Tamron & Sigma vs. Nikon ?

[shadowlands]

OK, all of my lenses are "Nikon" with the exception of my ultra-wide.
I picked up the Tamron 11-18 used, but mint for $334.00.
I would rather own the Nikon brand, yes. But it's more than double the price and it's a secondary lens that I wont use that often, so I couldn't make myself spend that much. How many of you do just that?
My main question is this... a part of me feel "un-faithful" for owning an off-brand lens, as stupid as that may sound. Am I alone in this?
I know many of you wouldn't own a Tamron or a Sigma, and I get that.
But those of you who do... why? Are you totally ok with owning Sigma and Tamron glass? Regrets? Any love? See, when I'm ready to make the leap to F2.8 zooms, I'd save a ton with Tamron or Sigma. I'm not a pro, so I don't need the very best if it costs thousands. I'd like to consider the off brand options for $$$ reasons, in the future.
Anyone in my shoes?

[wolfd]

Besides the 18-55mm kit lens, I have Sigma 18-200, Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 70-300 for my Pentax K7. I do not use my cameras professionally and read reviews for all lenses that I purchase. I am satisfied with the picture Quality of my Sigma lenses. No guilty feelings here.

[shadowlands]

Originally Posted by wolfd

Besides the 18-55mm kit lens, I have Sigma 18-200, Sigma 10-20 and Sigma 70-300 for my Pentax K7. I do not use my cameras professionally and read reviews for all lenses that I purchase. I am satisfied with the picture Quality of my Sigma lenses. No guilty feelings here.

You don't miss having that "Pentax" lens cap at the end of all of your glass?
I'm being an idiot, huh?

[Douglas]

For wide angle, I actually prefer Tokina. They seem to not get the respect among 3 party vendors like Tamron/Sigma. But if they made long lenses as well as the shorties, they would be the king. Built as strong as Nikon/Canon, with optics that equal or in some cases exceed the name brand, all for less price.

When I think tamron, I think the glass is good, but the construction is shoddy and slow. Its more likely to hunt for focus, and isnt as fast. But the images can look great. Though still not name brand level when compared.

When I think Sigma, I think fast focus, but not as good image quality as Tamron. But more expensive. In some cases, closer to brand name pricing. But 3rd in image quality.

Now, does that mean the other 2 are junk? Nope! Most wont even now the difference unles pixel peeping and comparing side by side. (even then, most people wouldnt notice)

[wolfd]

Originally Posted by shadowlands

You don't miss having that "Pentax" lens cap at the end of all of your glass?
I'm being an idiot, huh?

No - I lose lens caps all the time. So the few that I do use are generic "no name" ones anyways.

[shadowlands]

Originally Posted by Douglas

For wide angle, I actually prefer Tokina. They seem to not get the respect among 3 party vendors like Tamron/Sigma. But if they made long lenses as well as the shorties, they would be the king. Built as strong as Nikon/Canon, with optics that equal or in some cases exceed the name brand, all for less price.

When I think tamron, I think the glass is good, but the construction is shoddy and slow. Its more likely to hunt for focus, and isnt as fast. But the images can look great. Though still not name brand level when compared.

When I think Sigma, I think fast focus, but not as good image quality as Tamron. But more expensive. In some cases, closer to brand name pricing. But 3rd in image quality.

Now, does that mean the other 2 are junk? Nope! Most wont even now the difference unles pixel peeping and comparing side by side. (even then, most people wouldnt notice)

Not looking to sell the Tamron ultra wide in favor of the Nikon, Tokina or Sigma.
It's not a zoom range that I want to spend fat money on. I simply got this Tamron because it was $334.00 total and it's mint.
Just trying to justify ownership and if I'm being a spoiled brat for thinking it's Wal-Mart and Nikon is a fashion store....

[Narsuitus]

Originally Posted by shadowlands

My main question is this... a part of me feel "un-faithful" for owning an off-brand lens, as stupid as that may sound. Am I alone in this?

A major advantage of buying Nikon lenses is that they are usually high quality. By high quality, I mean that optically the lenses have excellent resolution and contrast; the lenses have minimal optical defects such as barreling, pin cushioning, vignetting, and hot spots; the material used to make the lenses will withstand use and abuse; the quality control used to assemble the lenses assures that all lenses display uniformity in workmanship; and the lens is truthfully labeled (lens labeled 28mm to 200mm is actually that instead of 30mm to 170mm).

I have been pleased with all the Nikon lenses I have owned and used except for the Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5.

Some “off-brand” lenses are made by who have a reputation and a long history for producing high-quality lenses. One of the few disadvantages of these lenses is that they may not handle the same way as a Nikon lens. For example, the focus-control ring or the aperture control ring on a manual lens may rotate in the opposite direction. This only tends to be a problem for photographers who use multiple lenses, some Nikon and non-Nikon. Another disadvantage of these high-quality lenses is that they may not function identically to a Nikon. For example, the auto focus may be noisier or the auto focus search time may be slightly longer.

I have also owned and used Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Vivitar, and Soligor lenses on my Nikon cameras. I have been very pleased with all my non-Nikon lenses. They have either exceeded a comparable Nikon lens in features and/or quality or they have equaled a comparable Nikon lens but done so at a lower price.

I look forward to one day trying Zeiss or Voitländer lenses on my Nikon.

So, in answer to your question – I am not brand loyal. I will use whatever gives me the desired image for the most cost-effective price.

[shadowlands]

Originally Posted by Narsuitus

A major advantage of buying Nikon lenses is that they are usually high quality. By high quality, I mean that optically the lenses have excellent resolution and contrast; the lenses have minimal optical defects such as barreling, pin cushioning, vignetting, and hot spots; the material used to make the lenses will withstand use and abuse; the quality control used to assemble the lenses assures that all lenses display uniformity in workmanship; and the lens is truthfully labeled (lens labeled 28mm to 200mm is actually that instead of 30mm to 170mm).

I have been pleased with all the Nikon lenses I have owned and used except for the Nikon 43-86mm f/3.5.

Some “off-brand” lenses are made by who have a reputation and a long history for producing high-quality lenses. One of the few disadvantages of these lenses is that they may not handle the same way as a Nikon lens. For example, the focus-control ring or the aperture control ring on a manual lens may rotate in the opposite direction. This only tends to be a problem for photographers who use multiple lenses, some Nikon and non-Nikon. Another disadvantage of these high-quality lenses is that they may not function identically to a Nikon. For example, the auto focus may be noisier or the auto focus search time may be slightly longer.

I have also owned and used Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Kiron, Vivitar, and Soligor lenses on my Nikon cameras. I have been very pleased with all my non-Nikon lenses. They have either exceeded a comparable Nikon lens in features and/or quality or they have equaled a comparable Nikon lens but done so at a lower price.

I look forward to one day trying Zeiss or Voitländer lenses on my Nikon.

So, in answer to your question – I am not brand loyal. I will use whatever gives me the desired image for the most cost-effective price.

I appreciate you taking the time!!!
Thanks for the perspective!!!

[nomorspam]

The only 3rd party that I am a fan of is Tokina. I've owned the 28-70 2.8 and compared to my nikon version it was a hair softer but did not handle flair as well. But I paid $290 for it used but it didn't have a mark on it compared to about $1k for the nikon version used it's a steal. It's starting to gain some respect I recently sold mine and got just over $500 for it.
I've also owned the Tokina 12-24 f4 and it was better against the Nikon version I tested (again except with flair but it wasn't a big difference and a 30 second fix in post) $550 vs $1150, it was a no brainer for me.
I just ordered the Tokina 80-200 2.8 and I don't expect it to stand up to my 80-200 afs in focus speed but we'll see how it hold up in other areas. But for $450 I'm guessing it's a great deal if you can't afford $1k+ for a nikon.

[Barbsphotos]

While I am not a Nikon camera owner, I did purchase a Tokina Macro lens for my Canon 7D, and it produces suberp quality photos, even hand held, which is rare for Macro images, but it was $200 less and fit nicely in my budget price. I also have a Tamron lens.