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: Pete Stavrakoglou on 27 Jul 2010 16:34 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4c4ed183$0$5522$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message > news:i2mi4k$pqn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >> news:4c4e2528$0$5544$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:i2ks32$jaj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>> news:4c4103af$1$5486$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>>> "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message >>>>> news:fik146l055tvtokiq1drpod63tnpghahem(a)4ax.com... >>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat" >>>>>> <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> : In article >>>>>> : >>>>>> <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>> : RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> : >>>>>> : > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an >>>>>> Olympus >>>>>> : > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area). >>>>>> : >>>>>> : If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better >>>>>> off. >>>>>> >>>>>> And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that >>>>>> because I'm >>>>>> one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? >>>>>> Or because >>>>>> Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's >>>>>> competitors and >>>>>> their fanboys? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want >>>>> to. From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try a >>>>> few. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Would this by chance have been at Sigma USA's location? If so, the >>>> next time you go you must let me know. I work within a five-minute >>>> drive from there. >>> >>> >>> I went to the annual NECCC conference at Amherst, MA. Sigma had a booth >>> with a bunch of their lenses on display, which participants could borrow >>> for a an hour or two. I tried, without success to convince the rep that >>> the 800 was much too heavy and I world be happy to carry it home for >>> her. I promised to return it in less than two years. Here I was being >>> gallant to a nice young lady and she would not accept my help. >>> >>> Seriously, where are they located? It sound like a nice idea, especially >>> since I am semi retired. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter >> >> LOL! Chivalry is dead. >> >> Sigma USA is in Ronkonkoma right off of Vets Hwy. > > > Will they let visitors play with the lenses? > > > -- > Peter Yes they will.
From: Peter on 27 Jul 2010 23:12 "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:i2nfte$usn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message > news:4c4ed183$0$5522$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >> news:i2mi4k$pqn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>> news:4c4e2528$0$5544$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >>>> news:i2ks32$jaj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:4c4103af$1$5486$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>>>>> "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fik146l055tvtokiq1drpod63tnpghahem(a)4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat" >>>>>>> <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> : In article >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-0194398c73c9(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >>>>>>> : 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). >>>>>>> : >>>>>>> : 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want >>>>>> to. From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try >>>>>> a few. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> Would this by chance have been at Sigma USA's location? If so, the >>>>> next time you go you must let me know. I work within a five-minute >>>>> drive from there. >>>> >>>> >>>> I went to the annual NECCC conference at Amherst, MA. Sigma had a booth >>>> with a bunch of their lenses on display, which participants could >>>> borrow for a an hour or two. I tried, without success to convince the >>>> rep that the 800 was much too heavy and I world be happy to carry it >>>> home for her. I promised to return it in less than two years. Here I >>>> was being gallant to a nice young lady and she would not accept my >>>> help. >>>> >>>> Seriously, where are they located? It sound like a nice idea, >>>> especially since I am semi retired. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter >>> >>> LOL! Chivalry is dead. >>> >>> Sigma USA is in Ronkonkoma right off of Vets Hwy. >> >> >> Will they let visitors play with the lenses? >> >> >> -- >> Peter > > Yes they will. > Sound like a plan. I may shoot for Thursday. If you contact me offline I'll give you my cell. -- Peter
From: Robert Coe on 30 Jul 2010 20:44 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:42:55 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: : "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message : news:18a6d143-fe5e-48a5-87d3-5e549898337b(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... : 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. : : It's not a kit lens yet you said it was, you are wrong, it's that simple. : If you actually ever used a kit lens and one of Sigma's EX lenses, you : would know how silly it is to say that an EX lens is a kit lens. You're right that it's silly, but you may be wrong that he'd know. Bob
From: Robert Coe on 30 Jul 2010 21:06 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. Bob
From: Peter on 30 Jul 2010 21:53
"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 |