Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Jupiter
Next: Commenting On Unused Equipment
From: michael adams on 31 Oct 2009 11:03 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:rhrtr6-mmv.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message > > >> To be able to rent them, to make money, presumably. > > > But if some hirers can make money by hiring out Sigma Lenses, then why > > instead of also hiring out Sigma lenses and simiilarly making money > > do Lensrental instead devote an entire web page denigrating Sigma > > Lenses ? > > Have you stopped beating your wife? That's not a valid analogy. I have never beaten my wife. So the implication inherent in the question is simply erroneous. Whereas as I said a) Some hirers have made money by renting out Sigma Lenses. There is no implication there, I have simply stated a fact which happens to be true Again as I said, b) Rather than follow the practice of every other hirer by simply making money by renting out Sigma Lenses, Lensrental have instead devoted an entire webpage denigrating Sigma lenses. Whether in addition they chose to rent out the odd Sigma Lens is neither here nor there. Except possibly to cast doubt on their motives for the webpage. Again there is no implication there at all. I have simply stated a fact which again happens to be true. And so I am simply asking you how you reconcile those two facts: a) and b) ? Simply trying to cloud the issue by endless repetition of a totally irrelevant beating your wife analogy doesn't fool anyone Wolfgang. Which is why I won't even bother responding any further to those particular points. So to just repeat, how do you reconcile the two facts above a) and b) ? < repetetive material snipped > > > > The question isn't the qualities or otherwise of Sigma lenses, Wolfgang but > > why one and only one of the hundreds if not thousands of suppliers of > > lenses including the Sigma brand around the world have chosen to act > > in this way. > > Prove that only one has chosen to act that way. (Hint: You > cannot, michael, you cannot.) Proving generaliations is only possible in formal systems such as logic and mathematics Wolfgang. Didn't you know that ? So you can forget that lap of honour even before you even get started In the real world Wolfgang, in formulating hypotheses including all scientific thories we're always faced with the problem of induction. We can only base hypotheses on the evidence we have - not on the evidence that we don't have. And can't get. Such as evidence concerning future events. Either singly or in totality. My claim - or theory - is that there is only one Lens hirer with a webpage denigrating Sigma Lenses. And that claim or theory is true, up until such time as you or anyone else can produce a link to a webpage from another hirer which also denigrates Sigma lenses. Trying to ignore the situation - in the vain hope that there may be other web pages out there that it seems nobody actually knows about, fools no-one I'm afraid. Just produce the evidence, that second website that's all I'm asking. > > > Possibly the best kind of free publicity that Nikon and Canon > > could possibly hope for when it comes to shifting lens inventory. > > Quality pays. .... Operating a duopoly and underming the competetion pays, you mean .... > > > > In the real world Wolfgang, do you think major manufacturers of lenses such > > as Canon and Nikon would like kindly on Lensrental and their webpage > > denigrating Sigma ? > > "would like kindly on"? What language is that? Did you > sigma your language or what? .... A spelling flame. How sweet ! Haven't seen one of those for years. Clearly there are no depths to which your desperation won't sink in your hour of need. Invalid analogies, spelling flames, whatever next I ask myself ? .... > > > And speaking purely hypothetically how do you think they > > might express that kindness ? Apart from the usual baskets of fruit, boxes of > > chocolates and bunches of flowers that is. > > Ah, so now you, michael, get to explain why no other rental > agencies seek the kindness of Canon and Nikon ... .... They pay a competitive rate for Canon and Nikon and get a much better rate from Sigma than Lensrental were ever able to screw out of them. How does that suit ? michael adams .... > > -Wolfgang > > -- > The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign > that the conspiracy is working.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 1 Nov 2009 10:33 michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: Lots of handwaving, which proves that "michael adams" has not even read what I have written, blandfaced repetitions what he wrote, lies (yes, it's a lie if you knowingly repeat a falsehood), etc. I'll just give you one nugget of his logic, slightly edited for brevity. No longer you have to prove your claims, the other side has to disprove it now: > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true, > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the > contrary] My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife and cannot read. Now, that claim or theory *IS* *TRUE!* up until such time as he (or anyone else) can produce proof to the contrary. Have fun, wife beater. Any further discussion with a liar who won't read (and is a known wife beater, too, by his own logic) is just not worth it --- he won't read it (nor understand it) anyway. -Wolfgang
From: michael adams on 1 Nov 2009 16:57 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:7bm0s6-b78.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > Lots of handwaving, which proves that "michael adams" has not even > read what I have written, blandfaced repetitions what he wrote, > lies (yes, it's a lie if you knowingly repeat a falsehood), etc. > > I'll just give you one nugget of his logic, slightly edited > for brevity. No longer you have to prove your claims, the > other side has to disprove it now: > > > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true, > > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the > > contrary] > > My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife > and cannot read. Oh dear ! No wonder you substituted that [whatever} there, Wolfgang. Hoping no-one would notice the difference And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ? My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma lenses. And I have produced evidence in support of that theory - the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses You have produced no evidence whatsoever that I beat my wife and as to your theory it's entirely vacuous and without any meaningful content. It's only possible to stop doing something if you're already doing it. If someone has never beaten their wife then the question of whether they have stopped doing so is totally meaningless. You might just as well ask them what noise do blue bananas make, and insist on an answer to that question instead. Both questions are equally meaningless and devoid of content. Bananas aren't blue, and don't make a noise. Just as people who have never beaten their wives can't have stopped doing something which they never did in the first place. Tell me Wolfgang, didn't they explain all that to you, on that website you copied your trick question from ? < snipped insults, evidence of rank cowardice, attempts to run away etc. etc.> Looks like someone's finally bitten off more than he can chew. michael adams > > -Wolfgang
From: Nelson J. on 1 Nov 2009 18:57 On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:57:49 -0000, "michael adams" <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > >"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >news:7bm0s6-b78.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >> michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> >> Lots of handwaving, which proves that "michael adams" has not even >> read what I have written, blandfaced repetitions what he wrote, >> lies (yes, it's a lie if you knowingly repeat a falsehood), etc. >> >> I'll just give you one nugget of his logic, slightly edited >> for brevity. No longer you have to prove your claims, the >> other side has to disprove it now: >> >> > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true, >> > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the >> > contrary] >> >> My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife >> and cannot read. > > >Oh dear ! No wonder you substituted that [whatever} there, Wolfgang. > >Hoping no-one would notice the difference > >And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ? > >My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma >lenses. And I have produced evidence in support of that theory - >the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses > >You have produced no evidence whatsoever that I beat my wife >and as to your theory it's entirely vacuous and without any meaningful >content. > >It's only possible to stop doing something if you're already doing it. >If someone has never beaten their wife then the question of whether >they have stopped doing so is totally meaningless. You might just as >well ask them what noise do blue bananas make, and insist on an >answer to that question instead. Both questions are equally meaningless >and devoid of content. Bananas aren't blue, and don't make a noise. Just >as people who have never beaten their wives can't have stopped doing >something which they never did in the first place. > >Tell me Wolfgang, didn't they explain all that to you, on that website >you copied your trick question from ? > >< snipped insults, evidence of rank cowardice, attempts to run away etc. etc.> > >Looks like someone's finally bitten off more than he can chew. > > >michael adams > He always does that. Knows just enough from what he reads on the net to get himself in trouble. He can't dazzle anyone with brilliance so he attempts to baffle them with his bullshit. Now if you ask him about actually using real cameras in real life, that's a whole other story. That is far outside the realm of his experiences. "If I had read as many books as other men, I should have been as ignorant as they are." - Thomas Hobbes
From: SMS on 2 Nov 2009 07:03
Calvin Sambrook wrote: > I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase. > > I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews > say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great, > especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that > this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus > motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is > clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two > months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm > not alone. Thanks for the warning. In general you should avoid those third-party lenese at all costs. There are often compatibility problems because the lens was designed for the cameras available at the time, without any knowledge of what future camera models with the same lens mount would be capable of (not only mechanically, but in electronic communication between the camera and lens). Every time I'm tempted to but a third-party lens I take a deep breath and think about the Canon lenses I have that have lasted 12 years with no problems at all, and decide that if I buy the more expensive lens then within a few months I'll forget that I paid more for a better lens, but if I buy the crappy lens I'll have to live with that forever. |