Is "original" always "better"?

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

We all know the ongoing discussion about the quality difference of "OEM" lenses (such as Nikkor, Canon, Pentax, Minolta Rokkor...) and "non-OEM" brands (such as Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, Vivitar etc.).

There are those who definitely prefer OEM brands, because they say that with those lenses the built quality is better and the lenses are more precisely manufactured which offers a better IQ as well.

Others say that even "noname" lenses can offer great IQ for a fraction of the price.

I think chances are higher to get a good lens when you buy an OEM one, but that doesn not necessarily mean that all non-OEM lenses are bad. Prejudices against non-OEM brands often base on individual experiences published in personal blogs etc.

Since I happen to have both here an SMC Pentax-M 2.8/28 (a lens with a quite good reputation) and a Tokina RMC 2.8/28 for Pentax, I decided to have a look at those lenses and see if there really is a distinct difference.

Pentax-M lenses normally are well built and give you a nice feeling of solidity without being too heavy. That is also true for this copy of the 2.8/28. But the Tokina lens is absolutely on par with the Pentax. At least as solid and equally smooth in operation.

The Tokina focusses a little closer than the Pentax.

As you can see the focus direction is different.

These images taken at minimal docus distance also show the difference:

Pentax

Tokina

What we also can see is that the bokeh seems to be a little smoother with the Tokina lens.
The Highlights are not as distinct as with the Pentax. I like that.

Colours are very similar and hardly to distinguish, if at all.

Pentax

Tokina

The same is true for contrast and sharpness.

Pentax

Tokina

So? To be honest, I cannot see any difference in performance between those two lenses. And I prefer the bokeh of the Tokina lens.

Perhaps this shows that we cannot automatically state that non-OEM lenses are always worse than OEM ones.

Layer-cake · Joined: 18 Mar 2013 Posts: 560 Location: Cape Town

I agree the bokeh is more appealing and smooth on the tokina, I have always thought it was a very good lens that can be had for pennies really.

Rick1779 · Expire: 2014-06-06

the good pentax 28mm is the 3.5 in K version, I didn't find the M (or the A that's even worse) much appealing

hoanpham · Expire: 2015-01-18

I think for 3rd parties products, copy variation was an issue. May be they are better today.
I have 4 copies of this tokina: 2 in PK, 1 in FD, 1 in MD, and 2 copies of this pentax M 28/2.8.

Bokeh might be smoother, but there are several other attributes as well:
- Flare resistant of smc is better.
- Color is warmer, more dull, on film, while smc produces green is green.
- Some what less contrast than smc.

One copy is a lemon, i think tokina forgot to apply coating on it.
This lemon was purchased brand new by me in the 80's.

This Pentax M lens is about average for a 28/2.8 when compared to yashica, mamiya, nikon.
I prefer A-series. Many 3rd parties close focus is better.

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I had this Pentax, I thought it was less good than the three or four other Pentax-M lenses I had, nothing special at all. I've had half a dozen copies of the Tokina 2.8/28 and it's one of the best third party wides imho, leagues ahead of most of the third party 28s.

If you really want tosee the difference in quality between OEM and third party, take a Minolta or Konica 3.5/28 and put it up against a Cosina 2.8/28, the Cosina will look like a bottle bottom by comparison and the price difference is not much at all, so only a silly person would give the Cosina the time of day.

There are some Third party lenses that are better than some equivalent OEMs however, the Vivitar Close Focus 22 serial 2.8/28 is better in all regards to the Canon FD 2.8/28. The Chinon 1.7/50 (Cosina?)is better than the Canon FD 1.8/50.

Once you step outside the 28-50 focal lengths however, you really start to see some big differences between OEMs and third party. Third party 24mms are usually okay at best, with the odd exception like the Ensinor/Clubman, but the major maker's 24mms are usually fantastic - Nikon, Konica, Minolta, Yashica ML, I have all four of those in 2.8/24 and none of the third party 24s I've tried, from Tokina, Cimko, Kiron or Komine comes close, the Sigma, Cosina, Sun 24mms are a long long way behind. Then at the longer end of the spectrum, it is hard to find a really good third party 200mm, Kiron make a good 3.5/200, but the Tokina 3.5/200 is rubbish, as are most of the other third party 200s, but every major maker made an excellent 200mm.

Maybe it would be good for less experienced users if we compiled a list of the known good third party lenses that do compare favourably to OEM alternatives?

My recommendations:

Vivitar Close Focus 2.8/28 22 serial (Komine?)
Ensinor/Clubman 2.8/24 - not quite as good as the Nikon/Konica/Minolta/Yashica/Olympus 24s but better than the other 3rd party 24s
Ensinor/Clubman 2.8/28 - same as above, better than most 3rd party 28s but still not preferable to an OEM lens
Computar (Kowa) 2.8/28 - tiny and light, not so common but very sharp, slight vignette until f5.6
Kiron/Panagor 2/28 - huge and heavy, soft until f4 but from f4 competes with OEM 28s
Kiron/Panagor 2/35 - huge and heavy, soft until f4 but from f4 competes with OEM 35s
Kiron/Panagor 3.5/200 - huge and heavy, not as good as the better OEM 200s like the Konica 3.5/200 but much better than most OEM 200s
Tokina RMC 3.5/17 - fabulous, everyone should have one
Tokina AT-X 3.5-4.5/28-135 - huge, heavy but one of the best zooms of this era, also seen as a Konica
Tokina AT-X 2.8/60-120 - huge, heavy, great portrait lens
Tokina AT-X 4/80-200 - better, imho, than the Vivitar S1 3.5/70-210, also seen as a Mamiya, Voigtlander and Rollei

There's some Tamron zooms and the Kiron and Tokina macro lenses too, but by and large, third party lenses are best avoided given the vast quantities of cheap OEM lenses out there, I'd suggest being patient and waiting for an OEM to come along at a good price than buying a third-party alternative because it's cheap, some people collect 200-300 so-so lenses when for less money they could have bought 20-30 great ones, it makes no sense to accumulate a lot of mediocre glass.

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I often take lenses apart to repair and clean them and it's always interesting to see the difference in how a manufacturer constructs the lens. Many years ago I worked as Quality Control Foreman for AMF Venner, a company that made parking meters and electric time switches, and this was back in the day when this type of thing was still basically a mechanical clock. So the components were very often tiny levers and lathe turned parts, much like the ones in a lens. The problems we would see with these components were generally rough edges on the steel and brass pressings, cracks on the forming of the pressings, and burrs on turned parts. I see none of this on lenses at all, and it makes no difference if the lens is from a major or minor seller. The difference I see is more usually in the design, not the design of the lens as an optic, but the mechanical design that makes levers more rigid, screws that have a greater area of material around them to avoid pulling out or breaking a plastic boss off.
I love Tamron's, their zooms are generally at the better end of 'good' and they usually have a good spec'. But when one jammed on me a while back and I tried in vain to get it apart to fix it I could see the reason for the failure was the flexing of the inner zoom barrel that had the plastic rollers attached to it that moved in the complex shaped slots of the one touch zoom mechanism. The rollers could flex slightly, they wore down in an uneven pattern and eventually one wore enough to break off and jam the lens completely. I couldn't dismantle the lens because of the loose roller and screw, it was only after I'd hacksawed the lens apart out of curiosity that I figured the problem out. The zoom mechanism was a beautifully designed thing that made the lens a joy to use, but the thin and flimsy internal part just made the lens short lived.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Tokina ATX are all quite good I guess.
Not all Tokina 200/3.5 are that bad btw. (there are many I think), I have one which is not that bad at all optically

luisalegria · Expire: 2018-01-18

There are at least five different Tokina 200/3.5's

preset (rare), 200/4.5 is much more common.
first version auto (some T4) - very large, lots of CA, etc.
second version auto (some T4) - more compact, much better
third version auto (some T4/TX)- compact, much better
fourth version - ? seen but never tried.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

This one, here badged Hoya:

Muted colours and so-so contrast, sharp enough at f5.6-f8 but it has absolutely terrible purple fringing. The 4.5/300 and 5.6/400 of the same series are not good either. Build quality of them is very good though.

You can see how my copy was here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/hoya-tokina-f3-5-200mm-on-nex-3-t45691,start,15.html

Not total rubbish but not good either and far behind any of the major maker's 200mms I've tried.

ZoneV · Expire: 2011-12-02

I grin when I hear people talk negative about non camera manufacturer lenses.

Probably they don´t know Astro Berlin, Zeiss, Coastal Optics, Angenieux, Meyer-Goerlitz, Isco, Schneider Kreuznach, Rodenstock / Linos / Qioptiq, Steinheil, Ilex, Mituotoyo, Dallmeyer and many other manufacturers who don´t build cameras (or sell their lenses for other cameras too), but sometimes excellent optics.

For people who mainly know and use AF lenses this lack of knowledge is probably normal, but the deeper one knows manual lenses, the more alternative manufacturers with highest quality lenses could be known.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

The difference in bokeh is likely due to focus distance, reshoot at same distance.

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

Here's my Tokina 200/3.5
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1154372.html#1154372

It was better than the Pentacon and the Meyer 200/4 I had if I remember correctly.

I've almost never used it though due weight and size. For the the price it's a bargain.

To answer the TAs question: No, first-party-brands are not always better. But in most cases.

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland

I received a Soligor like this for free as I bought a camera on EBay in Germany.
I will make a comparison with my Takumar 200 f3.5 in order to participate to this topic.

aoleg · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE

Speaking of Soligors, my Soligor 100/2.8 (preset version) is miles ahead of Super-Takumar 105/2.8, which is soft wide open and has harsh background rendering. The Soligor is sharper, has more contrast wide open, and renders backgrounds in a pleasant way.

However, this is not due to the fact the Soligor is such a great lens (though it is a good lens, no doubt in it). It's simply because Pentax Super-Takumar 105/2.8 was not up to the high standards set for ~100mm lenses by competition.

I've heard the SMC version is slightly better, and SMC Pentax K 105/2.8, although the same optically, was better yet, but I am yet to confirm this.

tromboads · Expire: 2015-10-01

*leans over to my own 105mm f2.8 Tak*

It's ok. that bad German man Didn't mean it. It's ok pat pat cuddles.

Oldhand · Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:37 am Post subject:

tromboads · Expire: 2015-10-01

I mean it would... But it can't hind it's hood. Embarassed

Boris_Akunin · Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Bremen, Germany

There are a few lenses in the early "Series 1" sold by Vivitar that can definitely compete with the 'original' brandsL:

28mm f/1.9 (made by Komine)
90mm f/2.5 Macro (the famous "Bokina", made by Tokina, same optics as the later Tokina 90/2.5)
135mm f/2.3 (made by Komine)
200mm f/3.0 (made by Komine)

I've had all four at some point and still have the 90/2.5 (in Minolta MC mount) and 200/3 (in M42), I've posted comparisons in another forum, if you're interested (warning: lots of 100% crops, it may take some time to load)

Vivitar 28/1.9 vs Kiron 24/2.0:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/238807-comparison-kiron-24mm-f-2-0-vs-vivitar-series-1-28mm-f-1-9-a.html

Vivitar 135/2.3 vs Soligor C/D 135/2.0:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/233415-soligor-c-d-135mm-f-2-vs-vivitar-series-1-135mm-f-2-3-a.html

Vivitar 200/3.0 vs Pentax-M 200/4.0:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/238637-vivitar-series-1-200mm-f-3-0-vs-pentax-m-200mm-f-4-0-a.html

regards
Jan