PDA

View Full Version : Quantaray lenses


johnthebaptist
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 13:14
I'm new to this hobby so please go easy on me. Are Quantaray lenses worth taking a look at? I am simply into photography as a hobby (for now:)) and I took a look on the Wolf Camera site. I saw some Quantaray lenses that looked appealing but, after seeing the price, would I be wasting money I could save to get a good lense? Example: Quantaray 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High Speed Auto Focus Zoom for EOS Canon for $159.95

As you can see on my gear list I don't yet have a DSLR, but I'm saving for a Rebel XT (black body) in the near future. Thanks for the help. I have great respect for the opinions on this forum.

Jon
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 13:29
No - they're not worth it. You can get better-quality lenses from reputable brands like Sigma or Canon for about the same price through reliable Internet vendors such as B&H Photo & Electronics. Before you order your camera, check the vendor at resellerratings.com.

cmM
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 13:41
after extensive forum discussions and analysis of these lenses, the ultimate unanimous conclusion was that ... they're poop :-P

hudsonch
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 13:57
I'm new to this hobby so please go easy on me. Are Quantaray lenses worth taking a look at? I am simply into photography as a hobby (for now:)) and I took a look on the Wolf Camera site. I saw some Quantaray lenses that looked appealing but, after seeing the price, would I be wasting money I could save to get a good lense? Example: Quantaray 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High Speed Auto Focus Zoom for EOS Canon for $159.95


Quantaray is the house brand of Wolf/Ritz Camera Store. They are rebadged third party lenses. According to different sources, the lens' IQ is at par with other inexpensive third party lenses. Fair enough.

The example you quoted, i.e. 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6, is not exactly a good deal. Canon has a 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6, with the same street price (well, it is still a consumer zoom). Tamron has a similar one with LD (low dispersion) elements, also at this price.

Rhinotherunt
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 14:08
Run away from those Ritz/Wolf dealers FAST!!! Do some research on lenses in the focal range you want. What are you planning on taking images of? Go to WWW.Photo.Net and click on the learn tab. In the learn area it will go over the lenses typically used for those applications...

liza
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 14:10
You might check out what B&H has to offer. Don't think I would purchase from Wolf. And save your money for better glass. There are affordable lenses in the $300 to $500 range that would do a much better job.

Chicago Jake
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 14:24
I'm new to this hobby so please go easy on me. Are Quantaray lenses worth taking a look at? I am simply into photography as a hobby (for now:)) and I took a look on the Wolf Camera site. I saw some Quantaray lenses that looked appealing but, after seeing the price, would I be wasting money I could save to get a good lense? Example: Quantaray 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 High Speed Auto Focus Zoom for EOS Canon for $159.95

I considered that very lens. But then I found the same spec Canon lens at Amazon for ten bucks cheaper (and no sales tax!). I bought it, and have been happy with it for simple hobby shots. Considering that it sells for about $270 at Wolf, I assume it is significantly better than the Quantaray......Jake

md_129
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 14:48
I'm with liza on this one, check out B&H, don't waste your time with off brand lenes.

Check out this link here if you get a chance http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

There is a ton of useful information on various lens.

Jim_T
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 14:52
There's PLENTY of reading on Quantaray Lenses over in the Canon EF Lens forum.. (Not much of it is positive :) )

I did a quick search and came up with a few hundred discussions...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/search.php?searchid=1319889

steved110
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 16:00
Have a trawl through the stickies in the lens section, they will give you a pretty good idea of what sort of lenses you need.
remember when starting out, you do not need to spend huge amounts on lenses. at the beginning I'd suggest make do with the kit lens - it's a pretty good lens for the money it costs - and think about a 70-300 zoom as well, just NOT the Quantaray. they can produce good images, so can a disposable camera. But they do have a lousy repuation, and for pretty much the same money, you can get the Sigma 70-300 APO macro which has the best image quality of all the 7x-300 lenses, and is amazing value for money.

Above all, be careful where you buy from, in the States, B&H and Amazon seem to have the best reputation for service and safety. check reseller ratings carefully if using anyone else - and remember, you can always post a question asking for advice before you buy from anyone.

And check out this site: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

It gives a pretty good overview of the canon system and discusses the various lens types in detail, and also has a good section on lens recommendations for various purposes.

FlashZebra
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 16:01
Well, if you like the world parsed into Darth Vader or Yoda, then I think sticking with much of the advice posted here, that Quantaray lenses are bad, and just go with that.

My take on this is that it is significantly more complicated than this, but to accommodate this complicated lay of the land takes a bit of work.

First, Quantaray is a marketing name now primarily (possibly exclusively) used by Ritz Camera. In the past, and now, these lenses are actually made almost exclusively by the three top third party lens manufactures, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina. At any time it is very hard to keep up with who is making what lens. At any particular time any of these three may be making part, or even all, of the lenses offered by Quantaray. A few months later, the mix of who is making what is likely to be different.

But, if you look very closely at a particular Quantaray lens and the specifications, and the attributes of the third party offerings it does not take that much detective work to determine the lineage of these lenses. An example, the current 70-300 F/4-5.6 Macro lens has to be the same lens as the Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 LD Macro lens. I suspect the Quantaray version of this lens is just like the Tamron version, that is the nice thing about mass production, to make it different makes it more expensive, so they just crank out the same product on the same production line and put different logos and in boxes with different graphics.

So, the Quantaray version of this lens is very likely to be no better, or no worse that the Tamron version.

The Tamron version of this lens is not a stellar performer, but the Canon competion; the Canon EF 75-300 F/4-5.6 is not a stellar performer either. In fact, optically the Tamron at 300mm is likely to be a better lens than the Canon.

So, where is this going? Since Quantaray lenses have such a bad reputation, they command terrible used prices. I have seen the perfect copies of the Quantaray 70-300 F/4-5.6 Macro go on ebay for as little as $80.00. So what is a suspect purchase at $250.00 in the Ritz store, might be a bargain on ebay.

In conclusion, if you are the type that wants to keep it simple, stick with the view that Quantaray is bad. But, if you educate yourself, you might be able to pick up a bargain used Quantaray lens. This might be especially helpful if you have a very tight budget, but need a lens with a particular attribute and can live with one that has adequate performance.

Enjoy! Lon

saravrose
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 16:13
quantaray promaster etc.. all junk. stay to reputable brands Canon, Sigma, Tamron etc... just look at it this way.. a 200 dollar lens is a great deal..as long as you don't have to turn around and re-purchase... It's cheaper in the long run to buy what you need in the first place..

sari.

FlashZebra
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 16:17
quantaray promaster etc.. all junk. stay to reputable brands Canon, Sigma, Tamron etc... just look at it this way.. a 200 dollar lens is a great deal..as long as you don't have to turn around and re-purchase... It's cheaper in the long run to buy what you need in the first place..

sari.
The problem with this generalization is that Quantaray and Promaster lenses are Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina lenses, just labeled as Quantaray and Promaster.

So, it is like saying don't buy the junk with the "Fred" label, but definately buy the exact same junk with the "Herb" label.

Enjoy! Lon

FlashZebra
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 16:39
As a follow-up to my other two posts in this thread.

Look at the lens pics and compare the “Promaster”, "Quantaray", and "Tamron" lenses. They are extremely likely to all be made by Tamron, coming off the same assembly line, all with the same mechanical and optical performance. I suspect the prices are even pretty close.

http://www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?CatID=230&CatSM=&SubCatID=2&CatName=Lenses&SubCatName=Auto%20Focus&sm=sm2_2302&dir=&page=PROD&product=AF70300

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/251664561.htm
Click on “Specifications” after you get to this link

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/70300_di_a017.asp

Enjoy! Lon

rhys
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 17:31
I reviewed some Quantaray lenses a while back. http://uk.geocities.com/rhys_sage/

SuzyView
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 17:44
I was just at Ritz today to look at yet another bag. (Ok, don't get nuts on me. I gave my son my backpack with my 10D and 28-135 and now I need another bag.) They didn't have much of anything but Quantary lenses, that's why they pitch them.

Just food for thought as you are just starting to get into this forum and learning about camera gear, "You get what you pay for!" So, in many ways, a $350 50 1.4 lens is about as nice a lens as you are going to get for that money. Some Tamrons and Sigmas are fine because they are decent quality. I have found that if you buy one lens at a time, you will learn how to get the best out of that lens, and then you move on. I started with the 28-80, moved to the 28-105, then the 28-135 IS, etc. as I got more money to invest. After playing with zoom lenses I bought the 85 1.8, which is my favorite lens. Take it slow, buy one lens at a time. :)

JayKitty
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 18:24
just dont. or at least i wouldn't

MitsuJDM
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 18:42
I was looking in the Quantary 55-200 and I read a review, or forums or soemthing and read "you can save money by using the bottem of a soda bottle and have the same quality for a lower price". I then purcahsed the Canon 75-300 F/4-5.6 III USM :) I love this lens, very very nice, and under $200.

braduardo
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 21:25
I would say to get the best that you can afford for the use you will give them. I used the 75-300mm for a while, then I outgrew it and got my first L. Get lenses that you will use, but don't go broke trying to get the absolute top of the line lenses until you have developed enough skill that you think they will benefit you. Just having great lenses won't make your pictures great.

SuzyView
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 21:40
Oh, let's be truthful, we have debates here constantly about gear versus talent. My thinking is that good gear can only help. So, buy the best you can afford, read all the reviews you can and ask people here for their opinions. I have purchased some really wonderful additions to my collection since joining this forum and I have not regretted buying anything. It's been really helpful to read all the stickys about lenses and cameras here. As far as Quantary lenses are concerned, a lot of members here are not fans, so does that tell you how good they are?

rhys
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 22:01
I was looking in the Quantary 55-200 and I read a review, or forums or soemthing and read "you can save money by using the bottem of a soda bottle and have the same quality for a lower price". I then purcahsed the Canon 75-300 F/4-5.6 III USM :) I love this lens, very very nice, and under $200.

Lol. That sounds very much like something I would have written except I usually refer to a Coke bottle.

rhys
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 22:10
I would say to get the best that you can afford for the use you will give them. I used the 75-300mm for a while, then I outgrew it and got my first L. Get lenses that you will use, but don't go broke trying to get the absolute top of the line lenses until you have developed enough skill that you think they will benefit you. Just having great lenses won't make your pictures great.

I agree (sort of). There's a middle-ground of lenses that produce very good quality for a moderate price.

Cheap lenses will only ever produce poor results.

The middle ground produces excellent results.

Top of the range costs a lot of money but the increase in quality while present does not represent a great increase. Often it's not really possible to see the difference.

Take my Tamron 28-75 for example. It's a good lens capable of excellent results. It's not quite as good as a Canon 24-70L though. Why not? Well, the Canon (from reputation only - I have not got one) is supposed to focus faster and more accurately, it's slightly sharper and has better colour. Not great increases in relation to the extra expendature but that's the price you pay for the best.

braduardo
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 22:21
I agree there. I would NEVER recommend anyone go into a Ritz camera, unless MAYBE you really really need to use the restroom. I've never seen staff that knows much about what they are selling. One told me that if I was looking to rent lenses maybe I should check Las Vegas (ya, ok).

I think you and I are really saying the same thing. Don't buy the absolute cheapest, but don't get in over your head to buy the best. I experimented quite a bit before I decided that my new L was something that would really fit my usage. I wouldn't recommend that someone buys one before they know that it's exactly what they want.

I try not to discourage new users by telling them how much money they are going to end up spending on camera gear. Better just to let them realize it once they are already hooked.

For lower priced gear I would recommend Canon, but for the mid-range gear, just ask around on here and get people's favorites.

rhys
27th of July 2006 (Thu), 22:24
If I were to recommend a single lens then I'd have to say either the Tokina 12-24 (if wide is your thing) or the Tamron 28-75 (if you prefer longer). I have the Tamron 17-35 and 28-75. I might go for a Tokina 12-24 or a Tamron 11-18 at some point.

Fade2
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 00:11
If Ritz/Wolf Camera gave me a Quanteray lens I'd give it back to them!
I was there today looking at the 50mm 1.8 and they wanted $89.00 for it,
I had just left Calumet (they were out of stock) and they wanted $76.99
I asked if they did the price match thing and to my surprise they said YES!
So I got it there for $76.99.
That's the only way I'd ever shop with those Overpriced bandits!:lol:
Oh by the way I had the Quanteray 70-300, I shot a fashion show with it on a Sunday and sold it on Ebay Monday!
It sucked BIG TIME!

SuzyView
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 06:15
Fade, did you also take you 70-200, I hope. Can't have thought it would give you the the results that the 70-200 would give you.

Andy_T
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 06:48
The problem with this generalization is that Quantaray and Promaster lenses are Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina lenses, just labeled as Quantaray and Promaster.


The interesting question for me is ... can you be sure of this?

Who would keep Quantaray/Promaster from farming out part of all of their production to Phoenix, Cosina, Vivitar, Digital optics? Those are todays' equivalent of Tamron/Tokina 15 years ago, and you certainly can save a buck or two by going from a reputed manufacturer producing those in China to a less reputed one knocking off other designs in a possibly less organized different factory in China.

Best regards,
Andy

Calzinger
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 06:59
My cousin got a Quantaray 70-300 from his workmate for free. From the pictures he's taken with it, it's apparently a permanent soft focus.

Travis F
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:11
When I was new to photography I bought a Quantaray 70-300. And no, I am not ahamed of it. It was my first lens purchase to add to my kit 300D kit lens and it did for me everything that I wanted and needed it to do at the time. Actually, it probably did more than I needed, it opened up a whole new element of photography that the kit lens couldn't (telephoto).

As my knowledge, technique, and skill started to expand is when the quantaray started coming up short. So I sold it and moved up the ladder a little.

Just my experience with it.

Travis

tomnackid
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:24
Most softness with cheap lenses comes from camera shake due to the slowness of the lens, not poor optical performance. Good light, a high ISO seting, good camera handling techniques or the much underused tripod all go a long way towards getting the most out of inexpensive lenses.

runninmann
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:27
The interesting question for me is ... can you be sure of this?

Best regards,
AndyEven if this is true (that these are Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lenses rebadged), that does not necessarily mean that they are "identical" or "equivalent" to those brands. For instance, I'm sure there are specifications for such dimensions as coating thickness and lens surface radius and concentricity between lens barrel and focus/zoom ring and so on. Well, if Tamron/Tokina has requirements that are a fraction of a mil tighter on coating or a fraction of a radian tighter on lens radius or a fraction of a degree TIR, etc. then Quantaray/Promaster lenses become an excellent way to use material that would otherwise be scrapped. While this might not be economically advantageous in a highly automated, high labor factory, it's entirely feasible if the factory is one that depends more on manual operations in a low labor area. So, while the "lineage" of the Quantaray lens may be traceable, its relative quality cannot be assumed merely because of that lineage.

Calzinger
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:36
Most softness with cheap lenses comes from camera shake due to the slowness of the lens, not poor optical performance. Good light, a high ISO seting, good camera handling techniques or the much underused tripod all go a long way towards getting the most out of inexpensive lenses.
Camera shake? I think I can tell the difference between motion blur and softness. My cousin's Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is always soft when shot wide open, regardless of lighting conditions. Now I'm pretty sure it's soft unless there's a way to get camera shake when shooting 1/2000" at 24mm. Shallow DOF? No, I get plenty sharp shots with my 70-200 and 50 1.8 and they always get a much more shallow DOF. It must be an optical or mechanical flaw with the lens and given the price of it, one can't complain. After all, it's a lottery with Sigma.

Dependent upon how nuts you are about IQ, cheaper lenses could do you just fine. There are even some cheaper third-party lenses that are fantastic for the price ( ie. the renown tamron 28-75 2.8 ).

FlashZebra
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:41
The interesting question for me is ... can you be sure of this?

Who would keep Quantaray/Promaster from farming out part of all of their production to Phoenix, Cosina, Vivitar, Digital optics? Those are todays' equivalent of Tamron/Tokina 15 years ago, and you certainly can save a buck or two by going from a reputed manufacturer producing those in China to a less reputed one knocking off other designs in a possibly less organized different factory in China.

Best regards,
Andy
Vivitar is just a marketing name also, so they are not making any lenses for Quantaray/Promaster, or anyone else. They do not make lenses.

Cosina does makes lenses, and some of the lenses from Quantaray/Promaster may very well be from Cosina.

Not sure if Phoenix is just a marketing name of if they make lenses, my best guess is that they are just a marketing name (but I could be very wrong about this).

Please read the my next post also dealing with "can you be sure of this".

Enjoy! Lon

FlashZebra
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:47
Even if this is true (that these are Tokina/Tamron/Sigma lenses rebadged), that does not necessarily mean that they are "identical" or "equivalent" to those brands. For instance, I'm sure there are specifications for such dimensions as coating thickness and lens surface radius and concentricity between lens barrel and focus/zoom ring and so on. Well, if Tamron/Tokina has requirements that are a fraction of a mil tighter on coating or a fraction of a radian tighter on lens radius or a fraction of a degree TIR, etc. then Quantaray/Promaster lenses become an excellent way to use material that would otherwise be scrapped. While this might not be economically advantageous in a highly automated, high labor factory, it's entirely feasible if the factory is one that depends more on manual operations in a low labor area. So, while the "lineage" of the Quantaray lens may be traceable, its relative quality cannot be assumed merely because of that lineage.
In mass produced items, it is more likely things are the same than different. You do not make things inexpensive by making the process not conform to a standard.

Certainly I cannot be sure of this, but the same thing could be said about your assumptions that they are different.

Carefully consider the construction of the lens I cite in one post in this thread, the Tamron 70-300mm F/4-5.6 LD Macro (I have done this, as I have one). Fundimental the basis for this lens is very intricate plastic constuction. Profit on this lens is being made by cranking them out, not by grade sorting (as you imply). The high tooling costs for the intricate plastic parts, must be spread over high production numbers, you do not get high production numbers by sorting, sorting, and sorting (or developing a production process that varies).

My assumptions are no more cavalier than yours, or the assumption that all Quantaray lens are terrible, or at least do not deliver quality commensurate with the lenses they are based on.

Also, not being absolutely sure is seldom reason to inhibit action. Are you sure your fresh fish does not contain high levels of mercury? Are you sure the tire changer at "Tire America" tightened all yourt lugnuts to the correct torque?

I am not one inclined toward brash decisions. But, I am also not fixed to the floor unable to move when absolute certainty is not assured. Moving thought life based on what seems to be reasonable seems, well reasonable.

Enjoy! Lon

Jon
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 09:55
In mass produced items, it is more likely things are the same than different. You do not make things inexpensive by making the process not conform to a standard.But you can cut costs for a model by dropping a couple of stages of the process, like not sending some of the lens elements through the coating process. Or you can set a looser standard of tolerance for one model than another; lenses which fail the stricter tests get stamped with the "cheaper" name. I'll refer you to the auto industry where "virtually identical" cars bearing different brand names have quite different quality reputations. Also consistent reports in the computer/electronic industry that chips/components which fail a performance test get re-badged as the next level down.

runninmann
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 10:01
In mass produced items, it is more likely things are the same than different. You do not make things inexpensive by making the process not conform to a standard.

Certainly I cannot be sure of this, but the same thing could be said about your assumptions that they are different.

My assumptions are no more cavalier that the assumption that all Quantaray lens are bad, or at least do not deliver quality commensurate with the lenses they are based on.

Enjoy! LonI agree with your generalization about mass production. However, after visiting and evaluating the manufacturing systems of more than two dozen factories in Shanghai, Suzhou, Ningbo, Shenyen and other Chinese cities, that produce integrated circuit boards, automotive audio systems, automotive hardware components and the equipment to manufacture those parts, I can state that paradigm does not apply in China. Many processes that I have seen performed with high automation and little or no labor in Europe and North America are often accomplished with minimal automation and very high labor in China. This facts makes "customization" much more acceptable there. I would venture to guess that there will be some percentage of the Quantaray lenses that are identical to their "parent". The issue is that, if my scenario of wider tolerances is true, there is a wider variation in the quality levels of those lenses so that some will be good and others not so good.

FlashZebra
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 10:25
I would venture to guess that there will be some percentage of the Quantaray lenses that are identical to their "parent".
I have been in lots of factories making various things in Hong Kong, China, Taiwan (and other countries, but not specifically lens factories) and am aware of the prevailing conditions.

But, your declaration in the quote above underscores my underlying point. If you want things easy, just going with Quantaray = bad is a reasonable approach (I stated this in my opening post, and once again in a later post). But, if you are willing to dig a bit to sort out the Quantaray lenses that may transcend the general trend, and willing to buy used, Quantaray lens may be a good value.

A $60.00 to $80.00 used Quantaray 70-300mm F/4-5.6 macro lens would allow many a use mode that they would not be able to afford otherwise. Good utility that can be obtained, if often much better that near perfect utility that cannot be afforded.

Enjoy! Lon

FlashZebra
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 10:47
But you can cut costs for a model by dropping a couple of stages of the process, like not sending some of the lens elements through the coating process.
Of course, but making things different, may very well make it more expensive, even if a few steps here and there can be eliminated

Or you can set a looser standard of tolerance for one model than another; lenses which fail the stricter tests get stamped with the "cheaper" name.
This is likely not the case here. Inspecting/sorting/grading is expensive and is unlikey the process used. If you look at the lenses they have small unique identifications such as tampo printing and friction rings that are slightly different. Changing a Tamron lens to another grade would be an expensive rework undertaking involving disassembly, componet change, and reassembly. Look at a Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 LD macro lens. See the deco. You are not going to easily change that lens to a Quantaray version.

I'll refer you to the auto industry where "virtually identical" cars bearing different brand names have quite different quality reputations.
Often these "reputations" are based on owner testimonials, not quantifiable attribute measurement. When quantifiable attributes are compared, often these very similar models, with different names, are very comparable. That is sort of what is underling my posts. Going with grand declarations like Quantaray = bad, based solely on user testimonials may lead one into a situation where a worthy part of the line is overlooked. And especially with used Quantaray lenses (since the reputation is so bad). A rock bottom used price may deliver a lens that is a value, if you have done your homework, and have reason to believe that a particular used Quantaray may be a worth lens. A $60.00 to $80.00 used Quantaray 70-300mm F/4-5.6 macro lens would allow many a use mode that they would not be able to afford otherwise. Good utility that can be obtained, if often much better that near perfect utility that cannot be afforded.

Also consistent reports in the computer/electronic industry that chips/components which fail a performance test get re-badged as the next level down.
See above.

Enjoy! Lon

bettyn
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 13:07
Owned a Quantaray lens once for a film SLR and absolutely could not put any kind of a hood or filter on it. The vignetting was really, really bad. I think I had it about a month before trading it in on something decent. Unless that brand has improved a lot, I'd avoid those lenses like the plague.

braduardo
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 17:33
The true advantage of cheaper lenses is that they let you develop a good idea of exactly what you want to do with your photography without spending an arm and a leg. For example, you can buy a cheap zoom. The optics may not be the best, but it WILL give you an idea of what focal lengths you use a lot. Eventually you are bound to decide that the lens limits you in one way or another, and you upgrade, but your experience using the cheaper lens helps you find a more suitable lens for your next purchase.

When I got my 75-300 I was a pretty new photog, so it blew me away. The more time I spent taking pictures, and learning more about what I was doing, the more limiting I found the IQ and focus speeds to be. Eventually, after much debating, and studying, and stressing, I decided I was ready to step up.

For a beginner, an inexpensive lens is a great thing. It's good to be able to experiment and then spend the big bucks where you will use them the most.

You do get what you pay for, but that doesn't mean if you go cheap you will never get good pictures. You will just have to work harder to get them.

rhys
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 17:56
The problem with buying a bad lens is that you have to pay extra to upgrade and that very few people will buy the nasty lens off you.

I have a Tamron AD2 MF 300mm f5.6 lens and nobody will buy it from me and I've been trying to sell it for 15 years (off and on). Pretty much the same story for my Tamron 135 and 28. Nobody's interested.

Rather than throw money away on trash, buy well the first time.

Guineh
28th of July 2006 (Fri), 18:10
I thought I'd chime in... after reading this thread I had to try this myself. Under not-so-ideal conditions, but relatively consistent between runs, I ran imatest against a self-printed test chart. Using my 50 f1.8 as the benchmark, and the quantarray as the lens I was testing, the quantarray got roughly half the resolution the 1.8 did, and wasn't much better stopped down. I dunno if I managed carefully controlled conditions with a real test target if there would be a difference in the relative resolution or not, I think it probably would show a considerably less sharp lens.

I have other complaints about the lens, though. In situations where there is a lot of details under direct sunlight, there's a weird ghosting, etc. I wouldn't recommend the lens to anyone. I've taken a few fair pictures, but most of my keepers have been from the kit lens or the 50 f/1.8.

As for whether to buy such a cheap lens as a starter? I'd have to say no. Save your pennies and get a decent (like the sigma APO 70-300, its not much more) lens.

sartek
21st of November 2006 (Tue), 05:53
My understanding from a meber of PRO (Promaster) is that Hoya (Tokina?) manufactures nearly ALL of the products for the Promaster line. PRO is the Photographic Research Organization,Inc. founded in 1958 as a co-op of independant photography stores that are the "photo experts" in their local areas. I have been using Promaster lenses for nearly 8 years, and prefer them over Canon lenses.

Lani Kai
22nd of November 2006 (Wed), 01:57
Prefer them for cost or for performance? Are they any cheaper than their Tokina counterparts?
I once saw a Promaster-branded Tokina 12-24mm f/4 on sale at FredMiranda.com and it just would not sell because it wasn't a Tokina.
I once had a Promaster UV filter which was the same as the basic Hoya (green label) filter... I currently have a Promaster backpack which is a Lowepro MiniTrekker without the AW cover.

braduardo
22nd of November 2006 (Wed), 06:03
I have promaster extension tubes, and I don't think they are any different than the Kenko variety, other than the brand markings. On the other hand though, The Q-ray lens offerings I've been seeing just aren't up to par with the Canon/Sigma/Tamron lenses in the same price range. There may be some that do, but I haven't seen them.

sartek
22nd of November 2006 (Wed), 14:16
both in cost and performance. one of my two 35-80 canon EF lens on my Rebel G stopped working correctly some months after I purchased it, and the second one I bought reacts slowly. I picked up some ProMaster lenses to replace those and have been extremely satsified ever since. And I baby my cameras.. My rebel G was nearly 6 months wages for me at the time I bought it.

Granted, I started on a 1965 Yashica that my mother gave me. I've aways been of the thought that I'd rather learn to be the best with the equipment I have, before upgrading it to make it better, rather than start at the top of the line and have nowhere to go. There's also the fact that I do not do photography professionally, nor do I intend to. I just want to be good at it. With the promaster lenses (at least in my area) I'm not going to be going broke with each lens I buy, and I have the opportunity to experience what the lenses allow me to do with each shot.

Bamamike
24th of November 2006 (Fri), 18:31
And at the end it is all the same: you get what you pay for.

Travis F
24th of November 2006 (Fri), 21:34
The simple fact might be, not everyone that visits this site and/or owns a Canon DSLR is really concerned with top quality sharpeness.

Try to remember back when you first used a SLR camera.... A lot to learn right? Well, this is all that is being asked here.

Not everyone needs L series glass, nor should they. If they did, alot of photographers would be out of work....... wouldn't they?


I say, if you can't get the image otherwise.........

Go for the Quantaray. A less than par image is better than no image at all!

I am in no way trying to lead anyone in the wrong direction, only trying to fill a void that opens wider everyday here.

Travis

hard12find
24th of November 2006 (Fri), 22:12
I have the quantaray 70-300 f4-f5.6 and although it is no "l" series lense it does produce some nice quality photographs, and in the 70 to 100 range actually has some nice Bokeh, for portraits. I also have a tamron 28-200 that I bought for around $100 on E Bay..that I absolutely love.....
Dont expect great quality at 300 though.......Jim

Jon
29th of November 2006 (Wed), 13:47
The simple fact might be, not everyone that visits this site and/or owns a Canon DSLR is really concerned with top quality sharpeness.

Try to remember back when you first used a SLR camera.... A lot to learn right? Well, this is all that is being asked here.

Not everyone needs L series glass, nor should they. If they did, alot of photographers would be out of work....... wouldn't they?


I say, if you can't get the image otherwise.........

Go for the Quantaray. A less than par image is better than no image at all!

I am in no way trying to lead anyone in the wrong direction, only trying to fill a void that opens wider everyday here.

Travis
The thing is, if you go to B&H, for instance, you can get a better lens than Quantaray offers for about the same money. The Sigma 70-300, say rather than Quantaray's comparable offering.

ChrisBlaze
29th of November 2006 (Wed), 14:34
Run away from those Ritz/Wolf dealers FAST!!! Do some research on lenses in the focal range you want. What are you planning on taking images of? Go to WWW.Photo.Net (http://WWW.Photo.Net) and click on the learn tab. In the learn area it will go over the lenses typically used for those applications...


I agree, I use to love going into the local Ritz shop until one day I have my 70-200 f/2.8 with me and the guy said that the Quantaray lens was almost as good. After futher researching I found out that they mkae commision on the off brand lenses thats way they push them soo much!

Lani Kai
29th of November 2006 (Wed), 21:46
After futher researching I found out that they mkae commision on the off brand lenses thats way they push them soo much!
That, and the only lenses they know about aside from the Quantarays are the 70/75-300 lenses made by Canon or Nikon.
To be fair, though, most people that walk into Ritz in search of a lens really won't need an L lens.

Lunajen
25th of December 2006 (Mon), 20:57
I am pretty sure but the Quantaray's are made by Sigma. I just feel that it is a lesser quality lens made for the first time buyer. Not for most of the shooters on this board.
It is an affordable lens to offer as a less expensive way to go for someone just starting out.

Jon
26th of December 2006 (Tue), 14:17
It's been claimed that Quantarays are rebadged Sigmas, but if you look at their lineup it becomes apparent that they'll source the lenses from wherever they can get a good price. Some (dimensions, elements, etc.) are clearly Tokina, or Phoenix, or . . .

black_z
27th of December 2006 (Wed), 18:45
I know it's a cheap lens, but I have taken some GOOD shots it.

Here is a thread of mine from a recent air show I attended. Not bad for a "junk" lens! :)


http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=254166

ShotByTom
27th of December 2006 (Wed), 22:43
If you're going to buy a "cheap" lens, talk to someone who already owns it first. You'll find someone on here that has any lens available! I went for a cheap set of lenses when I bought my camera, two sigmas, 28-70 & 70-300 for $179 at 47th Street on ebay. I hated the 28-70, but I'm happy with the 70-300, and you can get one of those for well under $159.