In article <hcfbjp$1un...@adenine.netfront.net>, No spam please
<m...@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.
michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> nospam <nos...@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.
> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > >> nospam <nos...@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.
> 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 ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@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?
If you claim you never had a wife or never have beaten anybody, I'll just point out that lensrental are renting out Sigma lenses, as a trivial check shows --- so you should be used to false accusations in questions!
Thus they cannot "*instead* devote an entire webpage" --- hint, it's more than one! --- to the superior quality and workmanship of 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.
I admit no such thing, in fact, I am quite sure there are sucessful rental agencies that deal exclusively in non-Sigma lenses.
> Lens Rental apparently > can't but instead write a webpage denigrating Sigma instead.
And you apparently cannot stop beating your wife.
> 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 ?
So why is it that you beat your wife? How comes in the real world all these husbands can happily live with being cheated and robbed blind without ever beating their wife whereas you 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.
Obviously you are not the type to check facts, but you balance that by your conceit knowing no bounds.
> 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 ?
And as your brain may be non-existent, I'll help you again: How comes in the real world all these husbands can happily live with being cheated and robbed blind without ever beating their wife whereas you can't?
> hint:if the last sentence is true* then the problem isn't with Sigma but > with LensRental
Hint, if you cannot check even trivial facts, you are a conceited ass.
> * 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.
You are known to fabricate facts, so I'll know you fabricated that one as well. Additionally --- as has been said before --- your "special conditions" are worth less than the hot air escaping your mouth.
> 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.)
And now on to the billion or so suppliers that do not offer the Sigma brand ... where is proof that they do so because they are stupid?
> Possibly the best kind of free publicity that Nikon and Canon > could possibly hope for when it comes to shifting lens inventory.
Quality pays.
> 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?
> 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 ...
-Wolfgang
-- The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.
> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@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 ?
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.
> 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.
>> 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
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.
Alan Browne wrote: > nospam wrote: >> In article <oq6dncI5jvZOz37XnZ2dnUVZ_oKdn...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne >> <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from >>> the catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier >>> company and happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma >>> garbage, er, product.
>> they *have* done that when there's a non-sigma option. however, there >> are some lenses that only sigma makes, so they stock them.
> In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
No, it's not an error to try to please everyone, it's an error to actually please everyone.
Very true. And with an 85% failure rate, if that's true, they are at least displeasing the renter that is the last one to rent the lens when it fails.
Robert Coe wrote: > Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen > one.
I have seen one, and apparently there were a few people that bought them. The list of issues with the SD10 was so long that it's hard to believe anyone would have chosen that over a Canon or Nikon, but apparently most of those customers had been using the Sigma film SLR and wanted to continue to use their Sigma mount lenses.
The Foveon technology held great promise at the time it was introduced, but when they moved from three separate sensors to the stacked sensor with silicon color separation, it didn't work out.
michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> > 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.
Yep, the logic stays the same. Didn't they tell you in first class in school?
> Hoping no-one would notice the difference
The difference being that ordinarily a theory must be proven right by the claimant instead of having to be dispelled by the other side? Yes, you abandoned that method, now, wife beater, suffer for it.
> And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ?
Yes.
> My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma > lenses.
Not your only claim, btw, and not the one you *obviously* lied, after being told in detail your assumed facts don't match up with reality, and to check them.
> And I have produced evidence in support of that theory - > the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses
*Someone* *else* did produce the "evidence". Lies again ... And it's *not* evidence that "there is *only* *one* *website*" --- in fact, there are other websites "which denigrate[...] Sigma lenses", as a quick google for "sigma lenses are crap" shows --- so it's not evidence.
> 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.
I don't need to provide evidence, in your own words: "And that claim or theory is true, up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the contrary]".
But I take it you now see your own theory "entirely vacuous and without any meaningful content"? Good. That's what it is.
> It's only possible to stop doing something if you're already doing it.
It's only possible to do something instead if one stops the other thing.
> If someone has never beaten their wife then the question of whether > they have stopped doing so is totally meaningless.
If someone never stopped renting out Sigma lenses then doing something instead 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.
You might just as well ask them what noise orange apples make, and insist on an answer to that question instead.
> Both questions are equally meaningless > and devoid of content.
Both assumptions are equally meaningless and devoid of content. That includes your claims.
> Bananas aren't blue, and don't make a noise.
You've never seen paint and have never stepped on a banana.
> Just > as people who have never beaten their wives can't have stopped doing > something which they never did in the first place.
Just as lens renters who have never stopped renting out Sigma lenses cannot put up websites *instead* of renting out Sigma lenses.
> Tell me Wolfgang, didn't they explain all that to you, on that website > you copied your trick question from ?
Tell me michael, didn't they explain all that to you on that website you copied your false assumptions in question form trick from?
> Looks like someone's finally bitten off more than he can chew.
Hey, brainiac, did you stop beating your wife, or do you admit you have to completely prove your claims before they come to be true?
> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > >> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> Yep, the logic stays the same. Didn't they tell you in first > class in school?
So you're claiming are you, that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is of no more significance than Weisselberg's Theory of Adams Beating His Wife ?
A straight yes or no will suffice idf youi would be so kind.
> > Hoping no-one would notice the difference
> The difference being that ordinarily a theory must be proven > right by the claimant instead of having to be dispelled by the > other side?
Science progresses by the falsification and replacement of existing theories.
Have you never heard of Karl Popper ?
Again a straight yes or no answer will suffice.
And if you have, what did Karl Popper have to say on the subject which was so illuminating ?
> Yes, you abandoned that method, now, wife beater, > suffer for it.
Trying to make sense of the nonsense that you post, is indeed a a form of suffering. That's about the first true thing you've said.
> > And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ?
> Yes.
> > My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma > > lenses.
> Not your only claim, btw, and not the one you *obviously* lied, > after being told in detail your assumed facts don't match up with > reality, and to check them.
One of those facts being that there is only one lens hirer who has a webpage denigrating Sigma Lenses. If you're saying that doesn't match up to reality, then produce some evidence of another such hirer.
I can't say fairer than that, now can I ?
> > And I have produced evidence in support of that theory - > > the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses
> *Someone* *else* did produce the "evidence". Lies again ... > And it's *not* evidence that "there is *only* *one* *website*" > --- in fact, there are other websites "which denigrate[...] > Sigma lenses", as a quick google for "sigma lenses are crap" > shows --- so it's not evidence.
They're not websites. They're posts on forums and chat boards.
Don't you know the difference ?
But of course you do ! Because if they were websites you'd have left links !
> > 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.
> I don't need to provide evidence, in your own words: "And that > claim or theory is true, up until such time as you or anyone else > can produce [proof to the contrary]".
Meaningful theories ! Not nonsesnsical theories like yours. How many more times ?
Or are you once again going to say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is of no more real significance than Weisselberg's Theory of Adams Beating His Wife ?
< extensive mercy snippage >
> Hey, brainiac, did you stop beating your wife, or do you > admit you have to completely prove your claims before they > come to be true?
So it's not true that the Sun will definitely rise on Sunday morning then ? Or on Monday morning, or on tuesday ?
Alan Browne wrote: > Calvin Sambrook wrote: >> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> news:231020091224233264%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>> In article <95v3e59c3ofa2ihu7lmbpvuui1jsuu0...@4ax.com>, John Navas >>> <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> >just avoid sigma lenses
>>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>>> generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the >>> sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300 >>> aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you >>> just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!
>> I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly >> criticize a major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is >> almost unheard of.
> I was mildly surprised, but not shocked.
> I chalk it up to their relative young age as a company coupled to their > desires of satisfying their customers and the frustrations of Sigma's > apparently very sub-par service and lackluster reliability.
> That page has been their long enough that it appears that Sigma don't > feel it would be prudent to tackle it legally.
> It may also be that Sigma want photographers to own their lenses, not > rental co's and are trying to "fire" lensrentals by souring the milk.
> As this rages through the photographic community, however, it just hurts > their sales.
Most of their customers would probably not bother to research & find the info anyways <g>. That said, when I bought my only Sigma lens from the Calumet pro store in SF, the salesman sneered at me: 'you don't want that lens' as I handed over $800 or so... that's their 12-24 full format which has been one of my most used lenses and I'm quite happy with it.
Details on that lens: Pros: It is the widest thing available for FX DSLRs ever. While not razor sharp, it is good and holds respectable sharpness to the corners very well. There is almost zero barrel/pincushion (except at close focus) which is great for architectural work. In many ways it is a well built pro lens, metal body & mount, smooth focus, etc. CAs are not reasonably well controlled considering it's acrobatics. Cons: It has slow max apertures. There was a (CPU?) flaw found for which I could have sent it back to fix where it messed up metering or something on certain camera bodies... never been a problem so I haven't bothered. The hood is a crap design with some kind of crap foam cushion to hold it in place that ripped off and it slides off all the time (argh!). The sturdy metal barrel is coated with some sort of powder coating flocking crap that has peeled off & looks like crap, near the mount. I treat lenses roughly, they get a lot of use and banging around in the bag.
They have a bunch of very tempting and often quite good lenses that keep the big guys in competition. The Nikon 14-24 wasn't out yet when I got this and while stellar, it's more than twice the price and not as wide.
> Alan Browne wrote: >> Calvin Sambrook wrote: >>> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:231020091224233264%nospam@nospam.invalid... >>>> In article <95v3e59c3ofa2ihu7lmbpvuui1jsuu0...@4ax.com>, John Navas >>>> <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> >just avoid sigma lenses
>>>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>>>> generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the >>>> sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300 >>>> aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you >>>> just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!
>>> I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly >>> criticize a major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is >>> almost unheard of.
>> I was mildly surprised, but not shocked.
>> I chalk it up to their relative young age as a company coupled to their >> desires of satisfying their customers and the frustrations of Sigma's >> apparently very sub-par service and lackluster reliability.
>> That page has been their long enough that it appears that Sigma don't >> feel it would be prudent to tackle it legally.
>> It may also be that Sigma want photographers to own their lenses, not >> rental co's and are trying to "fire" lensrentals by souring the milk.
>> As this rages through the photographic community, however, it just >> hurts their sales.
> Most of their customers would probably not bother to research & find > the info anyways <g>. That said, when I bought my only Sigma lens from > the Calumet pro store in SF, the salesman sneered at me: 'you don't > want that lens' as I handed over $800 or so... that's their 12-24 full > format which has been one of my most used lenses and I'm quite happy > with it.
> Details on that lens: > Pros: > It is the widest thing available for FX DSLRs ever. While not razor > sharp, it is good and holds respectable sharpness to the corners very > well. There is almost zero barrel/pincushion (except at close focus) > which is great for architectural work. In many ways it is a well built > pro lens, metal body & mount, smooth focus, etc. CAs are not reasonably > well controlled considering it's acrobatics. > Cons: > It has slow max apertures. There was a (CPU?) flaw found for which I > could have sent it back to fix where it messed up metering or something > on certain camera bodies... never been a problem so I haven't bothered. > The hood is a crap design with some kind of crap foam cushion to hold > it in place that ripped off and it slides off all the time (argh!). The > sturdy metal barrel is coated with some sort of powder coating flocking > crap that has peeled off & looks like crap, near the mount. I treat > lenses roughly, they get a lot of use and banging around in the bag.
> They have a bunch of very tempting and often quite good lenses that > keep the big guys in competition. The Nikon 14-24 wasn't out yet when I > got this and while stellar, it's more than twice the price and not as > wide.
I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my D70, and other than some initial operator errors resulting in vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever since on the D70 & my D300.
I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.
michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote in message >> >> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: >> Yep, the logic stays the same. Didn't they tell you in first >> class in school? > So you're claiming are you, that Einstein's Theory of Relativity > is of no more significance than Weisselberg's Theory of Adams Beating > His Wife ? > A straight yes or no will suffice idf youi would be so kind.
Here we go again ... Michael, have you stopped beating your wife? A straight yes or no will suffice!
Alternatively you could admit that your question is full of falsehoods and thus invalid.
>> The difference being that ordinarily a theory must be proven >> right by the claimant instead of having to be dispelled by the >> other side? > Science progresses by the falsification and replacement of existing > theories.
You are not doing science, you are doing accusation. Accusations which, I might add, are trivially, even for you, found to fail because of falsification. Which means you are one of a) terminally lazy and savage, to not check trivially checkable facts --- and I told you where you were wrong! b) a liar and savage, knowingly uttering falsehoods c) mentally not capable of separating true from false statements
> Have you never heard of Karl Popper ? > Again a straight yes or no answer will suffice. > And if you have, what did Karl Popper have to say on the subject which > was so illuminating ?
Irrelevant, you are *not* doing science. Alternatively, you should have no problem with me putting up the theory that you are a wife-beater, since you can trivially falsify it --- *can't* *you*?
>> Yes, you abandoned that method, now, wife beater, >> suffer for it. > Trying to make sense of the nonsense that you post, is indeed a > a form of suffering. That's about the first true thing you've said.
So your theory is that you are mentally incapable?
>> Not your only claim, btw, and not the one you *obviously* lied, >> after being told in detail your assumed facts don't match up with >> reality, and to check them. > One of those facts being that there is only one lens hirer who has > a webpage denigrating Sigma Lenses.
One of those 'facts' that you didn't check. Prove you did check that fact. Can't even describe what you did to assertain that fact? Thought so.
Actually, that's not even exactly what you claimed the first time around. Details don't matter, do they?
> If you're saying that doesn't > match up to reality, then produce some evidence of another such hirer.
That you cannot read is proven again. Reread what I wrote.
But yes, you are a wife-beater --- produce some evidence that you do not hit your wife.
> I can't say fairer than that, now can I ?
Of course you cannot ... without admitting you might have been wrong.
>> > And I have produced evidence in support of that theory - >> > the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses >> *Someone* *else* did produce the "evidence". Lies again ... >> And it's *not* evidence that "there is *only* *one* *website*" >> --- in fact, there are other websites "which denigrate[...] >> Sigma lenses", as a quick google for "sigma lenses are crap" >> shows --- so it's not evidence. > They're not websites. They're posts on forums and chat boards. > Don't you know the difference ?
Ah, dear michael has a "special" understanding what a website is. It's anything that agrees with his theory ...
> But of course you do ! Because if they were websites you'd have left > links !
I thought you were able to use google, but now I doubt you can copy and paste an URL. But you surely can explain why Sigma lenses rate last here: http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_defect_results.php Must be an international conspiracy.
>> > 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. >> I don't need to provide evidence, in your own words: "And that >> claim or theory is true, up until such time as you or anyone else >> can produce [proof to the contrary]". > Meaningful theories ! Not nonsesnsical theories like yours. > How many more times ?
My theory is meaningful. Prove the opposite, if you like.
> Or are you once again going to say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity > is of no more real significance than Weisselberg's Theory of Adams Beating > His Wife ?
Are you going to stop beaing your wife?
> < extensive mercy snippage > >> Hey, brainiac, did you stop beating your wife, or do you >> admit you have to completely prove your claims before they >> come to be true? > So it's not true that the Sun will definitely rise on Sunday morning then ? > Or on Monday morning, or on tuesday ?
*So* you are going to stop beating your wife on Sunday morning? Or on Monday morning, or on Tuesday?
nospam wrote: > In article <vbm6e5pki52sitr9mhpv7a8ffe4u1rj...@4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for. >>> Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro >>> 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon >>> equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the >>> delta cost for that. >> If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters, but I've >> personally yet to see a case where a good OEM prime didn't significantly >> outperform cheaper non-OEM lenses.
> perhaps you need to get out more, and he's not talking about single > focal length lenses anyway.
I think the 14mm f/2.8 Sigma prime gets better reviews than the Nikon, or very close, or better in some respects and significantly cheaper. In this case the Sigma came years after the Nikon and Nikon now has a much better zoom. There are other examples of pro lenses like 300/2.8 where the Sigma performs very well for a fraction of the preposterous cost of the OEM. And old examples of Cult lenses from Tokina, Cosina, etc, or the Nikon Series E lenses that were supposed to be cheap and weren't given the Nikkor label but in fact were really great lenses. Lots of the third party Macro lenses are excellent.
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:40:49 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: : I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my : D70, and other than some initial operator errors resulting in : vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever : since on the D70 & my D300. : : I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp : and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.
Where did you find the Tokina? Both B&H and Adorama have had it back-ordered for months.
On 2009-11-07 20:13:07 -0800, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:40:49 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> > wrote: > : I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my > : D70, and other than some initial operator errors resulting in > : vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever > : since on the D70 & my D300. > : > : I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp > : and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.
> Where did you find the Tokina? Both B&H and Adorama have had it back-ordered > for months.
> Bob
A friend got it for me overseas back in June. I had been trying to get a copy from those vendors also.
|
