virividox said:
cuz generally canon/nikon glass is better constructed than the discount brands like tamron and sigma
hence their price diff - obviously there is some pricing because of the brand name too, but i find that the price differences can be justified, if not why would pros use it
It really depends on what level lens you are looking at. With the like of Canon L lenses, and many of the $1000+ Nikon lenses this may be true. But flare is flare.
Third party lens companies are deeply involved in making popularly priced lenses for the camera manufacturers. Third parties have volume on their side in lens design.
One only has to look at the Konica-Minolta 11-18 DSLR lens as an example. One guess as to whom they sought out for that design. Cosmetics played a part in the higher cost of the K-M. But other factors may have been involved as well.
The point being, one can not assume that a lens made by camera manufacturer X , is not made by another company Y. It is further example of out sourcing of resources. And that third party companies do not have lenses that meet camera manufacturers head on. According to credible resources in various Leica forums, some of the later zooms for the Leica R series were built under the guidance of Sigma.
(sort of a joke, since the Leica lenses appear to be at a higher standard as assessed by Leica users, so it appears that manufactures has some say.
Much like the Nikon 70-300ED zoom. It appears that it is a VERY close cousin to a third party manufacturer. But there are differnces in the way the zoom mechanism/focusing system feels between Nikon and the third party. And the third party focuses closer. So at $190 verses $329 it is up to the purchaser to decide on which is best.
get uv filters to protect your lens (some ppl say it causes image degradation) - but if rather have slight image degradation (if any) rather than a scratchd front element forcing me to buy another lens
UV filters IMO are a good purchase. It saved many a customer from an expensive "impact" repair; by simply replacing the filter.
The jury seems to be out on the "digital filters". These tend to multi-coated filters. The science behind them are that there is a chance of the CCD reflecting back through the lens, the light from the sensor filter. With the multi-coated optics of lenses today this is not a potential problem, until it hits the non-multi-coated filter.
I am not sure how I sit on this. One I don't try to pixel peep on the screen. And coming away from a digital printer training - I do not travel with a portable microscope to analyze prints by.
So it becomes one of the "science" and one of "practical" use. Who is right, and who is wrong? That is for each user to decide for themselves.
