3rd Party lenses vs. Nikon/Canons???

wildviper

I realize that reading the subject line, most will go..."oh not another thread!"

Well...I haven't seen this addressed and thus wanted some clarification. Perhaps my thinking is off...so please correct.

I have been watching a lot of videos of "pros" in various settings and have noticed that all of them use the original manufacturer's lenses vs. the Tamrons/Sigmas and such.

I have gone from Sigma to a Nikon 70-300. I have gone from Nikon 18-70 to Tamron 28-75/2.8. I had a Tokina 12-24 to now a Nikon 12-24/4. So, I have some experience in this regard. What I have noticed overtime is that my colors are more accurate with Nikon lenses SOTC then 3rd party. My exposures are more closer to being correct than with the 3rd party lenses. And the flash in TTL works better with Nikon stuff than with 3rd party.

All this can't be a fluke...I have been observing this for over 2 years now. I always excuse the above by saying...I didn't meter right...the light must not have been good...and so on. But now I am begining to doubt that excuse.

Besides sharpness....I think the original manufacturer lenses do offer something more to us in terms of color, exposure, TTL capability. Is that a totally off base deduction????

I know Nikon lenses working with the 1008 matrix or whatever gives color info and distance info to cameras....I doubt the 3rd party lenses do that.

Food for thought...hopefully someone more technically minded provide some needed insight!

Matthew Saville

I think you are generally quite correct- Nikon and Canon know their equipment better, and are best able at maximizing things like color, autofocus speed, and *usually* sharpness.

HOWEVER, the main use I see 3rd parties for, is "filling in the gaps". The best examples that come to mind are as follows:

* Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 DX - Nikon and Canon simply don't make an ultra-wide f/2.8 crop sensor lens, and Tokina does it BEAUTIFULLY. If you wanna do low-light photojournalism, or maybe star photography like myself and a few friends, (www.sgphotos.com) ...then the Tokina 11-16 is the way to go for lightweight, affordable gear. Comparatively, a full-frame body and an f/2.8 16-35 or 17-35, or 14-24, would all cost thousands extra and weigh pounds more. :-( I have never owned the Tokina 11-16, but have rented and tested multiple copies on both Nikon and Canon. Nothing but stellar!

* Sigma 150mm f/2.8 Macro, with OS and without... Quite simply, this is the longest macro lens that still goes to f/2.8. Canon and Nikon stop at 105mm, Canon's 180mm f/3.5 and Nikon's 200 f/4 both cost an arm and a leg, and are getting kinda old. The Sigma 150 on the other hand is amazing- EXTREMELY sharp, great at both macro and near-infinity shots, and now the new one with stabilization, it's actually quite a versatile lens that, to be honest, would stop me altogether from needing to buy a 70-200 2.8... I have owned the non-OS version of this lens since 2005 and it is just superb. I honestly have great difficulty recommending any other lens considering this one's performance.

* Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 DC - Again, a lens that Canon and Nikon simply don't make, and probably never will. The "big two" seem to have moved on from anything remotely resembling a "professional" crop-sensor lens, with almost zero new releases in that class over the past few years. While Sigma has come out with three versions of this lens, now the latest one has stabilization. I bought my mk1 version right after it came out in 2006, and it has been a crop-sensor workhorse ever since. Rugged, sharp, and snappy. I even use it still today on my D700, WITHOUT DX crop mode enabled, for extremely low light situations (stage theater etc.) where the slight vignetting is not a problem. LOVE this lens, and there's simply no equivalent (not even close) from Nikon or Canon.

* Sigma 20mm f/1.8 - Wanna hit f/1.8 at 20mm? Sorry, no Nikon or Canon options. Sure, Nikon and Canon could make a sharper version, for $1000 more, but you get the idea by now...



...Off the top of my head, that's all, but you get the idea. When you compare exact versions of each lens head-to-head, such as the Sigma 24-70 versus the Nikon 24-70, then yeah the Nikon will win 90% of the time. Same with the 70-200 2.8's... Really the only reason you'd buy a 3rd party lens in that range would be to save money on a lens that isn't going to be your workhorse. (If for example you need both a 24-70 and 70-200, but you're going to have the 24-70 on your camera 90% of the time, then buy the Nikon 24-70 and the Sigma 70-200, and you'll be VERY happy. Until you're just totally flush with cash and want to upgrade that 70-200 haha...)

Anyways, take care,
=Matt=

paddler4

This seems puzzling to me. The lens does not control either exposure or TTL (which is just another metering/exposure control). The camera body does. So I can't see how the lens would matter in this respect. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge can chime in.

Color rendition varies substantially among lenses within manufacturers, as well as across.

I have only one third-party lens, the Tamron 28-75 you have. I love it. It is inferior to some of my canon lenses in some respects. The BQ is not as good as the best of the Canons, the focusing is clearly not as good as the best of the Canons, and it lacks FTM focusing. On the other hand, it costs 1/3 as much as the corresponding Canon lens, and on a crop sensor camera, it is very close in optical quality. Others have posted very positive comments about lots of other third-party lenses, such as the wide angle Tokinas and the Tamron macros. So personally, I think it is best to decide on a particular type of lens and then compare reviews and comments for that particular type.

wildviper

paddler4 wrote: »

This seems puzzling to me. The lens does not control either exposure or TTL (which is just another metering/exposure control). The camera body does. So I can't see how the lens would matter in this respect. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge can chime in.

From Nikon's site:
3D Color Matrix Metering II
<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var articleMatch = window.location.href.match(/Learn-And-Explore\/[^Glossary].*?\/\w*?\/\d+\/.*?.html/); if(articleMatch){ var sUrl = window.location.href.replace(/(Learn-And-Explore\/[^Glossary].*?\/\w*?\/)(\d+)(\/.*?.html)(#\?)?(.*)/,function(){ return arguments[1] + '1' + arguments[3]}); av.addCookieValue(, CookieManagerConstants.articlesComparator); } else{ av.addCookieValue(, CookieManagerConstants.articlesComparator); } if(typeof YAHOO != 'undefined' && typeof YAHOO.util.Event != 'undefined'){ YAHOO.util.Event.onDOMReady(function(){ IconRollovers.addIconRollovers('article_header'); }); } </SCRIPT>Matrix metering evaluates multiple segments of a scene to determine the best exposure by essentially splitting the scene into sections, evaluating either 420-segments or 1,005 segments, depending on the Nikon D-SLR in use.

The 3D Color Matrix Meter II takes into account the scene's contrast and brightness, the subject's distance (via a D- or G-type NIKKOR lens), the color of the subject within the scene and RGB color values in every section of the scene. 3D Color Matrix Metering II also uses special exposure-evaluation algorithms, optimized for digital imaging, that detect highlight areas. The meter then accesses a database of over 30,000 actual images to determine the best exposure for the scene. Once the camera receives the scene data, its powerful microcomputer and the database work together to provide the finest automatic exposure control available.

_______________________________________

I was referring to this....I think Canon prolly has something similar. Anyways....as you see...the D or G Type lenses are better suited for the advances. I am not so sure that Tamron and Sigma really can do this.

Also, I love my Tamron..as far as price point and sharpness is concerned. But, I am feeling that my metering and flash TTL issues are directly related to the above. As soon as a Nikon lens goes on...it seems that my metering is waaaay closer to right and the Flash TTL works a lot more better. Again, this is experience over a couple of years...nothing scientific...just "feel". Thus this post.

Matt, I agree with you...the speciality lenses are just that...speciality. If you have a need for it....have at it. But the general workhorses...the 24-70 to 70-200 range is what I was referring to mainly. I would even include the 12-24 range as normal lens required in a kit.

paddler4

Yes, Canon does. But I am still puzzled. If all the lens is returning for the evaluative metering is distance, any lens that focuses correctly would provide that. Any experts to explain?

ziggy53

paddler4 wrote: »

Yes, Canon does. But I am still puzzled. If all the lens is returning for the evaluative metering is distance, any lens that focuses correctly would provide that. Any experts to explain?

Accurate flash exposure for Canon E-TTL II, Minolta/Sony ADI-D, Nikon i-TTL, Pentax P-TTL, Sigma sTTL, etc relies on the lens "accurately" relaying the distance information to the camera. The camera itself does not measure distance. Distance accuracy is also a measure of distance "granularity", i.e. some lenses report the distance in a series of coarse measurements. Manufacturer lenses tend to be more accurate partly because they can be "tuned" to their specific brand and system, where third-party lenses tend to compromise across all supported brands and systems.

If the lens' distance information is accurate then basic flash exposure is set by the simple calculation of:

Flash output (Guide number) = f-stop x distance-to-subject (All of this also affected by ISO/sensitivity.)

Advanced flash exposure calculations are still possible if the camera's exposure system detects anomalies like a mirror or other reflective object in the background. Matrix/evaluative metering is still generally most appropriate for most situations.

Extreme lighting situations for either ambient or incident light may call for totally manual control and an intimate understanding of the camera's metering system and exposure system and proper interpretation of the results. (No automated metering system is completely accurate and reliable for all situations.)

paddler4

Manufacturer lenses tend to be more accurate partly because they can be "tuned" to their specific brand and system, where third-party lenses tend to compromise across all supported brands and systems.

Ziggy,

thanks. that makes sense. I'm going to do a few tripod shots to see how close my Tamron comes to one of my Canon lenses.

ziggy53

BTW, in the case of incompatible or uncoupled lenses, which don't supply distance information, or in the case of tilting or swiveling the flash head, distance information is not used and a simpler pre-flash only program is used. The pre-flash allows the metering system to detect the flash component of the exposure, versus ambient exposure, and moderates flash output accordingly.

wildviper

Ok.....so in English...Ziggy are you saying "Yes...the manufacturer lenses are better due to the tuning and stuff?" in other things besides sharpness...such as exposure, color, ttl and such?

Matthew Saville

paddler4 wrote: »

This seems puzzling to me. The lens does not control either exposure or TTL (which is just another metering/exposure control). The camera body does. So I can't see how the lens would matter in this respect. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge can chime in.

Color rendition varies substantially among lenses within manufacturers, as well as across.

Here is how I see it- Each camera manufacturer designs their sensors, and in-camera processing, differently. Nikon has the advantage of knowing EXACTLY how each sensor is designed to respond to colors, from the very beginning of design and fabrication. Same with Canon, etc.

Therefore, not only are the 3rd-party lens makers at a disadvantage of only being able to "reverse engineer" the color response of cameras, they ALSO have to design a lens that will work equally well on ALL different types of sensors. As the saying goes, jack of all trades, master of none.

The differences are very subtle, to be sure, and honestly I've NEVER really seen any of those alleged color shifts that photographers sometimes report between 3rd party and name-brand lenses. But I'm sure it's there.

The same goes for autofocus, and sharpness, although I personally never said anything about exposure.

Autofocus, for example, is pretty obvious- A company that is able to engineer both the body and lens aspects of focusing is surely going to be able to do a better job of getting the two to communicate and function. Whereas a 3rd-party maker, again, they gotta reverse-engineer the camera body's autofocus system, and they also gotta make it compatible with different brands.

As far as exposure goes, I don't see much of a reason for any 3rd party lens to expose differently, and I've never really heard any complaints along those lines either. Maybe there might be faint issues present in specific lighting conditions with specific lenses with a certain coating on a glass element, but I can't imagine it being a common issue, let alone one that would ever affect a purchasing decision.

All in all, again what I think it comes down to is, filling the gaps. Plenty of people buy 3rd party lenses to save money, of course, but there is also definitely an aspect of "this lens simply isn't available from Canon / Nikon"...

=Matt=

ziggy53

wildviper wrote: »

Ok.....so in English...Ziggy are you saying "Yes...the manufacturer lenses are better due to the tuning and stuff?" in other things besides sharpness...such as exposure, color, ttl and such?

In broad and general terms I think you will notice more variation of exposure using third-party lenses, as compared to the particular camera manufacturer's lenses. The third-party lenses should still be "consistent" in performance, assuming they are working correctly. As long as "you" (speaking to a broad and general audience, including myself) understand that a particular lens has particular tendencies, i.e. a particular lens seems to overexpose on your camera, you should be able to compensate accordingly. As such third-party lenses can be perfectly acceptable to use once you understand the differences.

Does this make manufacturer lenses better? Yes, but it does not negate the value of any lens that can serve your purposes.

For color rendition, I have found tendencies for some lenses to be warm or cool in color, but I have not found any lens to be grossly different and, in most cases, I could not tell which lens shot which image. Color rendition is certainly good for every lens that I own, so I cannot declare a winner.

I think it's important to note that different does not equate to bad. Once a difference is understood you can, and should, leverage the difference to your advantage. Anyone who believes that owning only manufacturer named lenses will produce the best photographic results, hence making them a better photographer, is probably not being realistic in their expectations. Likewise, anyone who thinks that a photographer using third-party lenses and equipment is automatically not producing good work is also not being realistic.

Buy what you need. Understand how to get the most of what you have. Produce to your abilities and learn from your mistakes. (Again I'm speaking to everyone including myself, who needs a constant reminder.)

divamum

Buy what you need. Understand how to get the most of what you have. Produce to your abilities and learn from your mistakes.

Wise words indeed!!

chrisjohnson

Now this is opinionated - so very little data to back it up - but I suspect the whole business of B brand alternatives is a Japanese conspiracy to protect prices and margins on the A brand level. I don't know of many - any - examples where a Tamron-Sigma-whateverIna is supposed to be BETTER than the original. What the substitutes have in common is that they are OK and a bit CHEAPER.

Significant gaps in the ranges of Canon and Nikon do not exist. Both of these A brands have ensured that their shelves are stocked to overflowing and overlapping.

Can you take good photos with a Sigma/Tamron/xxIna? Of course you can, like people take good photos with a 40D. Is it the best you can buy? I suggest NOT.

Hopefully I now get blasted by people with a different view. It will liven things up.

zoomer

For me the best third part lenses are fully the equal of the expensive Nikon lenses.....except....and this is a big except for me.....when shooting wide open.
Within each third party line there are a few gems.

tendim

wildviper wrote: »

What I have noticed overtime is that my colors are more accurate with Nikon lenses SOTC then 3rd party.

Out of curiosity, are you comparing this with digital or film?

With any lens, the coatings that the manufacturers use are usually proprietary -- so any colour cast will be specific to that particular manufacturer. All things being equal (in this case the sensor) two lens coatings by different manufacturers will have somewhat different colour qualities.

This issue is compounded with film, where you also have to deal with the colour cast of the film that you are using.

1scrappychic

I have several 3rd pty lenses...and I love them. I have the Tamron 28-75 and it is sharp as a tack. I don't have the 24-70 to compare it to, but for the price and extra weight, I wouldn't even want to own it. I agree that the original manufacturer should know their equipment better than anyone else, and be able to make their own products better...but I just don't think that's always the case. Just my 2cents.