Non-Nikon lens quality?

STM

Senior Member
This is a question almost as broad as "what is the meaning of life?". You have to be a lot 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 real stinker. I had one for about 6 months before I sold it and at a loss, just to get rid of it. it was THAT 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.
 

Camera Fun

Senior Member
Looking at both optical and mechanical quality. I would eventually consider adding a lens that would zoom up to 200/300 as a companion to my 18-105 that came with my D7000.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
How does the quality of other lens manufacturers compare to Nikon?
Sigma? Tamron? Other?
There is no simple answer, it just depends on the particular lens. There are some Tamron and Sigma lenses out there that surpass their Nikon equivalents. You just have to do your research on any particular lens and decide for yourself.
 

jwstl

Senior Member
I don't know a lot about Tokina and Tamron but Sigma is making some fine glass these days. They are doing an excellent job of offering quality in areas where Nikon lacks anything similar. I'm thinking specifically of the 150 Macro and the 120-300 2.8. Both are highly regarded and Nikon doesn't offer either of those. I'm a lens snob and I'm planning to get both.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
Sigmas 70-200/2.8 is a cracker of a lens. I've owned the VII and now the VIII OS versions and loved them both. Reviews say their 120-300/2.8 is a great lens as well. Both offer brilliant value for money.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
I have a friend with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and 90 Macro. I've used them both and came away impressed.
 

Epoc

Senior Member
^^ Funnily enough, I own both those and can concur, they are also both excellent lenses that again, offer great value for money. There's definitely a pattern emerging here with my glass :)
 

Bukitimah

Senior Member
Looking at both optical and mechanical quality. I would eventually consider adding a lens that would zoom up to 200/300 as a companion to my 18-105 that came with my D7000.

I think I know what you are asking. I was facing this question when I first started a year ago and am still working on it. I hope I can share my experience with you.

18-105 kit lens is a very good starter lens. But it is slow and limited when you shoot indoor under low light and flash is not allowed. I would suggest a 17-50 f2.8 as the base. You need that wide angle and f2.8.

Next you may wish to look into a 70-200 f2.8. If budget permits, VR/OS preferred. These 2 are the basic and if you need the distance, add the teleconverter. Of course Nikon lens is a safe bet but so far my experiences with Tamron is good. Have not tried Sigma but heard they are equally great.
 

Dave_W

The Dude
As others have stated, it's hit and miss with non-Nikkor lenses. Some are good and others not so good but you can never go wrong with a Nikkor lens. Personally, I only buy Nikkor lenses both for their quality and for their ability to hold value. Assuming that you'll always be upgrading your lenses as time goes by, resale value should play a part in your decision.
 

Mrmover

Senior Member
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1363044860.009089.jpg
I recently purchased a Tamron 24-70 VC for my D600, image quality is fantastic


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

59caddy

Senior Member
There are a lot of site's on the web where you can find all kinds of information about comparing lenses,Whatever you do do NOT buy cheap lenses,you will regret it.
Keep in mind and do some research about the warranty,I hear the Nikon charges a lot for repairing lenses,On the otherhand i know that Sigma has excelent warranty and service.
They fixed my 50-500 (lost AF) even though i did NOT have the original receipt for Free.
Have a close look at Sigma lenses,but still do your research because like some one said before ,All of them do makes lenses that are not so good

Just my 2 cents
 

JDFlood

Senior Member
You get what you pay for. Nikon lenses tend to be reliably the best, most tests prove this, there are occasional exceptions. If your middle name is "best for the money", and your ok with 95% as good then look at other brands. If you can afford it, or will not settle, don't waste your time. JD
 

AC016

Senior Member
I am by no means a "lens nerd", but i have tried out a few. Aside from Nikon, i have tried out some Vivitars (Circa late 1970s), Sigmas and Tamrons. There are "not so good" lenses from every manufacturer, even Nikon. Though i have the means to do so, i just cannot justify spending thousands of dollars on a lens. Therefore, i do look at 3rd party lenses, as well as 2nd hand lenses. I'm in the process of trading in my 55-200 for a 70-300mm f/4 - 5.6 Di VC USD SP. I tried the Nikon equivalent and it was very nice. However, the Tamron has a rebate and with the trade in value of my 55-200mm, i am looking at a nearly %50 discount. I have read reviews and have watched Youtube reviews of the Tamron and as far as i can see, it seems to be on par with the Nikon. So, from this experience, if you are looking at 3rd party lenses, do your research and try to get your hands on one before you buy.
 
Top