Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How different are third party lenses for Canon, Nikon and others?
#1
Hi All,


Third party lens manufactors make their lenses for different brand. But is there much difference between a Sigma or Tamron lens for Canon in comparison to one made for Nikon? I do understand they have a different mount, but construction wise, like the lens groups, the distance of the lens elements, etc, are these very different?


Kind regards,

Reinier
#2
As far as I know, no. In Sigma ART series you can actually ask Sigma to change the mount of your lens.

#3
Some change the direction of focus and zoom rings to match the original manufacturer, some don't. IIRC, Zeiss does it but Sigma keeps it as is. So some of them at least have some of the internals changed from mount to mount. Not the optics though.

 

Most of them add the aperture ring on Nikon versions. Again, Zeiss does it but Sigma doesn't.

 

Since Sony A-Mount doesn't support IS in lens, some manufacturers simply remove the IS by fixing the stabilizing group of lenses. Optics are still the same.

 

Tamron used to have Adapt-all series or named something similar where you could have change the lens mount to adapt the lens to multiple mounts. What Sigma does not via a paid service, 30 years ago. And it was just changing the back of the lens in a few seconds.

 

Voigtlander tweaks the optical formula slightly in their E-Mount lenses compared to M mount lenses.

#4
Quote:Some change the direction of focus and zoom rings to match the original manufacturer, some don't. IIRC, Zeiss does it but Sigma keeps it as is. So some of them at least have some of the internals changed from mount to mount. Not the optics though.

 

Most of them add the aperture ring on Nikon versions. Again, Zeiss does it but Sigma doesn't.
 

"Most of them" adding aperture rings made me wonder. Am I always buying the "wrong glass"? Can you give a current example - let's say, the lens is on market for no longer than 3 years - of an AF lens from third-party manufacturer with an aperture ring on Nikon verison? These rings are on their way to extinction, I only see them on manual focus lenses or older models.

 

As someone who uses MF only occasionally, I don't care that Tamron and Sigma usually go the Canon way of focussing direction, for me it's more like try and error, than a "learnt by long hours of doing" process.
#5
Aperture rings are actually making a big comeback these days, because everybody apparently wants to shoot video ....

 

Kind regards, Wim

Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#6
Quote:"Most of them" adding aperture rings made me wonder. Am I always buying the "wrong glass"? Can you give a current example - let's say, the lens is on market for no longer than 3 years - of an AF lens from third-party manufacturer with an aperture ring on Nikon verison? These rings are on their way to extinction, I only see them on manual focus lenses or older models.

 

As someone who uses MF only occasionally, I don't care that Tamron and Sigma usually go the Canon way of focussing direction, for me it's more like try and error, than a "learnt by long hours of doing" process.
 

I think I should edit it to say "Only Zeiss adds an aperture ring on the Nikon version" instead. At least they do their job properly.
#7
Which is the next thing to question for me. I don't see an aperture ring "a properly done job", especially when all other lenses I own use the "normal" front dial to change aperture. However, if I want to make movies, I would welcome the possibility to with the aperture ring to click-less, like Zeiss introduced with their Milvus series.

 

Also Zeiss, "doing their job" - not a complicated one: The lenses are manufactured somewhere else (Cosina), there are better lenses around and also better lenses with AF. So, their job shrinks a bit and the price paid for their lenses can be discussed as well. They are not exactly cheap for what they deliver.

#8
Actually what I meant by a properly done job was how their focus and aperture rings turn the correct way on every single lens for every manufacturer. Their lens pretty much nail the AI-S lenses as far as the specs and ergonomics go. 

 

If the quality is concerned, I'm not convinced you are getting your money worth with Zeiss ZF/ZE lines at all. Almost all of them are rebadged Contax lenses made by Cosina and as you've said, there are quite usually better options everywhere. 

#9
Thanks for clearing that up. I already used your statement to become a bit ironically about Zeiss Touits. There's abit more to complain about these - like far too easy to move aperture ring, cheap lens hood handling and cheap front cover (the latter points go more for Batis). When it comes to DSLR lenses, Zeiss has to milk the last drops of their former reputation which was not undeserved, but I think, these days they focus on more profitable items like medicine or measuring systems.

#10
Which Zeiss are we talking about now?
 
The one who did the Touit? Some people say Fuji actually builds them.
The one which builds the Milvus, ZF, Batis, Loxia and others? Cosina, then.
Or the ones sold by Sony?
How about the Carl Zeiss Jena which actually made my 35/2.4 Flektogon?
Did I mention I have a Zeiss on my Hasselblad as well, made by another company called Zeiss, in West Germany.
 
Which of these actually built that reputation, I wonder sometimes Smile
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)