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: nospam on 16 Jul 2010 17:53 In article <fik146l055tvtokiq1drpod63tnpghahem(a)4ax.com>, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: > : If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off. > > And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because I'm > one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or because > Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors and > their fanboys? pure luck. go look at lensrental's repair statistics and their experiences getting sigma to fix them. sigma told them 'customer damage' even when it was a brand new lens, never rented to anyone.
From: Robert Coe on 16 Jul 2010 18:01 On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> 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 I may have to put that puppy on my wish list, along with the 7D I'd use it on. ;^) But believe me when I tell you that I'll never pay $980 for it. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 16 Jul 2010 18:11 On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:17:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: : On Jul 16, 9:23�am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...(a)optonline.net> wrote: : > "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message : > : > news:49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... : > : > > $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 : > : > Two things which should be obvious to you: : > : > 1) �the lens will sell for less than MSRP as all of Sigma's lenses do : > 2) �it's not a kit lens : > : > You need to find something constructive to do with your time inmstead of : > going off half-cocked like you did once again. : : It's a wide to mid-angle zoom, slightly faster than a kit lens. That's : all. Have you ever used the current version of that lens (the 18-50mm f/2.8)? It weighs twice as much as a kit lens, and you could probably crack walnuts with it. And unlike any kit lens I ever saw, it's a CA zoom. Bob
From: Me on 16 Jul 2010 18:19 On 17/07/2010 9:41 a.m., Robert Coe wrote: > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : On Jul 16, 2:40 am, Bruce<docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...(a)gmail.com> > :> wrote: > :> > :> >On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, Me<u...(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? > :> > :> >So you think the Sigma will beat the Olympus? Do you know any other > :> >lens companies that measure lenses at 60lppm, including Zeiss or > :> >Leica? > :> > :> It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus > :> Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled > :> Four Thirds sensors. > : > : Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise, I consider 3:2 > : sensor a waste because of their format. > > How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is > towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no > longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is pretty > much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 aspect > ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs. > Perhaps he thinks the trend is a plot.
From: Me on 16 Jul 2010 18:22
On 16/07/2010 6:31 p.m., Bruce wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3127(a)gmail.com> > 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 > > > The Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (phew!) is well made and > significantly cheaper. It is unlikely to be bettered by the Sigma. > Is that another one that's been replaced with Tamron's sad excuse for in-lens focus motor? |