Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Film and Motrin
Next: Are there any programs that can convert color infra-red photos to actual color?
From: Bruce on 31 Jul 2010 06:00 On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > >Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone reviewed >it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in the group to buy one, >but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no independent data to go on. Is there really any such thing as "independent data" to go on? Review samples are very carefully selected and may not be at all representative of the lenses that people actually buy in stores. Sigma is notorious for this. The only answer is to buy one from a store with a good returns policy, test it yourself, thoroughly, and see if it meets your standards. If not, send it back for a refund.
From: Robert Coe on 31 Jul 2010 08:32 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:00:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: : On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: : > : >Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone : >reviewed it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in : >the group to buy one, but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no : >independent data to go on. : : Is there really any such thing as "independent data" to go on? : Review samples are very carefully selected and may not be at all : representative of the lenses that people actually buy in stores. : Sigma is notorious for this. : : The only answer is to buy one from a store with a good returns : policy, test it yourself, thoroughly, and see if it meets your : standards. If not, send it back for a refund. I was hoping one of you guys would beat me to it! ;^) Bob
From: Bruce on 31 Jul 2010 09:44 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:32:54 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:00:25 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >: > >: >Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone >: >reviewed it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in >: >the group to buy one, but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no >: >independent data to go on. >: >: Is there really any such thing as "independent data" to go on? >: Review samples are very carefully selected and may not be at all >: representative of the lenses that people actually buy in stores. >: Sigma is notorious for this. >: >: The only answer is to buy one from a store with a good returns >: policy, test it yourself, thoroughly, and see if it meets your >: standards. If not, send it back for a refund. > >I was hoping one of you guys would beat me to it! ;^) You won't catch me buying a Sigma lens ever again; I have been burned too many times already, starting in 1975. Lessons have been learned. I have never owned, used or tested a Sigma lens that fulfilled Sigma's claims for its performance. Never, not once, nada. The differences were significant, and that also applied on several occasions where I tested more than one sample. When you take Sigma lenses apart, the build quality, even on the nice-looking EX lenses, is absolutely atrocious. You don't always get what you pay for, but you hardly ever get what you didn't pay for.
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 2 Aug 2010 08:14
"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4c53823c$0$5505$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message > news:6us656hd35n91m4ini0qag562ns2i4rgvl(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:46:10 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou" >> <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> >> wrote: >> : "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message >> : news:p2g3469a5rnsod9afae2boabgbb6hpf4qh(a)4ax.com... >> : > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:09:05 +1200, Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> : > : On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote: >> : > : > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an >> Olympus >> : > : > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). >> : > : > >> : > : > http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp >> : > : Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street >> price >> : > : will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP. >> : > : You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in >> every >> : > : performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base >> that >> : > : assumption. So perhaps it's you who is insane? >> : > >> : > Adorama doesn't have it, but says they'd sell it for $669 if they >> did. >> : > B&H and Hunt's don't appear to have heard of it yet. >> : > >> : > I once paid about $700 for a Sigma telephoto, and so far it's been >> worth >> : > it. But $670 for a 3rd-party walking-around lens does seem pretty >> steep. >> : > Sigma's previous walker, the 18-50mm f/2.8, goes for about $250 less. >> : > Maybe they're trying to hold the price up until they run out of the >> old >> : > one. >> : >> : The 17-50 has OS and also a new type of glass that is suppossed to be >> : similar to Canon's flourite glass. Those two things will account for >> the >> : higher price compared to an older model like the 18-50mm EX. >> >> Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone >> reviewed >> it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in the group to buy >> one, >> but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no independent data to go on. > > > FWIIW > Yesterday I tested the Sigma 8-16 again. I was very unhappy about the fit > on my camera. The fit was so tight I could almost, but not quite feel the > metal grinding. The rep at Sigma tried to convince me that the fit was > supposed to be that tight. The first lens I tried was not so tight. > Application to your issue: Sigma seems to be inconsistent in its tooling > and be careful. > -- > Peter That sure was a tight fit, tighter than I'd ever seen in any lens I have, Sigma or otherwise. I recently acquired a Tokina 11-16mm and put it on for a test drive yesterday. That one has a very tight fit on both of my Canon bodies, yet all the other lenses - including Tokinas - don't fit that tightly. |