Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Non-Nikon lens quality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="STM" data-source="post: 121433" data-attributes="member: 12827"><p>This is a question almost as broad as "what is the meaning of life?". You have to be <em>a lot </em>more specific. Quality is a rather nebulous term as well. Are you talking about optical or mechanical quality? Every company, be it Nikon, Canon, or 3rd party lens makers have made both good and bad lenses. Even Nikon has made a few DOGS over the years, as has Canon. Carl Zeiss, one of the world's premier lens makers, has made some stinkers, a couple of older Hasselblad lenses come to mind. The old non-AI 43-86 f/3.5 Auto Nikkor zoom was a <em>real </em>stinker. I had one for about 6 months before I sold it and at a loss, just to get rid of it. it was <em>THAT</em> bad. Back in the 70's and '80's, Vivitar made some rather fine lenses with their "Series 1" line. Lenses that even today have stood the test of time. But they have also made some real dogs too. Same for Tamron, Kiron, Sigma, Soligor etc. </p><p></p><p>I think when you are trying to answer this question you need to pick a particular lens or focal length and compare apples to apples. If I were to make a very broad statement, I would have to say that OEM (Nikkors) lenses are superior overall to 3rd party lenses, but again, there are some very good third party lenses out there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="STM, post: 121433, member: 12827"] This is a question almost as broad as "what is the meaning of life?". You have to be [I]a lot [/I]more specific. Quality is a rather nebulous term as well. Are you talking about optical or mechanical quality? Every company, be it Nikon, Canon, or 3rd party lens makers have made both good and bad lenses. Even Nikon has made a few DOGS over the years, as has Canon. Carl Zeiss, one of the world's premier lens makers, has made some stinkers, a couple of older Hasselblad lenses come to mind. The old non-AI 43-86 f/3.5 Auto Nikkor zoom was a [I]real [/I]stinker. I had one for about 6 months before I sold it and at a loss, just to get rid of it. it was [I]THAT[/I] bad. Back in the 70's and '80's, Vivitar made some rather fine lenses with their "Series 1" line. Lenses that even today have stood the test of time. But they have also made some real dogs too. Same for Tamron, Kiron, Sigma, Soligor etc. I think when you are trying to answer this question you need to pick a particular lens or focal length and compare apples to apples. If I were to make a very broad statement, I would have to say that OEM (Nikkors) lenses are superior overall to 3rd party lenses, but again, there are some very good third party lenses out there. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
General Lenses
Non-Nikon lens quality?
Top