Bifurcator wrote:
Zeiss made 3rd party glass pre-90\'s
Although technically they are, maybe not when they\'re on a Leica, I don\'t consider Zeiss, a \"3rd-party lens\" for the purpose of differentiating them from camera-maker lenses in terms of quality.... There is no argument that Zeiss has been making top-rate optics for well over a century. Voigtlander (sp) is another one that is not in the same category as the \"eastern\" 3rd-party lens makers. Some of their offerings, specially in the shortish focal length, big aperture range, positively wipe the floor with anything Canon or Nikon have to offer. If I had need for a top-notch 50 or 85 1.4, I would not hesitate to pick Zeiss over Canon.
As for the others.... yes, I suppose, there have been some good 3rd-paty lenses all along.... some even better than OEM lenses. My personal experience (meaning the lenses I actually got to use myself -- YMMV) since beginning in photography in the late 1970s was that until the mid/late 1990s 3rd-party lenses were consistently junk with some exceptions. Since then, that has sort of flipped..... mostly good with some junk..... At least when we\'re talking about the \"major\" eastern 3rd-party producers like Tokina, Sigma, Tamron, etc..... I still believe that Canon \"L\" and \"pro-level\" Nikons consistently surpass any 3rd-party offering (again, Zeiss, V not included)..... \"consistently\" being the key word there. Of course, they are priced accordingly.......
My point for deviating into lenses in a topic about gimbals was to illustrate that with lenses, generally you get what you pay for.... and this has historically and up to now been mostly true. A $2500 Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II will spank the pants off any similar 3rd party offering -- but at twice the price or more. The same is not true for a $600 Wimberley head versus a $150 Beike.
May 17, 2012 at 09:46 AM
Previous versions of pKai's message #10643177 « $99 or $500 Gimbal »
