Save 17% On All Regatta Jackets With Code: JACKETS17

'Budget' lens build quality


User_Removed 17 3.3k 4 United Kingdom
14 Mar 2013 11:02AM
Someone (wish it was me) once said of high-end lenses that you don't really own them; that you're just keeping them safe for the next generation.

Good lenses tend to keep their value. I sold one lens for a fair bit more than what it had cost me. That doesn't really happen with the budget lenses.

You could buy a used 24-70 2.8L from eBay now and sell it for about the same price in a year's time. You'd have to pay ebay fees and some postage but you could think of that as lens rental costs. Conversely camera bodies may lose half of their value in less than a year.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
14 Mar 2013 1:49PM
A lens is for life not just for Chris.
14 Mar 2013 8:27PM

Quote:Someone (wish it was me) once said of high-end lenses that you don't really own them; that you're just keeping them safe for the next generation.


Are you sure that isn't an advert for watches that you saw Smile?
Paul Morgan 20 19.5k 6 England
14 Mar 2013 9:58PM

Quote:Good lenses tend to keep their value. I sold one lens for a fair bit more than what it had cost me. That doesn't really happen with the budget lenses


A bit like my second hand purchase of the Olympus 35-100 f2, ended up selling it third hand and got back slightly more than I had originally paid, it more or less covered the entire cost of my new OMD, grip and lenses Smile
15 Mar 2013 11:21AM

Quote:...
Is this the quality that you just 'expect' from 'budget' lenses, like 18-200 dx lenses? Or is it just Sigma lenses that are this crap? ....


I am another not-so-happy user of Sigma lens. 18-125 in my case. It is better than OK optically, but suffers from bad front-focus on one of my two Canon EOS. No Canon lens I own cause any problem on either camera. Amazingly, 100$ worth kit lens (18-55 IS) is pin-sharp and focuses and holds image stability considerably better. What I figured out for myself - better cheap lens of expensive brand than expensive lens of cheap brand. BTW, Sigma cost me 3 times of Canon plasticky miracle Wink . If you don't earn money with your camera - buy cheap lens of good brand, and if you do - why asking?
thewilliam 12 6.1k
15 Mar 2013 12:22PM
I bought a 15-30 Stigma lens because it covered a focal length that Nikon didn't. As many reviewers have remarked, it wasn't particularly sharp in the corners at the wide end. At 15mm practically everything is in focus, even wide open, so we can't explain it away as DoF.

She-who-must-be-obeyed grew so tired of my griping that she gave me a new Nikon 17-35 for my next birthday.

As a general rule, we get what we pay for. The only exception is that modest aperture Nikon lenses tend to be as sharp as those with wider aperture.
Paul Morgan 20 19.5k 6 England
15 Mar 2013 6:06PM
The Sigma 19mm and 30mm are now going for about 100, there a bargain Smile
pablophotographer 9 1.9k 406
15 Mar 2013 10:47PM
we had a pro wedding photographer talking to us last year about his work and his gear. He said the best word to describe Sigma was inconsistency. Knowing my luck I would be the one with the faulty one. I think the time frame you mention is too small and you could go (?) back to the retailer, it should had a guarantee... plus under consumer act it would expect to be fit for purpose for at least 3-4 years... (according to "which?")

Anyone who had a samyang?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.