Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Jupiter
Next: Commenting On Unused Equipment
From: No spam please on 30 Oct 2009 14:32 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:8f4me5pp0dvpj6b93an3u5keu95rq43mgo(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:50:57 -0000, "michael adams" > <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote in <7l0gbjF3au4gcU1(a)mid.individual.net>: > >>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >>news:2tcor6-u9b.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... >>> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.] >>> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> > what makes you think these over the counter operations don't tell the >>> > customer that they should rent a nikon/canon lens instead? or that the >>> > sigma is 'out of stock' when it really means they're all broken? maybe >>> > the store stocks 1 sigma lens for every 10 nikon/canon lenses, just to >>> > appease the sigma fanbois who require sigma for some reason. >>> >>> Because that would shatter his conspiracy theory, and thus it >>> just can't be. > >>If Sigma lenses are as bad as they claim then why would they stock any >>at all ? >> >>Why would they stock even 1 lens ? >> >>If it was rubbish and the "fanbois" were going to bring it back >>anyway, then why would they bother to stock even one ? > > Presumably because there are customers to whom price is more important > than quality. > > -- > Best regards, > John Hello folks. From the reviews I have read in photographic magazines and web sites it seems to me that Sigma's quality control is less fuzzy than the quality control of Canon, Nikon and so on. If Sigma are less fussy about the quality of their lenses then they will be able to sell a higher percentage of their production than other manufacturers and thus offer them at lower prices than the other manufacturers. I've had two Sigma lenses develop faults. One fault (screw head shearing off from the lens mount) caused my camera body to stop working. I'd bought lens and body from the same retailer who was happy to let me have a new camera body. I also had a Sigma 105 macro lens. Its instructions warn against having the focussing ring in Manual mode while its focussing switch is in Auto mode yet it is extremely easy to inadvertently put the focussing ring into Manual mode. It was significantly slower to focus (and hunted significantly more) than a Canon macro. I eventually did a part-exchange with a local camera shop which, thankfully, still sells second-hand and does part-exchange deals. My point is that you may well be fortunate to get a Sigma lens at the "good" end of the production tolerance range. Personally, I seem to have had Sigma lenses at the "poor" end of the tolerance range. Regards, Rog.
From: nospam on 30 Oct 2009 15:33 In article <hcfbjp$1unt$1(a)adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote: > I've had two Sigma lenses develop faults. One fault (screw head shearing off > from the lens mount) caused my camera body to stop working. I'd bought lens > and body from the same retailer who was happy to let me have a new camera > body. which lens was that? that's *not* good. > I also had a Sigma 105 macro lens. Its instructions warn against having the > focussing ring in Manual mode while its focussing switch is in Auto mode yet > it is extremely easy to inadvertently put the focussing ring into Manual > mode. that's a design defect. there should be an interlock of some sort so you can't do that.
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 30 Oct 2009 16:20 michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> > what makes you think these over the counter operations don't tell the >> > customer that they should rent a nikon/canon lens instead? or that the >> > sigma is 'out of stock' when it really means they're all broken? maybe >> > the store stocks 1 sigma lens for every 10 nikon/canon lenses, just to >> > appease the sigma fanbois who require sigma for some reason. >> Because that would shatter his conspiracy theory, and thus it >> just can't be. > If Sigma lenses are as bad as they claim Whoever your specific "they" may be, the claim most likely is that these lenses are *on the average* more likely to need repairs. Others report that Sigma's QA is inconsistent, i.e. you can get good lenses (image quality wise), but not depend on a lens being good without extensive testing. This does not cause single lenses from Sigma or even specific models of Sigma lenses to be always bad --- something you seem to misunderstand. > then why would they stock any > at all ? To be able to rent them, to make money, presumably. After all, making money is the point of running a business. > Why would they stock even 1 lens ? To be able to rent them, to make money, presumably. > If it was rubbish and the "fanbois" were going to bring it back > anyway, then why would they bother to stock even one ? To be able to rent them, to make money, presumably. > I've got a theory that you don't actually know what you're talking > about here Wolfgang. Nice theory, unfortunately easily proven wrong. > But that theory can be easily disproved. Simply > by your providing a sensible answer to my question. I wonder how you can even ask such a question. It seems to prove my theory that you don't have a clue as to what happens in real life. > I won't hold my breath. I'd love to see you turning blue in the face, it'd be a great photo opportunity. -Wolfgang
From: michael adams on 30 Oct 2009 19:12 "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:hdurr6-0mc.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de... > michael adams <mjadams25(a)onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in message > >> nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >> > what makes you think these over the counter operations don't tell the > >> > customer that they should rent a nikon/canon lens instead? or that the > >> > sigma is 'out of stock' when it really means they're all broken? maybe > >> > the store stocks 1 sigma lens for every 10 nikon/canon lenses, just to > >> > appease the sigma fanbois who require sigma for some reason. > > >> Because that would shatter his conspiracy theory, and thus it > >> just can't be. > > > If Sigma lenses are as bad as they claim > > Whoever your specific "they" may be, the claim most likely is that > these lenses are *on the average* more likely to need repairs. > Others report that Sigma's QA is inconsistent, i.e. you can get > good lenses (image quality wise), but not depend on a lens being > good without extensive testing. > > This does not cause single lenses from Sigma or even specific > models of Sigma lenses to be always bad --- something you seem > to misunderstand. > > > then why would they stock any > > at all ? > > To be able to rent them, to make money, presumably. > After all, making money is the point of running a business. > > > Why would they stock even 1 lens ? > > To be able to rent them, to make money, presumably. > > > If it was rubbish and the "fanbois" were going to bring it back > > anyway, then why would they bother to stock even one ? > > 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 ? < snippage > > > But that theory can be easily disproved. Simply > > by your providing a sensible answer to my question. > I wonder how you can even ask such a question. It seems to > prove my theory that you don't have a clue as to what happens in > real life. In real life as you yourself admit every other hirer apart from Lens Rental hires out Sigma lenses and makes a profit. Lens Rental apparently can't but instead write a webpage denigrating Sigma instead. So why is that ? How comes in the real world all these other hirers can happily rent out Sigma lenses and make a profit whereas LensRental can't ? > > > I won't hold my breath. > > I'd love to see you turning blue in the face, it'd be a great > photo opportunity. If your knowledge of colour balance is on a par with your reasoning ability then its maybe just as well you shoot in RAW. And as your memory may be equally flaky, I'll put it to you again. How comes all these other hirers can make a profit hiring out Sigma Lenses while LensRental apparently can't ? hint:if the last sentence is true* then the problem isn't with Sigma but with LensRental * Which it certainly was last year when I did a quick check on both hirers and retailers. None of whom had any special conditions pertaining to Sigma lenses at all. 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. Possibly the best kind of free publicity that Nikon and Canon could possibly hope for when it comes to shifting lens inventory. 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 ? 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. michael adams .... > > -Wolfgang
From: Bob Larter on 31 Oct 2009 00:07
Robert Coe wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:33 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: > : 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. > > What was the Sigma lens you bought and didn't like? A used 100-300mm zoom. After buying it, I discovered that the one mode I hadn't tested it with (aperture-priority, set higher than wide-open) caused an Err 99 on my (Canon) DSLR. Also, the grip started coming away from the body of the lens. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |