View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:52 am Post subject: Is "original" always "better"? |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
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. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Layer-cake
Joined: 18 Mar 2013 Posts: 560 Location: Cape Town
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Layer-cake wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rick1779
Joined: 17 May 2013 Posts: 1207 Location: Italy
Expire: 2014-06-06
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rick1779 wrote:
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 _________________ TELLTALE
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
hoanpham
Joined: 31 Jan 2011 Posts: 2575
Expire: 2015-01-18
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
hoanpham wrote:
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.
Last edited by hoanpham on Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:39 am Post subject: Re: Is "original" always "better"? |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
LucisPictor wrote: |
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. |
I have the SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8, and used to have the corresponding RMC Tokina lens. To be honest, SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8 is the weakest 28mm prime among the manual-focus Pentax lineup. I much prefer the 'K' version 28/3.5 to it. In my side-by-side comparison the 'A' version was also better than the original 'M' (there were two optical versions for this lens).
I also tested the Tokina (landscape, infinity focusing only), and in my test, the images came out with duller colors and less contrast than any of the Pentax lenses. Resolution was OK in the center, but consistently lacked in the corners compared to the Pentax-M lens.
Alongside, I also tested a Rikenon 28/2.8, and it finished after SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8. So I would rate them as follows: SMC Pentax K 28/3.5 > SMC Pentax A 28/2.8 > SMC Pentax-M 28/2.8 (v.I) > Ricoh Rikenon P 28/2.8 > RMC Tokina 28/2.8
What does it tell us? In different conditions, different lenses may perform differently. In our limited tests, we only check a few parameters (such as landscape/infinity focusing in my test, or close up/bokeh in yours) where the different lenses can show their weaker and stronger characteristics. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
hoanpham wrote: |
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.
|
hoanpham, I second that! These are my findings precisely. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7788 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
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. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
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 _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language)
Last edited by ForenSeil on Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
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. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1632 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
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. _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lightshow
Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lightshow wrote:
The difference in bokeh is likely due to focus distance, reshoot at same distance. _________________ A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
My lens list
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ForenSeil
Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ForenSeil wrote:
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. _________________ I'm not a collector, I'm a tester
My camera: Sony A7+Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8
Current favourite lenses (I have many more):
A few macro-Tominons, Samyang 12/2.8, Noritsu 50.7/9.5, Rodagon 105/5.6 on bellows, Samyang 135/2, Nikon ED 180/2.8, Leitz Elmar-R 250/4, Celestron C8 2000mm F10
Most wanted: Samyang 24/1.4, Samyang 35/1.4, Nikon 200/2 ED
My Blog: http://picturechemistry.own-blog.com/
(German language) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 1387 Location: Berlin, DE
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
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. _________________ List of lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1655 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
*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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 6000 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 9:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
tromboads wrote: |
*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. |
I have heard that 105/2.8 Taks are soft .......
........Man-up Tak! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tromboads
Joined: 29 May 2012 Posts: 1655 Location: Melbourne AU
Expire: 2015-10-01
|
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tromboads wrote:
I mean it would... But it can't hind it's hood. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Boris_Akunin
Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Posts: 392 Location: Bremen, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Boris_Akunin wrote:
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 _________________ Sony: A7 | Samyang FE 35/2.8 | Sony FE 85/1.8
Pentax: K-5 | K28/3.5 | M50/1.7 | DA18-135/3.5-5.6 | F35-70/3.5-4.5
Minolta: X-500 | XD | MD35/2.8 | MC50/1.4 | MD200/4 | MD75-150/4
Canon: nFD24/2.8 | nFD35/2 | nFD50/1.4 | nFD300/5.6 | nFD35-105/3.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|