The "other" lens

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Rick, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. Rick

    Rick Guest

    Everyone get your advice fingers ready to type 'cause here comes
    another question.
    I have a N75 camera. Now while I love Nikon lenses, the price on
    some of them seems to be just a bit high. As an alternative, in the
    85mm to 135mm single focal length, what would be another good
    lens manufacture to use? What would be good to stay away from?

    Thanks,
    See you all on the "Other Side"
    Rick
    Chula Vista, CA
     
    Rick, Aug 5, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rick

    JR Guest

    Tamron SP90/2.5 seems to get great reviews hands down as a great macro
    lens and a great portrait lens. The Tokina 100/2.8 also has a legendary
    reputation as a portrait and macro lens. Of the 2, I would take the
    Tokina on build quality.

    JR
     
    JR, Aug 5, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. There's a problem here: other than zooms, there aren't any third party
    lenses (other than macro lenses) in that range, and the Tamron and Sigma
    macro lenses list (in Japan) for more than the Nikon 85/1.9. (But the Tokina
    is cheaper.) Even worse, the Tokina is two full stops slower, and the
    Sigma/Tamron are over a whole stop slower.

    The good news is that the latest version of the Nikkor 85/1.8 kicks ass,
    even wide open. According to the review book at hand, it's the cheapest
    (list price in Japan), lightest, most compact, and best resolution of all
    the curremt 85/1.8 AF lenses. Looks to be a no-brainer to me.

    Toss in a 1.4x teleconverter and you've got the range covered.

    David J. Littleboy
    Spending other people's money in
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 5, 2003
    #3
  4. Rick

    Rafe B. Guest


    Nikon expensive? Priced a Canon 'L' lens lately? <G>.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Aug 5, 2003
    #4
  5. Rick

    Matt Clara Guest

    I've noticed that not all L lenses are prohibitively expensive. Canon makes
    a 400mm f5.6 L for a little over a grand. Nikon has nothing in the 400mm
    range for less than two grand.
     
    Matt Clara, Aug 5, 2003
    #5

  6. Why, oh why must you people do this? Why do you complain about the
    cost of lenses? The camera mfr's lenses are generally much better than
    anything you can get at a bargain price, and often VERY much better. I
    would not even THINK about what you're asking about. Most independent
    lenses are shit. Why bother going through life like that? get the
    Nikon lens and get on with your life, or skip it altogether. Quit
    whining about lens prices!

    You're the kind of photographer who gets the cheap lens and is always
    asking why your pictures don't look good enough. Mine do. I use
    first-rate optics (Leica).
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 5, 2003
    #6
  7. Rick

    Bob Monaghan Guest

    So Michael, you are going to hold out for the $10,000+ zeiss hologon for
    leica instead of the cosina ultrawide for $400, which is what many leica
    owners are buying due to the lack or price of the former? ;p)

    I have run side by side comparisons of my OEM lenses against many third
    party prime lenses. The principle benefits of the higher $$ are going for
    slightly sharper corners wide open and better closeup performance, in many
    cases. At optimal apertures (f/5.6-f/8), there is so little difference
    between real world shots taken with the OEM and the third party lenses
    that most folks can't reliably sort them out. The OEM lens is often more
    rugged, but unless you are a pro shooting lots of film, that may not be
    much of a consideration either. Zooms are more problematic, but pro zooms
    have so many negatives of weight and size and slower speed that I tend to
    prefer fixed lens series anyway ;-)

    with millions upon millions of third party lenses sold by each of the
    major mfgers, and even millions of one particular zoom ;-), it is pretty
    hard to argue that all those lenses are useless junk. The cost of many OEM
    lenses reflects a large prestige markup which many third party lens users
    avoid paying. And finally, a lot of those lenses are made by third party
    makers for the OEMs. For example, most of the zooms for leica R were made
    by third party makers, right ;-)

    regards bobm
     
    Bob Monaghan, Aug 5, 2003
    #7
  8. Bob Monaghan wrote:

    <snip>

    Dunno exactly where I read this (probably here, and even more probably from
    you.... <grin>), but it appears that there is significantly more variation
    in quality amongst lenses of the same batch from the same manufacturer than
    there is between those of different manufacturers.

    The point is that any given lens should apparently be regarded as in need of
    evaluation, where the reputation of the manufacturer (and the data from
    tests of other such lenses) is functionally irrelevant. If that is so,
    then one might reasonably evaluate a lens in terms of its design and the
    quality of its construction, but assumptions of performance based on that
    of other tested lenses are effectively baseless.

    So I guess that buying name brand lenses makes sense if they 1) are the only
    game in town, and/or 2) are competitive in price and reputation for quality
    (not from lens tests).

    And I'd be moved to ask Mr. Scarpitti if he has incontrovertible proof that
    Leica is immune to this product variation (ie, show us your data and how
    you evaluate it to arrive at your conclusion).

    Comments?

    Bill Tallman
     
    William D. Tallman, Aug 6, 2003
    #8
  9. Rick

    JR Guest


    Ok...the original poster was talking about Nikon, and my Tokina
    28-70/2.6-2.8 Pro II, is nearly indistinguishable from my Nikkor 85/1.4
    at 2.8 and above...But Tokina Pro lenses are not Cosina's, thay can be
    close to the price of Nikkors in some cases. The build quality is
    excellent, the optics are identical to the Angenieux 28-70/2.8 lens.
    Which is has a legendary reputation. The new Tokina 28-80/2.8 is even
    better.
    Nope....I have MANY MANY shots on my Tokina's that PRO photographers
    cannot tell what lens was used. GOOD GLASS IS GOOD GLASS. There are
    dud Nikkor's and Canon's, just like dud Tokina's and Sigma's.


    JR
     
    JR, Aug 6, 2003
    #9
  10. A significant part of the higher prices paid for Leica lenses goes
    toward the manufacturing side, not just design. Their tolerance for
    centring and polish, for example, are the highest in the world. Thy're
    mechanically more robust as well, meaning that the lens will withstand
    years of use and STILL crank out the same image quality, stop down
    within the required time, and stay in alignment. Cheap lenses can't do
    that.
     
    Michael Scarpitti, Aug 6, 2003
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.