3rd party lenses???

What do you guys think?? whats your opinion on it???

Tamron
Sigma
etc...


im looking at picking up some lenses for the d7000 and price wise, they are alot more feasible then nikon lenses... i heard good things and people saying no by saying they are cheaply made....


what do you guys think ???

I can't speak from experience, but I've read a lot of good things here on the boards on Sigma and their fast glass. Also if I'm not mistaken there was a courtcase with Nikon going after Sigma over copyright infringements. That's got to tell you something there.

If I'm wrong please someone correct me.

Right now I own all Nikon glass but because of the higher Nikon prices and what I'm looking at my next two lens are going to be a Sigma. There becomes a point where it just too much money, no matter how I look at it.

i was looking at picking this up.
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016NII-700

If I was going to buy a 3rd party lens, it would be Tokina, Sigma, Tamron.......in that order of preference.

I own Sigma lenses and I swear by them. Great build quality, and sharp images. Sigma has stepped their game up lately and if you were to buy one do not buy circa 1990s.

Tokina Has outstanding glass. On par with nikon and in some cases even better.

Tamron is a hit and miss as there seems to be no consistency of good quality glass but their good copies are excellent.

If you don't do photography for a living, save some coin and buy 3rd party. But for those who do photography on a professional level and need excellent glass usually shell out serious cash for nikon lenses.

Hope this helps.

My ultra-wide is a Sigma and my tele is a Tamron, as they were much cheaper than Nikon. I do own some Nikon glass but i'm satisfied with 3rd party lens.

I have Sigma's a Quantray, something that was built in Russia many years ago and a slack handfull of Old Nikons.
The Sigma 28-200 and 28-300 are my standard lenses, the 28 - 300 is better than the 'G' series 70-300 Nikon Lens I own, the best Lens I have is an ols 'E' Series F1.8 Nikon, it is wonderfully sharp, but the only way I could afford it was because it was on ebay for a steal.
The Older Sigmas that I have are as good as the Nikon Kit lens standard, I have a 18 - 35 Sigma that is very good, sharp, crisp and fast focusing, I have no complaints about the Sigma's at all.
But if you have the money you can't beat a Nikon prime, question is do you really need one ?

I own 2 Tamron lenses:

• 70-200mm f/2.8
• 28-75mm f/2.8

Both have rave reviews and are hailed as near equals in quality to their Nikkor equivalents at a much lower price.

I used to own a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro...and it was a serious piece of crap. My personal experience with Sigma is much different than many others, so maybe I just had a bad one or something. I'll never buy another Sigma product.

I have a Tamron 70-300mm VC lens and love it. The AF on it is fast and the VC is very good. When I was looking, several people at Nikon Cafe said that in the 200-300mm range, the Tammy was sharper than the Nikon version. Since I don't have the Nikon lens, I have nothing to compare it to personally. But, as I said, I love it! I bought it through Amazon, so I got it even cheaper than usual.

I have a 28 mm Sigma prime and it's older but I love it

I have two Sigma lenses a 24-70 f2.8 and the70-200 f2.8. I seriously have had no problem with either of these two lenses. Although I use the 18-55 Nikon kit lens for a wider angle and also my casual walk around lens. Hand holding the 70-200 is like pumping iron, it weighs just over 48 oz. That is a lot of weight around the neck.
I use the 70-200 mostly for girl's high school basketball games. Shooting around 1/250 sec at f3.5 -4, ISO at 1600.

Personally I like Tokina, you could look for old Nikon glass such as the 28-105 3.5-4.5 I use one with my D7000 with great success, here is an example : iso 160 @ 105mm f6.3

I have a novice question. Why would A prime lens of 50mm f 2.8 be much sharper than a kit lens with f3.5? How is it the 1 to 2 stop make a difference whilst a prime lens between f1.4 and f1.8 not much?

I have seen the photo comparison but I can't really tell much. More apparent when they zoom in.

lafabritto said:

i was looking at picking this up.
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD Aspherical [IF] AF016NII-700

Click to expand...

I have the earlier version of this lens without the built-in motor and it is very sharp. I'm very happy with it.
This was shot at 19mm f/8

I have only 2 lenses and they are both Nikon. I am very satisfied with them but I do have the urge to upgrade and have more like everyone else.

I have owned a Tamron 70-300 nonVr before but I guess it is not fair to compare it to the nikon VR version.

I would love to have a wide angle lens and a faster zoom lens. Due to cost, I am also considering a 3rd party lens. If you guys have experience with any such lens, please share here.

I was almost considering replacing my Nikon kit lens, 18-105 mm VR with Sigma 17-70 mm till I read some reviews and saw the photo comparison. That 2.8 vs 3.5 f stop did not provide the edge.

QUOTE=lafabritto;33915]What do you guys think?? whats your opinion on it???

Tamron
Sigma
etc...


im looking at picking up some lenses for the d7000 and price wise, they are alot more feasible then nikon lenses... i heard good things and people saying no by saying they are cheaply made....


what do you guys think ???[/QUOTE]

It depends on what focal length you need/want. 3rd party lenses and also the Nikon brand has their weak and strong points.
If you can be specific with the focal length we can help you with suggestions.

I am looking at 17-70 range. This a good range for general walkabout photography

Forgot to add: the Nikon 18-105 VR has a fantastic range, but the f stop is 3.5. How I wish it was 2.8.

Bukitimah said:

Forgot to add: the Nikon 18-105 VR has a fantastic range, but the f stop is 3.5. How I wish it was 2.8.

Click to expand...

Yeah, don't we all wish that! There is nothing wrong with a 3.5 f stop if used properly. I love my 18-105 lens. It is always on one of my cameras for walk around duty.

Jack, the challenge is when you are faced with low light and cannot use flash. Even when you up the ISO, focusing is a problem. I am not great with manual focusing.