Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Jupiter
Next: Commenting On Unused Equipment
From: Calvin Sambrook on 23 Oct 2009 17:22 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:231020091224233264%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <95v3e59c3ofa2ihu7lmbpvuui1jsuu0ure(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> >just avoid sigma lenses >> >> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for. > > generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the > sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300 > aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you > just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less! > > <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20> I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly criticize a major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is almost unheard of. They must be absolutely certain of their position. And what a position, of Sigma they say: "Our techs coined the phrase "Sigma'd" to describe any lens that didn't function." "[Sigma's] repair turnaround time was, to be charitable, leisurely." "Sigma was about 5% of our rentals but almost one-third of our customer complaints." I wish I'd known about that site before buying. So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub �200, it's a hobby after all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical reviews. Are Tamron any good?
From: nospam on 23 Oct 2009 17:31 In article <hbt6p3$l7s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Calvin Sambrook <csambrook(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: > So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub �200, it's a hobby after > all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens > as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical > reviews. Are Tamron any good? some are and some aren't. it depends on the lens. the tamron 90mm macro is outstanding, and one of the best macro lenses made. on the other hand, the tamron 200-400mm was horrible, truly horrible.
From: Chris Malcolm on 23 Oct 2009 18:55 In rec.photo.digital nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <hbt6p3$l7s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Calvin Sambrook > <csambrook(a)bigfoot.com> wrote: >> So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub 200, it's a hobby after >> all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens >> as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical >> reviews. Are Tamron any good? > some are and some aren't. it depends on the lens. the tamron 90mm macro > is outstanding, and one of the best macro lenses made. on the other > hand, the tamron 200-400mm was horrible, truly horrible. Same goes for Sony lenses. Their 18-250mm zoom for example is a rebadged and slightly improved version of the highly respected 18-250mm Tamron. It's a rare manufacturer that makes no good lenses. And despite the weak focus gear teeth on some of their heavier long zooms, some of Sigma's lenses are very good too. -- Chris Malcolm
From: me on 24 Oct 2009 11:51 On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:58:04 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >Amen. You tend to get what you pay for. Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the delta cost for that.
From: nospam on 24 Oct 2009 13:54
In article <ie86e5dso2kr7v05c2ajdd9i9r8bhnan6b(a)4ax.com>, me <me(a)mine.net> wrote: > >Amen. You tend to get what you pay for. > > Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro > 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon > equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the > delta cost for that. that's a very good lens, and there's also a new version of it with a built-in motor. |