«

nospam wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>>> Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
>>> 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
>>> equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
>>> delta cost for that.
>> If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters, but I've
>> personally yet to see a case where a good OEM prime didn't significantly
>> outperform cheaper non-OEM lenses.
>
> perhaps you need to get out more, and he's not talking about single
> focal length lenses anyway.

I think the 14mm f/2.8 Sigma prime gets better reviews than the Nikon,
or very close, or better in some respects and significantly cheaper. In
this case the Sigma came years after the Nikon and Nikon now has a much
better zoom. There are other examples of pro lenses like 300/2.8 where
the Sigma performs very well for a fraction of the preposterous cost of
the OEM. And old examples of Cult lenses from Tokina, Cosina, etc, or
the Nikon Series E lenses that were supposed to be cheap and weren't
given the Nikkor label but in fact were really great lenses. Lots of the
third party Macro lenses are excellent.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:40:49 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
: I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my
: D70, and other than some initial operator errors resulting in
: vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever
: since on the D70 & my D300.
:
: I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp
: and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.

Where did you find the Tokina? Both B&H and Adorama have had it back-ordered
for months.

Bob