By Nelson Tan

The main draw of Single-Lens Reflex (SLR) cameras is probably the ability to change lenses to fit your needs. When you want a close-up of distant action, just mount a telephoto lens; and when you plan to capture the sweeping vista of the landscape, just reach for the wide-angle lens in your bag. But with so many manufacturers offering different lenses, how do you know which one is for you ?

Ever since the courts ruled that independent lens manufacturers could legally produce lenses to fit the camera bodies, dozens of manufacturers have jumped into the bandwagon to assemble lenses for the more popular brands of cameras. If you have bought Nikon, Canon, Minolta or Pentax cameras, chances are that you can find independent lenses for your camera. Although the camera makers manufacture their own line of lenses, third-party manufacturers often offer a cheaper alternative. The most popular third-party manufacturers are Sigma, Tamron and Tokina. And there are dozens of smaller and less popular third-parties like Soligor, Phoenix and Vivitar.

This article will outline the pros and cons of buying independent brands of lenses. It will highlight the advantages of third-party manufacturers' lenses, while discussing the short-comings of the lenses. If you are deciding between buying an original lens and the independent lenses, this article will be useful. Check out both sides of the argument, and make the decision for yourself !
 

Cheaper Prices

The major argument for buying third-party lenses is the lower prices, usually around half to two-thirds the price of the original version. The savings are considerable if you purchase all your lenses from independent manufacturers. In fact, prices are not always accurate indicators of quality. Some independent manufacturers are so good at producing lenses at budget prices, that the quality is actually pretty good for the price. For example, the Tamron 90mm macro is around 2/3 the price of the Canon or Nikon equivalent, while delivering reasonably good results.
 

Lower Resale Value

Third-party lenses almost always attain much lower resale value compared to the original lenses. For example, an original Nikon lens might maintain 75% of its original price while a Sigma might only fetch 50% or less of its purchase price. Although you paid less for the initial price, you get back much less compared to what you might have gotten if you bought an original lens. So although original lenses cost more initially, they are better investments because they fetch a much better resale value.

Tip: Here is a tip on how to get the best value for your money. Equipment usually lose the most value during the first second-hand transaction. For example, a new Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 ED AF-D costs around S$1100. If you purchased it new and tried to sell it off to a second-hand shop, the shop might only pay you $700 if it is in new condition. Why ? Because they needed to sell it for around $800, a price which is considerably lower than the original price to induce people to buy it instead of a new one. So you have lost $400 in this deal.

Now, consider what happens when you buy a second-hand lens in good condition for $800. When you try to sell it away to someone else, you can try to sell it for around $700. In this case, you lose only around $100 compared to the $400 if you have bought a new lens ! The original owner had already absorbed the initial loss, so near-mint/good condition equipment at around 75% of the new prices are actually good buys.
 
 

Quality

Most independent lenses do not match up to original lenses in terms of mechanical quality. They are usually plasticky and feels cheaper than their original counterparts. In order to achieve a lower cost of production, independent lens makers are prone to cut corners in material usage. In general, independent lenses do not feel as smooth and as well-made as original lenses. Most famous of all is probably the horror stories of Sigma lenses, with lens elements that develop slight fogging after a 4-5 years, and the worst cases have the front element falling right out of the lens ! The build quality suffers most on the consumer (non-pro) series. As for the pro-series lenses from the independents, the build quality is much better, although still not matching the originals. Personally, I especially like the Tokina AT-X Pro series of lenses, which are very well-constructed indeed. The newer Sigma EX series looks promising, but some people have posted doubting remarks about them. One man's meat is another man's poison. So make your own call.

The optical quality of the independent lenses are another thing altogether. With modern lens manufacturing techniques, most independent lenses offer modern lens technology such as aspherical lens elements and apochromatic lenses. Such lenses come quite close to the optical performance of the original lenses, making them good value for money. So it's a toss-up between build quality and optical quality. If you are not that particular about the construction of the lens, independent lenses can be a good buy.
 
 

Range

Sometimes, original manufacturers may not offer a certain lens in the line-up of original optics. For example, it may be difficult to find exotic lenses such as 14mm or 17mm in the original lenses, or perhaps the manufacturer doesn't offer a lens such as 24-105mm f/2.8 which you need. In such cases, you have little choice but to get the lens from the independent lens makers.
 
 

Frequency of use

The frequency of use for that particular lens can also dictate the choice of lens. For example, you may want to buy a 16mm fisheye lens for your Nikon. But you also know that you are not likely to use the lens more than ten times a year. So you'd be quite foolish (perhaps quite rich too) to buy a original 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye Nikkor which comes with a four-figure price tag. In such a case, you might opt for a third party lens which cost only 1/2 of the original Nikkor. Other cases include original long telephoto lenses with astronomical prices - you'd be better off buying a third party lens and plough the savings into more films if you are using the lenses only occasionally.
 
 

Star of line-ups

By now, you might be thinking that price is the only deciding factor when choosing between independents and original. Rest assured that it is not. Even for original manufacturers, not all lenses in their line-up are good lenses. There are several outstanding performers and some really sub-standard lenses. Not every lens that bear the brand name is a good lens. Remember the "flip-me-over" Mercedes Benz A-class?

Compatibility issues

Modern autofocus lenses have computer chips embedded within the lens, containing information on the focal length, aperture, focus distance and other information. They are required for the camera to communicate with the lens. As such, the chips are crucial for the electronic compatibility of the lens with the camera, in addition to the mechanical compatibility of the lens mount. Thus even though a independent lens can fit physically on a camera body, the electronics may not be fully compatible between the lens and body.

This problem has been well-documented by Canon EOS users, because the EOS cameras are heavily electronic. Even for Nikon users, some older independent lenses have been reported to have problems in the interface with the newer models like the F100. Apparently, the older independent lenses do not have certain instructions which are required by the newer bodies to function properly. Thus, if you buy independent lenses, you run the risk of incompatibility with newer bodies.

Why doesn't the chip in some of the independent lenses work with the newer bodies ? Original manufacturers like Nikon, Minolta and Canon do not licence out their technology, so the chips in the lenses of the third party lenses are developed through reverse-engineering. The process may be incomplete or insufficient, leading to a deficiency in function when coupled to the new models of camera. However, do not be tempted to blow this out of proportion - most independent lenses do work fine with majority of the cameras. But what works for the current bodies now is not guarenteed to work on future bodies. Take your pick...
 

Canon EOS users

The advantage of Canon EOS cameras over the other brands is without doubt the use of Ultra-Sonic Motor (USM) technology in the EF lenses. The USM lenses are extremely silent and fast, giving Canon users the advantage in speed and silence. However, this advantage is totally negated when EOS users purchase third party lenses. Because USM is a propriety technology of Canon, the third party lenses usually use conventional motors which are noiser and slower than USM lenses. Thus, Canon EOS users have the incentive to buy back original Canon USM lenses.

That said, the USM lenses are not cheap, especially the superlative L-series. So Canon users can pick between the affordable independent lenses, or choose to forgo the cheaper prices to go for the full USM performance.
 

Review of the three major lens manufacturers

In this section, I will briefly discuss the three major independent lens manufacturers.
 

Tokina has one of the better reputation amongst the three of them. The AT-X Pro series are exceptionally good for a independent, and used by many professionals for their high quality and low price tag. Two very good performers are the AT-X II Pro 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 and AT-X Pro 20-35mm f/2.8. They are very good substitutes for the original lenses which costs 2-3 times more, while delivering around 80-90% of the performance of the originals. The AT-X Pro II 80-200mm f/2.8 is also a very good lens, but for Nikon and Minolta users the deal is not as sweet  because the original doesn't cost much more. For Canon users, it is a good deal because the USM version more than costs twice the price. All in all, the AT-X Pro series is very good value for money. The other Tokina lenses which are not in the AT-X family are considered by most as rather mediocre performers, with the exception of the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF which is a good lens compared to other independents.
 

Sigma lenses has the worst reputation, at least on the Internet. There has been scores of complaints and horror stories about the mechanical and optical quality of Sigma lenses, and the reports seem too numerous to be a coincidence or a conspiracy. They range from the lenses fogging up after a few years (not fungus), to the lens elements falling out totally ! Most users are usually attracted to the glossy ads and give Sigma a try, only to find the problems occuring after a few years. Personally, I have used Sigma lenses and did not face any of the problems mentioned. Perhaps I was just lucky ? Anyway, the new EX series targetted at serious amateurs and professionals look pretty good, but I have not tried them before.
 

Tamron lenses generally enjoy a good reputation, giving good value for money. The optics are quite satisfactory and the company has always been at the forefront of designing new products. Tamron broke into the big time with the popular 28-200 zoom lens for consumers, and now they have released the new 28-300mm. Tamron managed to squeeze such long focal lengths into a small and compact package using their "triple-cam" technique, which was pretty unusual for that time when it was released. In addition, their 90mm Macro lens is quite popular with amateur and serious enthusiasts. However, Tamron seems to be focusing on the non-pro market and their line-up suffers in the pro lenses department. If you are a casual user and want maximum return for your buck in cheap lenses, Tamron is a good choice (provided you like your lenses wrapped in rubber).
 

Avoid the smaller manufacturers

As a word of caution, lens making is usually the domain of the bigger companies. It takes a lot of research and development to keep the leading edge in designing and producing optical products. Other than the original manufacturers, only a few major independent firms have the capability to continue improving their products. The few companies discussed (Tokina, Sigma, Tamron) are fine examples of those who can. There are dozens of others who produce cheap budget lenses, but whose technology and quality are at least one to two generation behind current techniques. So while it is okay to go for independent lenses, try to avoid the really cheap and unknown brands.

So there you go, a comprehensive guideline to deciding your choice of lenses. I can only offer you the pros and cons for buying independent or original. Personally, I use the original lenses whenever possible, because the excellent quality of Nikkor lenses is one of the reasons why I use the Nikon system, but your choice may differ from mine. The final call depends on your budget and needs. Good luck !!

Post questions on forum  

E-mail comments to author