In article <3PKdnfzsB5MfK3nXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dn...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > There are several better, including the Nikkor 105 micro, the Minolta > 100 f2.8 macro, the Leica, and so on. But the Tamron is very close.
i did say one of the best, not *the* best.
> >> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's > >> do not do at all.
> > how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)
> No idea. A pretty damn good photog at a photo club I used to belong to > had a Sigma 50-500 - and he made some damn good shots with it coupled to > a 20D. Not a lens I'd ever buy, however.
the 50-500 is nothing at all like the 200-500 f/2.8:
nospam wrote: > In article <3PKdnfzsB5MfK3nXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dn...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> There are several better, including the Nikkor 105 micro, the Minolta >> 100 f2.8 macro, the Leica, and so on. But the Tamron is very close.
> i did say one of the best, not *the* best.
>>>> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's >>>> do not do at all. >>> how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :) >> No idea. A pretty damn good photog at a photo club I used to belong to >> had a Sigma 50-500 - and he made some damn good shots with it coupled to >> a 20D. Not a lens I'd ever buy, however.
> the 50-500 is nothing at all like the 200-500 f/2.8:
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.
No spam please wrote: > "Miles Bader" <mi...@gnu.org> wrote in message > news:87ws2ji6fj.fsf@catnip.gol.com... >> Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes: >>> John Navas wrote: >>>> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
>>> Wrong.
>>> While the wide variety of third party lenses are somewhat 2nd class >>> lenses, they do produce some notable lenses that stand on their own >>> for image and build quality.
>> Indeed. There have been, and are, great lenses from 3rd parties, and >> there are also of course crap lenses from OEMs.
>> I dunno what on earth Navas was thinking when he posted that, since >> it's such an obviously silly statement. While many camera makers >> are also excellent lens makers, they certainly have no monopoly on >> that, and since (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined >> interface, they enjoy no particular advantage over others when >> making lenses for their own platform.
>> -Miles
> Hello Miles.
> Is it true that " ... (current) lens mounts are a simple and > well-defined interface ..."?
> Sigma have well-known problems with some of their EF mount lenses and > some of Canon's bodies. > I've read (in a photo newsgroup) that this is because Sigma > reverse-engineer the EF mount rather than pay Canon a licence fee to > get the full EF specification.
This makes it sound like Sigma is reverse-engineering to because they are too cheap to pay for a license, when in fact Canon claims that NOBODY has been provided the EF specification.
> I know that Sigma do try to keep up-to-date. Sigma UK will re-chip a > lens when there is a compatibility problem so long as they still have > chips in stock.
In article <hc2hpf01...@news5.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke
<jclarke.use...@cox.net> wrote: > This makes it sound like Sigma is reverse-engineering to because they are > too cheap to pay for a license, when in fact Canon claims that NOBODY has > been provided the EF specification.
according to this post, tamron and cosina have agreements in place:
Only Tamron and Cosina have such a agreements in place, which is why you don't hear about those lenses needing to be rechipped the way you continually hear about Sigmas and Tokinas. My own Sigma 30mm f1.4 needs to go in to be rechipped for compatability for my Nikon D200.
Check the Japanese IP law journals, there have been a couple of interesting suits between Sigma and Canon. Not what one calls a "working relationship".
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:54:42 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > : In article <N_adnbCcFqY-hn7XnZ2dnUVZ_gBi4...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > : <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > : > : > Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced > : > to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga. > : > : agreed, along with their blatant lies about their cameras.
> If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon > lenses, > with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it > doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses > (including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them.
> Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen > one.
> Bob
Some of us do buy their cameras and like them. Being a Sigma DSLR user, I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with only one. Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with.
> Note that where the word "macro" appears, then "best" = "sharpest".
> Where it is better than both the Nikkor and the Minolta is as a portrait > lens with its smoother bokeh. It has taken on a mythical legend status > that makes people believe it's better than it actually is. Value wise, it > is likely the best, period.
>>> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's >>> do not do at all.
>> how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)
> No idea. A pretty damn good photog at a photo club I used to belong to > had a Sigma 50-500 - and he made some damn good shots with it coupled to a > 20D. Not a lens I'd ever buy, however.
> In article <3PKdnfzsB5MfK3nXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dn...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne > <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> There are several better, including the Nikkor 105 micro, the Minolta >> 100 f2.8 macro, the Leica, and so on. But the Tamron is very close.
> i did say one of the best, not *the* best.
>> >> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the >> >> OEM's >> >> do not do at all.
>> > how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)
>> No idea. A pretty damn good photog at a photo club I used to belong to >> had a Sigma 50-500 - and he made some damn good shots with it coupled to >> a 20D. Not a lens I'd ever buy, however.
> the 50-500 is nothing at all like the 200-500 f/2.8:
In article <hc5119$g8...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
<nto...@optonline.net> wrote: > > Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen > > one. > Some of us do buy their cameras and like them.
the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at the same time!
> Being a Sigma DSLR user, > I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with > only one.
there are a *lot* of posts in the sigma forum on dpreview with various problems. the sd14 has lockups and writes corrupted files, the dp1 and dp2 have a lovely red grid problem, the lens mechanism fails, the autofocus is slow, battery drains in hours even when not using it, etc.
> Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and > the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with.
i've seen posts where sigma usa rejected repairs and claimed 'customer damage' followed by fanbois saying 'you packed it wrong' or some such garbage. always the user's fault, never sigma.
there are also posts where a camera or lens had to be sent to sigma japan for 2-3 *months*, only to have it come back with a different set of problems.
>> ...................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.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Noons wrote: > Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 3:43 PM:
>>> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but >>> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy >>> *all* customers.
>> Rubbish. Back when I ran a service department for a computer products >> company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome >> clients by proving that they were actually costing us money.
> Hmmmmm....... > I wonder why you stopped running that service department? > <g,d&r>
It was because the company was acquired by a pair of morons who thought that an MBA was a good substitute for actually knowing how to run a business. After putting up with several months of bullshit from them, I quit to join a friend's DotBomb business.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
> In article <hc5119$g8...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou > <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> > Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never >> > seen >> > one.
>> Some of us do buy their cameras and like them.
> the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at > the same time!
Comedy is not your thing, don't quit your day job.
>> Being a Sigma DSLR user, >> I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with >> only one.
> there are a *lot* of posts in the sigma forum on dpreview with various > problems. the sd14 has lockups and writes corrupted files, the dp1 and > dp2 have a lovely red grid problem, the lens mechanism fails, the > autofocus is slow, battery drains in hours even when not using it, etc.
I was addressing the lens reliablitiy, try reading what I wrote. Never mentioned the camera reliablility.
>> Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and >> the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with.
> i've seen posts where sigma usa rejected repairs and claimed 'customer > damage' followed by fanbois saying 'you packed it wrong' or some such > garbage. always the user's fault, never sigma.
You are talking about one incident, I know the thread you are talking about. My out-of-warranty camera years ago required a repair that was taken care of at no cost to me and I was offered a loaner until mine was reparied. I guess we can put you into the "Anti-fanboy" club. If it makes you feel good, go ahead.
> there are also posts where a camera or lens had to be sent to sigma > japan for 2-3 *months*, only to have it come back with a different set > of problems.
: > "John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message : > news:s8v8e5p0p8ap5el4u0n3v1ud9p8tki66pc@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?
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.
michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote: > But don't you find it rather strange that no other lens rental company appears > to have had similar problems with Sigma Lenses ? Certainly not to the extent of > publishing entire web pages running them down. But even by simply imposing > specific conditions when hiring Sigma lenses ? Which none of them seem to do.
You're basically saying "Nobody else in a do-not-blame culture does blame Sigma (in a way visible to you), so they must be wrong".
How do you know that the "specific conditions" aren't "higher prices than they would take for non-sigma lenses of that price point and features"?
> From reading their website they clearly seem to think that they're God's gift > to photographers - and streets ahead of anyone else. And quite possibly some of > that arrogance rubs off when it comes to their dealings with suppliers.
They seem to demand that lenses actually work. That's sheer arrogance. They should be glad that someone actually lets them buy broken crap. Right?
> What's interesting is that, whether its true or not in this instance, is the credence > which people are willing to place on whatever they happen to read on the internet > on a web page published by an outfit hardly any of them will ever have dealt with, > certainly to the extent of being sure its actually even exists. Simply because > that web page will have been referenced by enough other people. Again very few if > any of whom, will actually have ever dealt with lensrental.
What's interesting is that *you* ask credence to a "Sigma isn't bad" mantra on the basis that all the reports of variable quality and problems from Sigma aren't personal experience.
Will you ask next to trust resellers whose resellerratings are unearthly with matching comments on the basis that we, personally, haven't been burned many times yet?
Pete Stavrakoglou <nto...@optonline.net> wrote: > "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at >> the same time! > Comedy is not your thing, don't quit your day job.
It's not comedy, it's the plain truth: you *can* fit all Sigma owners in the big blue room with the curious yellow ball ...
> 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 ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
|
