[jatrax]

I’m told they have gotten better.

A little bit.

[biz-engineer]

Just about the only Third Party glass I own or would consider owning is Tokina.

I'm not surprised by your comment. A few years ago, the Canon guys that I know did not refer to Tokina as the best maker of wide angle lenses, rather than third party lens makers like Tamron and Sigma. A lot of Canon users would not buy the Canon lens but they would buy the Tokina lens for its quality being superior.

[Dan Rentea]

There are 2 big problems (depending on who you ask) regarding third party lenses, despite that the latest lenses released are very good opticaly:
1. build quality
2. inconsistency of the focus

We have a very good repair store in Bucharest for cameras and lenses (Kamerawerk it is called) and I went to this shop a few times with some of my friends that had different problems with their cameras or lenses. 80% of the lenses brought to the repair store are third party lenses (Tamron or Sigma Art). The owner of the shop even joked once saying that as long as Sigma and Tamron will produce lenses, his shop will be profitable.

OEM lenses are important and I do understand the ones that wait for Pentax to release their own lenses, like the D-FA 50mm f1.4. I shoot with rented third party lenses, but when comes to buying, I preffer the original lenses, even if they are more expensive than third party ones.

[BigMackCam]

There are 2 big problems (depending on who you ask) regarding third party lenses, despite that the latest lenses released are very good opticaly:
1. build quality
2. inconsistency of the focus

We have a very good repair store in Bucharest for cameras and lenses (Kamerawerk it is called) and I went to this shop a few times with some of my friends that had different problems with their cameras or lenses. 80% of the lenses brought to the repair store are third party lenses (Tamron or Sigma Art). The owner of the shop even joked once saying that as long as Sigma and Tamron will produce lenses, his shop will be profitable.

I think that used to be true, but I'd be interested to know what that same shop owner says in five years time... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD I own feels as solid and tightly constructed as the best of my modern lenses (with the only exception being my Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8). It's optically *superb*, and it's very nicely finished too, albeit with a good amount of high density plastics. It's a far cry from the earlier 28-75 f/2.8 and 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 that I also have.

[Rondec]

I think that used to be true, but I'd be interested to know what that same shop owner says in five years time... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD I own feels as solid and tightly constructed as the best of my modern lenses (with the only exception being my Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8). It's optically *superb*, and it's very nicely finished too, albeit with a good amount of high density plastics. It's a far cry from the earlier 28-75 f/2.8 and 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 that I also have.

I think Dan's second point is probably the bigger one. Sigma, in particular, doesn't seem to work with manufacturers to create their lenses and so it seems as though their focusing can be pretty shaky at times. We've heard plenty of reports of this with regard to their 35 f1.4 Art and 18-35 f1.8 on K mount. Optically excellent lenses, but not consistent with regard to auto focus.

As far as Tokina goes, they have a good name, but I don't know that they move the needle very much either way. I have never actually seen a Tokina lens "in the wild," while I have seen plenty of Sigma and Tamron lenses. Maybe it is just that I don't live in Asia, but it doesn't feel as though Pentax licensing some optical formulas to them will sway people away from buying a K-1 II if they were otherwise so inclined.

[Dan Rentea]

I think that used to be true, but I'd be interested to know what that same shop owner says in five years time... The Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 USD I own feels as solid and tightly constructed as the best of my modern lenses (with the only exception being my Sony Zeiss 24-70 f/2.8). It's optically *superb*, and it's very nicely finished too, albeit with a good amount of high density plastics. It's a far cry from the earlier 28-75 f/2.8 and 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 that I also have.

It's true. But he's store shelves are full of Tamron and Sigma Art. Some have dust inside, others have front/back focus, etc. Optically, I do like the G2 lenses from Tamron (150-600mm is quite good and with decent af speed) and even their build quality seems superior to the first generation. Sigma Art lenses are hit and miss. I tried to many of them and the focus accuracy let me down in bad lighting conditions.

[BigMackCam]

I think Dan's second point is probably the bigger one. Sigma, in particular, doesn't seem to work with manufacturers to create their lenses and so it seems as though their focusing can be pretty shaky at times. We've heard plenty of reports of this with regard to their 35 f1.4 Art and 18-35 f1.8 on K mount. Optically excellent lenses, but not consistent with regard to auto focus.

Yes, I'd have to agree with you and Dan on the spotty Sigma AF. My 17-50 f/2.8 prefers two AF cycles for guaranteed accuracy - one to get it "in range", and another for the fine adjustments

It's true. But he's store shelves are full of Tamron and Sigma Art. Some have dust inside, others have front/back focus, etc. Optically, I do like the G2 lenses from Tamron (150-600mm is quite good and with decent af speed) and even their build quality seems superior to the first generation. Sigma Art lenses are hit and miss. I tried to many of them and the focus accuracy let me down in bad lighting conditions.

My Tammy 70-200 isn't the very latest... it's the first generation with USD, but I've been really impressed with it. The G2 model looks nicer still...

[davidsladek]

The D FA* 50/1.4 resolution with Pixel Shift is just insane...


Full res

Full res

[ffking]

The D FA* 50/1.4 resolution with Pixel Shift is just insane...

That's something we should really be celebrating - that little hut or house in the first one is crazy, and you have to be careful not to get caught up counting snow crystals in the second

Now imagine the next generation sensor (42 Mp?) with that lens and pixel shift....

[D1N0]

I am going to need a screen with smaller pixels for viewing these

[BigMackCam]

The D FA* 50/1.4 resolution with Pixel Shift is just insane...

Very impressive. The sharpness and detail of that lens is really amazing right out to the edges...

[ogl]

Very impressive. The sharpness and detail of that lens is really amazing right out to the edges...

The left edge of first photo is not as sharp as all the rest parts...

[Wheatfield]

Very impressive. The sharpness and detail of that lens is really amazing right out to the edges...

I challenge anyone to keep a straight face and say the Abacus era FA50/1.4 would give back that kind of result.

[BigMackCam]

The left edge of first photo is not as sharp as all the rest parts...

I'm not seeing that Looking at the fir trees at the far left, exactly half way up (or down! ), they look awfully good to me. Same for the branches of other trees, closer to the camera and further down the frame...

[Wheatfield]

The left edge of first photo is not as sharp as all the rest parts...

The bottom left corner for sure looks a wee bit softer. I wonder if there is, perhaps, a depth of field thing going on. It was shot at f/8 which is going to be close to it's best aperture.