How to build up a photography kit...

B

Benzphotography

New member
I heard a bit about tamron. The thing that scares me is the build quality of the cheaper lenses. Would they last as long?? I will investigate them more now. I can see how bad I need a good tripod now :eek:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
Your worries are pretty much groundless - there are a lots of "original" (Nikon/Canon etc.) lenses who are POORLY built (lots of wobbling, lots of plastic in them and so on). On the other hand, there are many "third party" lenses (Vivitar, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina...) which are EXTREMELY robust. Two of the Nikon's poorly built lenses: kit 18-55mm, plasticky, narrow and flimsy (manual) focus ring etc.; 18-135mm, same thing; three examples of a high quality built third party lenses: Tamron 70-300mm VC (compared to Nikon 70-300mm VR, it exhibits less wobbling, feels "tighter"), Tokina 105mm f/2.8 macro, Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC HSM OS... Situation was slightly different back then, during the "analog era", when Nikon lenses were a synonym for robustness and "heavy build", though even then, a company by the name of Vivitar (which, allegedly, used Tokina's facilities) made a lot of extremely robust (and optically perfect too) lenses with Nikon's F bayonet (as well as for many other camera producers)...
 
Last edited:
B

Benzphotography

New member
I heard a little about the sigma and tamron. And seen comparison shots and they always say the "name brand" beats the others. Is this because they are all about "name brands"? So confusing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Benzphotography said:
I heard a little about the sigma and tamron. And seen comparison shots and they always say the "name brand" beats the others. Is this because they are all about "name brands"? So confusing!
Click to expand...
Let me see if I can't help clear up some of this fog for you...

There was a time, many moons ago, when Tamron, Sigma and numerous other third-party lens manufacturers simply could not hold a candle to a genuine Nikon lens. Period. Nikon glass pretty much ruled supreme.

Those days are gone now.

If someone wants to own nothing but Nikon kit, for whatever reason, hey, that's cool by me... But in all seriousness there are several Sigma lenses on the market today that equal, or surpass, their Nikon equivalents and my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is a show-stopping good lens that cost a fraction of what its Nikon counterpart would have. People say that Nikon glass holds its value better but that has not been my experience. My experience tells me that QUALITY glass holds its value, regardless of whose name is on the barrel.

I don't own any Tamron lenses so I won't speak to them.

All that being said, I think you'd be a fool to rule out third-party lenses entirely. Each lens purchase must be carefully evaluated and all options considered.

...
 
D

DraganDL

Senior Member
@Benzphotography: No, it is not confusing at all - but it seem that you're trying to make confusion. ;)

For example, read this review: Tamron AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD (EOS) - Full Format Review / Test Report
...and pay your attention to the conclusion: "...However, the Tamron has a certain edge with respect to AF as well as build quality so it represents a slightly better value offer". In this review, the lens is tested with Canon camera, but pretty much the same goes for comparison with Nikon's 70-300mm

Let's take a look at another reviewer, for the review of a Nikon 70-300 VR: Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G AF-S VR Nikkor Lens Review
"This telephoto zoom lens costs around £440 and covers the popular 70-300mm range plus it sports Vibration reduction and a silent wave focusing motor", "Tamron's SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 sports a fast silent focusing motor and vibration correction and costs around £350". Does it ring any bells for you?
 
Last edited:
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
Benzphotography said:
masagu7y.jpg


I got a D600 with a nikkor 24-70 f2.8 and a sigma 50mm f1.4
I am looking at getting a nikkor 70-200 f2.8 or something like a 105 f2.8 micro with a sb700/910 flash..I will be looking at spending about $2500.
I want to slowly get serious with my photography in portraits/street/landscape/sport etc (not wedding)
I would love to hear your advice as to my next step forward. Many Thanks!!!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Throw in a tripod and you're honestly more than set with all of that.

And @70-300 examples, remember that they're all far inferior to 70-200 2.8s, so if your budget allows and heart desires, by all means get the best you can. Heck, you could even skip on 105 micro as a 70-200 can be a decent tele-zoom, portrait lens, etc. Maybe throw in a 1.4 or a 2x teleconverter and you'll be armed to the teeth.
 
Last edited:
Top