1st Round Pick: What's your favorite third party?

G and T · 07-13-2014, 05:35 AM

I have owned Tamrons, Voigtlanders, Cosinas and Tokinas, I still have them all.
I have owned Sigmas and have sold them all. I have never had any luck or
attachment to any Sigma lens. I do love my Voigtlanders as much as my Limiteds.
Glenn

GateCityRadio · 07-13-2014, 06:50 AM

Sigma EX or Sigma Art lenses have a very good build quality.

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I don´t think Pentax can afford to make crap lenses... (except for the 55-300 perhaps? But then, it is WR and that´s nice for it´s price point)

I'd hardly call the 55-300 a crap lens....the 50-200 fits the crap label though.

Aksel · 07-13-2014, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Trudger1272

... If you could only own Pentax K-mount bodies(sorry, no switching to Canon or Nikon) but no Pentax lenses, who would be the first third party company(old or new) that you would turn to for K-mount lenses?...

I can not talk about any particular company. Rather it depends on the particular lens, which I use.

From Tamron: 28-75; 70-200 /2,8

From Sigma: art series 35/ 1,4 - I don't own it yet, but i find it nice lens for Pentax.

And I hope, that 10/2,8 from Samyang (when it comes) will also find a lot of use by me.

tibbitts · 07-13-2014, 09:03 AM

If everyone could only own K-mount, all the manufacturers would build new lenses for it, which would change the discussion of course.

However under the current dismal K-mount lens-availability circumstances, Sigma has by far the most complete offerings of current lenses. Although they can still be found, the Tamron 70-200, 17-50, and 28-75 are all legacy lenses at this point. There are the manual-focus Samyang offerings, but overall Sigma - while not offering as complete a lineup as they do for CaNikon - is more or less the only game in town for a moderately complete assortment, so Sigma would be my favorite based on that.

Overall I believe newer lenses are better, at least in theory (the design is better - whether QC gets the benefit of the design to the sensor might be more questionable.) And I believe that in the majority of cases, older OEM (Pentax in this case, but also Nikon and Canon) lenses were better than their contemporaries from 3rd party manufactures, so older lenses would be more on a case-by-case basis; I wouldn't have an overall preferred manufacturer for older lenses.

stevebrot · 07-13-2014, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Trudger1272

I actually never heard of KMZ! I'll be reading up on this one.

Krasnogorsky Zavod Home Page

I own two of their products in Pentax-compatible mounts: MC Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye and Helios-44M 58/2. I don't submit to the Pentax Photo Gallery any more, but about half of the shots in my gallery were shot with those two lenses.

Steve

tibbitts · 07-13-2014, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by carrrlangas

I don´t think Pentax can afford to make crap lenses... (except for the 55-300 perhaps? But then, it is WR and that´s nice for it´s price point)

I'm sorry but you must have missed the rule that here on the forum, you're only allowed to make negative comments about the 55-300 if you've owned at least six copies. I base that on the number of complaints I've received for commenting about the five copies I've at least temporarily owned (or was it six - I've lost count, so you might need to buy that seventh before you're allowed to comment.)

But seriously, the 55-300 is a very good lens design, especially for the price. The QC is what I've had issues with. If I could take the best focal lengths from two or three of the copies I've owned and combine them somehow (at the price of one lens of course), I'd have an excellent lens by my standards. I'm sure not a 60-250 rival, but an excellent value for the money and for the (very important to me) space/weight. And a good copy of a 60-250 might be just as hard to find, incidentally - I doubt Pentax puts any more care into building it than the 55-300 or any other lenses, although I'd be curious if anyone actually knows.

As for the 50-200 - yes, overall my one copy (talk about not being qualified to comment) is a little worse that the best of the 55-300s, and yes, centering on my mine is a little off at 200mm (as with the 55-300s: either off at the bottom or top end of the range - the middle is generally good.) But I'd say a perfect 50-200 copy wouldn't qualify as "awful."

ElJamoquio · 07-13-2014, 09:34 AM

To bolster your thoughts on QC... I tried out the 60-250, and at the long end, for me, it was not very good, no better than the Pentax 55-300. For 4x the price or whatever it was at the time.... no thanks.

carrrlangas · 07-13-2014, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by GateCityRadio

I'd hardly call the 55-300 a crap lens....the 50-200 fits the crap label though.

I meant to write 50-200! Brain fart..

**hjoseph7** · 07-13-2014, 07:19 PM

I don't own one, but if I was to buy a third-party lens it would have to be the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It has internal focusing and unlike the Pentax 60-250 it does not extend from the barrel.

jwc77 · 07-13-2014, 07:41 PM

I've had only one Sigma which had incredibly fast and quiet focussing but I sold it and won't sell my Tamron 28-75mm and 90mm macro. My vote would be Tamron.

**TER-OR** · 07-13-2014, 07:52 PM

I rented a Sigma 8-16 which I really should have bought while it was still affordable...
I did buy a Sigma 18mm f1.8 macro which is really nice - though not small.

My only experience with Tamron is the 70-300 and I won't judge their better lenses by that budget zoom.

I'll say there's nothing in the Tamron line which really tempts me right now, but there are some Sigmas which do.

GateCityRadio · 07-13-2014, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by tibbitts

I'm sorry but you must have missed the rule that here on the forum, you're only allowed to make negative comments about the 55-300 if you've owned at least six copies. I base that on the number of complaints I've received for commenting about the five copies I've at least temporarily owned (or was it six - I've lost count, so you might need to buy that seventh before you're allowed to comment.)

But seriously, the 55-300 is a very good lens design, especially for the price. The QC is what I've had issues with. If I could take the best focal lengths from two or three of the copies I've owned and combine them somehow (at the price of one lens of course), I'd have an excellent lens by my standards. I'm sure not a 60-250 rival, but an excellent value for the money and for the (very important to me) space/weight. And a good copy of a 60-250 might be just as hard to find, incidentally - I doubt Pentax puts any more care into building it than the 55-300 or any other lenses, although I'd be curious if anyone actually knows.

As for the 50-200 - yes, overall my one copy (talk about not being qualified to comment) is a little worse that the best of the 55-300s, and yes, centering on my mine is a little off at 200mm (as with the 55-300s: either off at the bottom or top end of the range - the middle is generally good.) But I'd say a perfect 50-200 copy wouldn't qualify as "awful."

I must be lucky, I've had 2 good copies of the 55-300 (first was a DA L and the current is a DA). The only reason I sold the first one was because i needed a wide more. I missed my first 55-300 so much i bought the second one. I haven't had any QC issues with pentax. Haven't had any QC problems with Sigma either.

northcoastgreg · 07-14-2014, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by lytrytyr

Cosina (as in Cosina-Zeiss and Cosina-Voigtlaender).

I'm inclined to agree. The Zeiss and Voigtlaender lenses for K-mount are easily the best among the 3rd party crowd, and the only 3rd party lenses that can hold their own, and perhaps on occasion even out-perform, Pentax limited and star glass.

Of 3rd party lenses currently in production, the one I have found most impressive is the new Samyang 10mm f2.8. Between Tamron and Sigma, I prefer Tamron, although I've seen nothing from either brand that quite matches the best that Pentax offers.

Tako Kichi · 07-14-2014, 09:20 AM

During my film years I bought mostly cheaper brands in M42 mount as cash was always tight. Since getting my K-30 I've only tried two third party brands, a Tokina 70-210mm which was OK but lacking in reach for me (now on loan to my daughter) and a Sigma 105mm EX DG Macro which gives stunning results. I would buy another Sigma based on how much I like the 105 Macro.

formercanuck · 07-14-2014, 10:32 AM

I have a hard time with this one... as I have only used 2 non-Pentax vendors. Sigma (18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC) and Rokinon (85mm f/1.4)
Out of the 2, I'd say the Rokinon is better. I do typically use zooms as most of my pics are family/travel based, and my Sigma gets a LOT more use.

I'd like to try the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or 28-75mm f/2.8 but - trying to find lenses (by any vendor for Pentax) to 'try' around here is pretty near impossible. Tamron's road tour doesn't even carry Pentax. In Las Vegas at CES, Sigma let me try out some lenses on my Red K-x.

Personally, I'd like to say Sigma - only because they're still creating new lenses for Pentax. Tamron makes / sells some good product, and backs it up. They've pretty much replaced 'Pentax' with Sony in their lineup for new lenses though.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's your favorite lens?	Adam	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	10-23-2011 08:26 AM
What's your favorite lens?	dancinonwater	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	24	11-15-2010 10:08 AM
What's your favorite tripod myth?	philbaum	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	11	02-04-2009 03:03 AM
What's your favorite.........	Aaron1971	Photographic Technique	10	10-13-2008 09:25 AM
What's your favorite JUNK lens?	JJJPhoto	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	35	02-20-2007 10:47 AM

07-13-2014, 05:35 AM	#16
G and T Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Langwarrin Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 382	I have owned Tamrons, Voigtlanders, Cosinas and Tokinas, I still have them all. I have owned Sigmas and have sold them all. I have never had any luck or attachment to any Sigma lens. I do love my Voigtlanders as much as my Limiteds. Glenn

07-13-2014, 06:50 AM	#17
GateCityRadio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Greensboro,NC Posts: 503	Sigma EX or Sigma Art lenses have a very good build quality. Originally posted by carrrlangas I don´t think Pentax can afford to make crap lenses... (except for the 55-300 perhaps? But then, it is WR and that´s nice for it´s price point) I'd hardly call the 55-300 a crap lens....the 50-200 fits the crap label though.

07-13-2014, 07:35 AM	#18
Aksel Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 224	Originally posted by Trudger1272 ... If you could only own Pentax K-mount bodies(sorry, no switching to Canon or Nikon) but no Pentax lenses, who would be the first third party company(old or new) that you would turn to for K-mount lenses?... I can not talk about any particular company. Rather it depends on the particular lens, which I use. From Tamron: 28-75; 70-200 /2,8 From Sigma: art series 35/ 1,4 - I don't own it yet, but i find it nice lens for Pentax. And I hope, that 10/2,8 from Samyang (when it comes) will also find a lot of use by me.

07-13-2014, 09:03 AM	#19
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	If everyone could only own K-mount, all the manufacturers would build new lenses for it, which would change the discussion of course. However under the current dismal K-mount lens-availability circumstances, Sigma has by far the most complete offerings of current lenses. Although they can still be found, the Tamron 70-200, 17-50, and 28-75 are all legacy lenses at this point. There are the manual-focus Samyang offerings, but overall Sigma - while not offering as complete a lineup as they do for CaNikon - is more or less the only game in town for a moderately complete assortment, so Sigma would be my favorite based on that. Overall I believe newer lenses are better, at least in theory (the design is better - whether QC gets the benefit of the design to the sensor might be more questionable.) And I believe that in the majority of cases, older OEM (Pentax in this case, but also Nikon and Canon) lenses were better than their contemporaries from 3rd party manufactures, so older lenses would be more on a case-by-case basis; I wouldn't have an overall preferred manufacturer for older lenses.

07-13-2014, 09:10 AM	#20
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Trudger1272 I actually never heard of KMZ! I'll be reading up on this one. Krasnogorsky Zavod Home Page I own two of their products in Pentax-compatible mounts: MC Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye and Helios-44M 58/2. I don't submit to the Pentax Photo Gallery any more, but about half of the shots in my gallery were shot with those two lenses. Steve

07-13-2014, 09:25 AM	#21
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by carrrlangas I don´t think Pentax can afford to make crap lenses... (except for the 55-300 perhaps? But then, it is WR and that´s nice for it´s price point) I'm sorry but you must have missed the rule that here on the forum, you're only allowed to make negative comments about the 55-300 if you've owned at least six copies. I base that on the number of complaints I've received for commenting about the five copies I've at least temporarily owned (or was it six - I've lost count, so you might need to buy that seventh before you're allowed to comment.) But seriously, the 55-300 is a very good lens design, especially for the price. The QC is what I've had issues with. If I could take the best focal lengths from two or three of the copies I've owned and combine them somehow (at the price of one lens of course), I'd have an excellent lens by my standards. I'm sure not a 60-250 rival, but an excellent value for the money and for the (very important to me) space/weight. And a good copy of a 60-250 might be just as hard to find, incidentally - I doubt Pentax puts any more care into building it than the 55-300 or any other lenses, although I'd be curious if anyone actually knows. As for the 50-200 - yes, overall my one copy (talk about not being qualified to comment) is a little worse that the best of the 55-300s, and yes, centering on my mine is a little off at 200mm (as with the 55-300s: either off at the bottom or top end of the range - the middle is generally good.) But I'd say a perfect 50-200 copy wouldn't qualify as "awful."

07-13-2014, 09:34 AM	#22
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	To bolster your thoughts on QC... I tried out the 60-250, and at the long end, for me, it was not very good, no better than the Pentax 55-300. For 4x the price or whatever it was at the time.... no thanks.

07-13-2014, 11:00 AM	#23
carrrlangas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Joensuu (Finland) Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,761	Originally posted by GateCityRadio I'd hardly call the 55-300 a crap lens....the 50-200 fits the crap label though. I meant to write 50-200! Brain fart..

07-13-2014, 07:19 PM	#24
hjoseph7 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Minnesota Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,047	I don't own one, but if I was to buy a third-party lens it would have to be the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. It has internal focusing and unlike the Pentax 60-250 it does not extend from the barrel.

07-13-2014, 07:41 PM	#25
jwc77 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Rolla, MO Posts: 269	I've had only one Sigma which had incredibly fast and quiet focussing but I sold it and won't sell my Tamron 28-75mm and 90mm macro. My vote would be Tamron.

07-13-2014, 07:52 PM	#26
TER-OR Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Dundee, IL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,699	I rented a Sigma 8-16 which I really should have bought while it was still affordable... I did buy a Sigma 18mm f1.8 macro which is really nice - though not small. My only experience with Tamron is the 70-300 and I won't judge their better lenses by that budget zoom. I'll say there's nothing in the Tamron line which really tempts me right now, but there are some Sigmas which do.

07-13-2014, 08:53 PM	#27
GateCityRadio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Greensboro,NC Posts: 503	Originally posted by tibbitts I'm sorry but you must have missed the rule that here on the forum, you're only allowed to make negative comments about the 55-300 if you've owned at least six copies. I base that on the number of complaints I've received for commenting about the five copies I've at least temporarily owned (or was it six - I've lost count, so you might need to buy that seventh before you're allowed to comment.) But seriously, the 55-300 is a very good lens design, especially for the price. The QC is what I've had issues with. If I could take the best focal lengths from two or three of the copies I've owned and combine them somehow (at the price of one lens of course), I'd have an excellent lens by my standards. I'm sure not a 60-250 rival, but an excellent value for the money and for the (very important to me) space/weight. And a good copy of a 60-250 might be just as hard to find, incidentally - I doubt Pentax puts any more care into building it than the 55-300 or any other lenses, although I'd be curious if anyone actually knows. As for the 50-200 - yes, overall my one copy (talk about not being qualified to comment) is a little worse that the best of the 55-300s, and yes, centering on my mine is a little off at 200mm (as with the 55-300s: either off at the bottom or top end of the range - the middle is generally good.) But I'd say a perfect 50-200 copy wouldn't qualify as "awful." I must be lucky, I've had 2 good copies of the 55-300 (first was a DA L and the current is a DA). The only reason I sold the first one was because i needed a wide more. I missed my first 55-300 so much i bought the second one. I haven't had any QC issues with pentax. Haven't had any QC problems with Sigma either.

07-14-2014, 08:44 AM	#28
northcoastgreg Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,173	Originally posted by lytrytyr Cosina (as in Cosina-Zeiss and Cosina-Voigtlaender). I'm inclined to agree. The Zeiss and Voigtlaender lenses for K-mount are easily the best among the 3rd party crowd, and the only 3rd party lenses that can hold their own, and perhaps on occasion even out-perform, Pentax limited and star glass. Of 3rd party lenses currently in production, the one I have found most impressive is the new Samyang 10mm f2.8. Between Tamron and Sigma, I prefer Tamron, although I've seen nothing from either brand that quite matches the best that Pentax offers.

07-14-2014, 09:20 AM	#29
Tako Kichi Veteran Member Join Date: May 2013 Location: SW Ontario, Canada (ex-pat Brit) Posts: 1,296	During my film years I bought mostly cheaper brands in M42 mount as cash was always tight. Since getting my K-30 I've only tried two third party brands, a Tokina 70-210mm which was OK but lacking in reach for me (now on loan to my daughter) and a Sigma 105mm EX DG Macro which gives stunning results. I would buy another Sigma based on how much I like the 105 Macro.

07-14-2014, 10:32 AM	#30
formercanuck Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: SoCal Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 518	I have a hard time with this one... as I have only used 2 non-Pentax vendors. Sigma (18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC) and Rokinon (85mm f/1.4) Out of the 2, I'd say the Rokinon is better. I do typically use zooms as most of my pics are family/travel based, and my Sigma gets a LOT more use. I'd like to try the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 or 28-75mm f/2.8 but - trying to find lenses (by any vendor for Pentax) to 'try' around here is pretty near impossible. Tamron's road tour doesn't even carry Pentax. In Las Vegas at CES, Sigma let me try out some lenses on my Red K-x. Personally, I'd like to say Sigma - only because they're still creating new lenses for Pentax. Tamron makes / sells some good product, and backs it up. They've pretty much replaced 'Pentax' with Sony in their lineup for new lenses though.