Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Jupiter
Next: Commenting On Unused Equipment
From: nospam on 25 Oct 2009 15:09 In article <s8v8e5p0p8ap5el4u0n3v1ud9p8tki66pc(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon lenses, > >with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it > >doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses > >(including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them. > > With good budget OEM lenses are available, I personally don't think the > difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses. for you, but you don't speak for everyone. i think his point is that the third party lens makers make lenses that nikon/canon do *not* make. > If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine. > If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver. some third party lenses definitely deliver, just as some nikon/canon lenses do not. it all depends on the particular lens.
From: nospam on 25 Oct 2009 19:07 In article <hc2hpf01ub2(a)news5.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > This makes it sound like Sigma is reverse-engineering to because they are > too cheap to pay for a license, when in fact Canon claims that NOBODY has > been provided the EF specification. according to this post, tamron and cosina have agreements in place: <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=16953224> Only Tamron and Cosina have such a agreements in place, which is why you don't hear about those lenses needing to be rechipped the way you continually hear about Sigmas and Tokinas. My own Sigma 30mm f1.4 needs to go in to be rechipped for compatability for my Nikon D200. Check the Japanese IP law journals, there have been a couple of interesting suits between Sigma and Canon. Not what one calls a "working relationship".
From: nospam on 26 Oct 2009 16:58 In article <hc5119$g8v$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > > Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen > > one. > Some of us do buy their cameras and like them. the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at the same time! > Being a Sigma DSLR user, > I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with > only one. there are a *lot* of posts in the sigma forum on dpreview with various problems. the sd14 has lockups and writes corrupted files, the dp1 and dp2 have a lovely red grid problem, the lens mechanism fails, the autofocus is slow, battery drains in hours even when not using it, etc. > Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and > the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with. i've seen posts where sigma usa rejected repairs and claimed 'customer damage' followed by fanbois saying 'you packed it wrong' or some such garbage. always the user's fault, never sigma. there are also posts where a camera or lens had to be sent to sigma japan for 2-3 *months*, only to have it come back with a different set of problems.
From: Bob Larter on 27 Oct 2009 03:24 RustY � wrote: > "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message > news:s8v8e5p0p8ap5el4u0n3v1ud9p8tki66pc(a)4ax.com... > >> ...................I personally don't think the >> difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses. >> If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine. >> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver. >> >> > I now only own Canon lenses - some cheap e-bay ones and some new 'L' series > glass but never again will I buy non genuine lenses. For what I do it really > isn't worth the money saved. I've bought one Sigma lens. Never again. All my others are genuine Canons. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 27 Oct 2009 03:32
Noons wrote: > Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 3:43 PM: >>> >>> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but >>> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy >>> *all* customers. >> >> Rubbish. Back when I ran a service department for a computer products >> company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome >> clients by proving that they were actually costing us money. >> > > Hmmmmm....... > I wonder why you stopped running that service department? > <g,d&r> It was because the company was acquired by a pair of morons who thought that an MBA was a good substitute for actually knowing how to run a business. After putting up with several months of bullshit from them, I quit to join a friend's DotBomb business. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |