This is NIKON rumors, why others?

nikonkhan

This is a forum for Nikon rumors, why is it becoming a platform for tokina, tamron, and others? I believe we really do not have any interest for "venus" and other similar brands. Stick to Nikon please.

Photobug

@nikonkhan - welcome to NRF. Interesting perspective in your post above.

From my perspective, if some one is comparing a Tokina, Tamron, Sigma lens to a Nikon lens I don't have an issue with that. However, I do find "Fanboy" post as not beneficial.

Ironheart

Nice first post! Some of our most talented members swear by Tamron, sigma, tokina and others. I think it's fine, as long as they are categorized appropriately.

NSXTypeR

There are products that other manufacturers make that Nikon don't carry.

Besides, we welcome all manufacturers of all sorts- a good photo is a good photo. If you look at our POTD thread, you'll see photos from Pentax medium format to Leica and Fuji and the occasional Canon cameras. Heck, you'll even see photos from a crappy Motorola smart phone.

If you know how to handle a camera or know what you're doing, the manufacturer shouldn't hold you back.

Enjoy your stay!

nek4life

Nothing wrong with discussing lenses that have an F-Mount. Hopefully all this discussion will help Nikon get off their asses and build some high end primes that compete with Sigma's ART lenses in terms of price and performance. Competition is a good thing otherwise we'll always end up getting more of the same.

heartyfisher

I think the "Photo Rumours" website/blog also points to this forum.

PS: just checked ,, it doesn’t .. I am sure it used to .. oh well ..

tcole1983

Duh...a Nikon mount lens being talked about on a Nikon forum...weird.

kanuck

Nothing wrong with discussing lenses that have an F-Mount. Hopefully all this discussion will help Nikon get off their asses and build some high end primes that compete with Sigma's ART lenses in terms of price and performance. Competition is a good thing otherwise we'll always end up getting more of the same.

+1 and I'd love to hear about some new Zeiss glass as well. The Tamron 70-200mm with IS is one of the sharpest zooms for the Nikon D800. I try to stick with Zeiss and Nikkors, but you still need to be impressed with these Sigma Art lenses, 70-200mm and 24-70 with VR lenses for half the price of Nikon, but nearly equal or better results. Again, I won't be biting though just saying.. :-\"

spraynpray

If any lens of other accessory fits or works with a Nikon body, it has a place on this forum.

tcole1983

Ok ok my last comment wasn't very helpful. Honestly I like to see reviews and information about other lenses. I do currently only own Nikon lenses, but I have tried others in the past. I like to know how they perform or what options there are out there. Also as others have said lenses like the Sigma Art lenses are doing very well right now. There are lenses made by other manufactures that are better than Nikon's offerings or possibly fill a gap or need that Nikon currently doesn't have at all. Any Nikon mount lens is relevant. It isn't as if it was a review about a Canon lens.

dissent

I don't have any issue with discussing or showing non-Nikon glass output on Nikon gear. Certainly would expect some relationship to Nikon gear.

Competition is good!

One_Oh_Four

This is a forum for Nikon rumors, why is it becoming a platform for tokina, tamron, and others? I believe we really do not have any interest for "venus" and other similar brands. Stick to Nikon please.

Nikonkhan, if we would have to play by such strict rules, there would only be room for the diehard fanboys? There are enough companies that manufacture accessories and lenses and such for Nikon bodies. I think it's great to be able to discuss those. And disregarding lenses; the tripod collars for instance on Nikon lenses aren't always the best in the world, we should be able to discuss which aftermarket companies can solve the problem for us. Or should The Really Right Stuff and the likes also be taboo?

Cheers,
Erik.

Snapyouraw

I think that this is a great forum and platform for reaching out to the low budget compatable items but nevertheless some substitute compatable items are sometimes better then Nikon items like lenses for example!
We are living in global market and there is a huge gap in the market ideal playground for rival and antreprenorial companies.
I know that some people prefer just Nikon and the forum to be just for Nikon platform but is just a compolsury obsession in my opinion:)

Msmoto

nikonkhan.... seems to be MIA

Photobug

Hope we did not scare him/her away.

spraynpray

It's hard to tell these days but the OP reads like mischief to me.

paulr

Well, it seemed to work Spraypaint, Clearly Nikonhan is keeping below the Radar.
The whole principle of Nikon Rumours is to discuss matters associated with any Nikon equipment and third party equipment. The basic principle is for members to share their experiences of Nikon third party add on's without a manufactures sales chat, regardless of whether it is high-end or low-end costings.
Long may it stay that way.

sevencrossing

What I do find just a tiny weeny little bit irritating is

When the OP asks something like

"I am buying my first Nikon FX DSLR and am looking at the Nikon 24 -70 f 2.8 or the Nikon 24-120 f4 "

Someone, who has no experience of ether lenses, suggests they buy the Sigma xxx , needless to say they have no experience of the Sigma xxx ether

Please tell me your first hand, experiences

If you want to tell me what you have read , please acknowledge your advice is just based on what you have gleaned from a BLOG

funtagraph

@sevencrossing I think your missing the subject of this topic's OP. He or (less likely) she wants the blog to stick with Nikon only. Miost of us, me included, don't think this would improve the blog's quality.

sevencrossing

@sevencrossing I think your missing the subject of this topic's OP. .

I am very happy to read on nrf about first hand experiences of third party, Nikon fit, gear

so in many ways I disagree with the OP

That said . Some people use nrf to continually moan about Nikon and recommend alternatives, even though they have absolutely no experience of the equipment they are recommending. I wonder if these anti Nikon posts, prompted the OP's comment

funtagraph

@sevencrossing tahnks a lot for clarification, I only can agree. However, I do see the "Anti-Nikon" posts in a way Nikon could benefit from. Others do some things better or cheaper - okay, with "cheaper" one needs to be careful. I own a couple of non-cheap Nikon accessories which I can find in higher quality for less or equal price elsewhere. Therefore I'm always interested in other's experiences with things related to my Nikon world.

funtagraph

Well in the case of Sigma, I read some nearly allergic reactions from some members. For myself, I made up my mind about Sigma and am happy that they compete on such a high level. But a friend of me is also a "Nikon only, no matter how expensive"-type. And since it's his money, why should I care? On several occasions I borrowed him mine and he was not laughing much about it.

sevencrossing

@PitchBlack I am sure i am not the only person who loves your Sigma Art reviews, comparisons and images. I am hoping you will be be able to use the 24mm f1.4

WestEndFoto

What I do find just a tiny weeny little bit irritating is

When the OP asks something like

"I am buying my first Nikon FX DSLR and am looking at the Nikon 24 -70 f 2.8 or the Nikon 24-120 f4 "

Someone, who has no experience of ether lenses, suggests they buy the Sigma xxx , needless to say they have no experience of the Sigma xxx ether

Please tell me your first hand, experiences

If you want to tell me what you have read , please acknowledge your advice is just based on what you have gleaned from a BLOG

I don't know about that. For example, I have the 14-24 but find myself recommending the 16-35 a lot even though I have never used it. Numerous sources, including blogs, have said it is a sharp lens, even sharper than mine. They are all consistent. I don't need to have used the 16-35 to know that for normal uses, the 25-35mm on the 16-35 is usually more useful than the 14-15 on the 14-24. I don't need to have used the 16-35 to know that you will rarely need 2.8 if you are shooting mostly landscapes. And I also don't need to have used the 16-35 to know that the filter options are better.

I, like many on this forum, have spent thousands of hours reading about photography and gear. I have probably spent 3 hours on the 16-35 alone, even though I have never used it. When a newbie comes on here and asks for guidance, I feel qualified to tell him to buy the 16-35 instead of my 14-24 if he has given me enough information. If we are talking about comparative shots at f/4, then I will leave that discussion to people that have used both lenses and have shots to compare.

sevencrossing

I have the 14-24 but find myself recommending the 16-35 a lot even though I have never used it.

Nothing wrong, if you have a used one of lenses in question and explain clearly why you are recommending a different one

This is a quote from another thread

the 14-24 F2.8. It is the best lens in that range period. It has been said over and over again.

( I have and strongly recommend the 16 -35)

tcole1983

I have the 14-24 but find myself recommending the 16-35 a lot even though I have never used it.

Nothing wrong, if you have a used one of lenses in question and explain clearly why you are recommending a different one

This is a quote from another thread

the 14-24 F2.8. It is the best lens in that range period. It has been said over and over again.

( I have and strongly recommend the 16 -35)

LOL I thought your posts had a tone that you were stilled POed that I would make a comment about recommending the 14-24 without having/using it.

For some reason no one is allowed to have an opposing opinion...especially if they don't own or use the lens.

And I still stand by my words...if I shot FX and wanted an ultrawide I would own the 14-24. It is the best lens in the range period. I am not sure what you are arguing here. Corner to corner sharpness wide open is great, F2.8. I have seen plenty of examples. I am sure the 16-35 is a fine lens, but I have yet to find anything that says the 16-35 is sharper corner to corner or is a "better" lens. Of course it might have some benefits like being smaller, lighter weight, a larger zoom range and it has VR. If I wanted an ultrawide with the least distortion and was the sharpest I would get the 14-24.