List of good and bad makes of lens????

[tony64]

I am looking at the Nikon d50 and a lot of the deals are with different makes of lens. The price witha lens other than Nikkor are all cheaper IE Sigma Quateray??Spelling??
Are they a poorer quality or just cheaper as not Manufacture branded????
Can anyone tell me if there is a list anywhere of lens to be avoided???

 

[handicap18]

You can't really go wrong with Nikkor lenses. Their reputation is excellent and their product outstanding, however very expensive. There are good alternatives though. From my understanding Sigma is good and probably a little better than Tamron and Quantaray and Tokina. However, depending on the specific lens one gets better ratings than the other, but none are better than Nikkor or Canon. Nikon is known for its lenses.

You will get great results from 3rd party lenses and many people will only use 3rd party (mostly because of cost). I have both Nikkor and Quantaray that I use with my D50. I have been looking at a Sigma mostly because a particular lens is quite a few hundred dollars less than the Nikon equilivent (28mm I think is the one Sigma has one for about $300 that is f/1.8. The Nikkor f/1.4 is well over $1000, but they do have a 2.8 for about $200. I'd rather the wider aperture).

Others will probably have more info, especially on specific lenses. If you are looking at any imparticular I'd post it. you'll probably get better feedback that way.

 

[Anewman]

Everyone has various lines of lenses within their brand name.

Canon makes Chit lenses they also make PRO L lenses.

If you compare a $100 Canon 28-90mm lens to a $400 24-70mm F:2.8 EX DG Macro Sigma lens, which do you think is a better lens????

It is not JUST about the brand name.

I would rather have a fully loaded top of the line Toyota/Nissan/Honda than a entry level stripped BMW/Benz/Audi.

 

[boBQuincy]

Here are some places that rate or review lenses. Brand name does not automatically mean quality. Price does not automatically determine quality either, although it may be a better indicator than most.

http://www.photozone.de/
Fredmiranda.com
Lumnous-landscape.com


boB

 

[Kelly Grannell]

I agree with Anewman. Everybody makes good and bad lenses. Sometimes price does NOT determine quality. A lot of times price vs performance ratio are out of whack. Most of the time, however, price determine quality.

For example, Canon 50mm f/1.8 is $80, Canon 50mm f/1.4 is $310. Yes the f/1.4 is sharper. But is it really 6x sharper? it's not even 100% sharper at 100% magnification (called 'pixel-peeping') although still noticable on an 8x12 print.

On the other hand I just tried Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ($500) vs Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS ($1,200). But the colour abberation on the Tamron is so severe (can be seen clearly on a 4x6 print) one can't pay me to use the Tamron. In this case, the Canon is really wrothe the $700 extra... not to mention IS.

On the other other hand, Sigma 17-70 Macro lens is one of the best zoom macro I've ever toyed with. It can get as close as 3" to the subject !!! (not according to spec, but from what I tried), and this thing is only $400.

So go figure.

In general, however, newer lenses by Quantaray, Phoenix, ProMaster, ProOptic are horrendous... but they are mighty cheap and if you're just doing photos for the web, they are tolerable. I played with a Phoenix 500mm lens last week. It's only $150 and wow! I've never seen a lens THAT BAD! LOL!

 

[Anewman]

In general, however, newer lenses by Quantaray, Phoenix, ProMaster, ProOptic are horrendous... but they are mighty cheap and if you're just doing photos for the web, they are tolerable. I played with a Phoenix 500mm lens last week. It's only $150 and wow! I've never seen a lens THAT BAD! LOL!

I know that Quantaray has rebadged Tamron and Sigma lenses over the years, but you are right they dont typically rebadge the BETTER Tamron or Sigmas.

 

[tony64]

Thanks,
it sounds like try before you buy is the way to go.