spectacular!

I just choose manufacturer based on value for money - I think the Nikon 35mm & 50mm primes are amazing value for money - But now I'm in the market for a 105mm f2.8 macro and a 70-200mm f2.8 and Nikon struggle against cheaper lenses that seem just as good from Sigma & Tamron in my eyes.
@Eduard I'd certainly be interested in your thoughts on your 70-200mm Tamron, which in the UK looks about £600 cheaper than the Nikkor.