rec.photo.misc Google Group

Photo's at nexthill.com

2009-11-14T19:22:17Z

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-08T04:24:27Z

A friend got it for me overseas back in June. I had been trying to get
a copy from those vendors also.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-08T04:13:07Z

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:40:49 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.co m>
wrote:
Where did you find the Tokina? Both B&H and Adorama have had it back-ordered
for months.
Bob

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-06T04:22:58Z

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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-04T05:40:49Z

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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-04T02:59:44Z

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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

2009-11-02T11:47:05Z

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Release of ClickNServe v. 1.00 (BuddyShare enabled)
Fully automated Image sharing tool for all Windows-based devices from
anywhere in the World
November 1, 2009
MobileTimes announces the release of its fully automated image sharing tool
ClickNServe (aka Click And Serve) enabled with BuddyShare Technology for all

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-02T12:29:42Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-02T12:21:00Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-11-02T12:03:28Z

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

Re: REQ. Photograph of Gordon Roy Parker of Philadelphia(address supplied)

2009-11-01T18:04:21Z

Don't you ever get tired of looking foolish? If you could get an injunction
against someone taking you photograph in a public place, TMZ, and the rest
of the Paps would be out of business. Even mentally ill newsloons don't
have any expectation of privacy in public places. That is to say, anywhere

Re: Photograph

2009-11-01T07:17:06Z

there any reason you should not simply be regarded as a source of
amusement?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you have hit on his real purpose--to amuse, so why not just relax
and enjoy.

Re: Photograph

2009-11-01T05:46:00Z

Have you ever won such a case? Have you ever won /any/ case? Is there
any evidence you are other than a litigious twit? It seems clear that
you do not even understand what "right of publicity" means, so is
there any reason you should not simply be regarded as a source of
amusement?

Re: Photograph

2009-11-01T05:39:35Z

Oooh internet insults! So BRAVE!!
We'll see what the cops and the courts say, not some pathetically
incomptent and ireelevant blowhard like you who tries to suck the
naive into his little crusade.
Up for a meeting at YOUR local PD? I have an open invitation to come
in and file a criminal complaint there.

Re: Photograph

2009-11-01T04:38:09Z

On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:20:01 -0700 (PDT), RayGordon
Not quite, shithead. You started the trend of offering to pay for
information on your critics. You can't shut that door just because you
don't want others to use it now.
Where's the money the US Federal Appeals Court ordered you to pay me,
eh Gordon Roy Parker, infamous child stalking, child threatening

Re: Photograph

2009-11-01T03:20:01Z

Only for yuor attorney, as you've just given me grounds to seek a
court order preventing the invasion of my privacy, and violation of my
right to publicity.
This is also being treated as an implied death threat, as the original
post was designed to mimick what contract killers do.
That's quite a MOTIVE you've established for yourself, should anything

Re: REQ. Photograph of Gordon Roy Parker of Philadelphia(address supplied)

2009-11-01T03:15:37Z

Stating an intent like that allows me to file a preemptive lawsuit to
get a court order enjoining the practice. All of this is going into a
motion to be filed with the court in my current lawsuit, so let's see
what the judge says.
Posting someone'spic without authorization on the internet will just

Re: REQ. Photograph of Gordon Roy Parker of Philadelphia(address supplied)

2009-11-01T02:23:30Z

LOL.
If I were in Philly, I'd so do it. $250.00 for a pic of THAT guy?!
Easy money.

REQ. Photograph of Gordon Roy Parker of Philadelphia(address supplied)

2009-10-31T20:05:39Z

We need recent photographs of Gordon Roy Parker and are able to pay
$250 for them. Email us at ueriot\at\ndsm/spot/org to discuss how we
pay you. Western Union or Paypal are simplest. We will be putting the
photo(s) on a website blog, so you'll be assigning all rights to us.
GRP goes by the name "Ray Gordon" on the internet, you can google for

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-31T04:07:11Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-29T12:13:00Z

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
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 ...
-Wolfgang

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-29T11:54:41Z

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
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"?

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-29T12:03:14Z

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
Because that would shatter his conspiracy theory, and thus it
just can't be.
-Wolfgang

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-28T02:00:22Z

What was the Sigma lens you bought and didn't like?

Swedish Model Maria

2009-10-27T14:26:24Z

[link]

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-27T12:10:43Z

Comedy is not your thing, don't quit your day job.
I was addressing the lens reliablitiy, try reading what I wrote. Never
mentioned the camera reliablility.
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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-27T07:32:01Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-27T07:24:33Z

I've bought one Sigma lens. Never again. All my others are genuine Canons.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-26T20:58:15Z

In article <hc5119$g8...@news.eternal-sep tember.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at
the same time!
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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-26T20:35:57Z

The 50-500mm is definitely not at all like the 200-500mm f2.8. That lens
comes with it's own pack mule at no extra charge.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-26T20:34:37Z

The Sigma 70mm and 105mm macro are also some of the best macro lenses in
that range.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-26T20:32:42Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T23:07:45Z

In article <hc2hpf01...@news5.newsguy.com >, J. Clarke
according to this post, tamron and cosina have agreements in place:
<[link]>
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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T21:51:53Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T21:26:21Z

In article <B9udnehy0JrYXXnXnZ2dnUVZ_hBi4 ...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
the 50-500 is known as bigma and the 200-500 is known as sigzilla. it's
ridiculously impractical, but it definitely got them publicity.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T21:22:28Z

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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T21:16:53Z

Oh, the "Bigma". Indeed a niche lens! Probably does a good job. Just
glad I'm not doing it.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T20:42:38Z

In article <3PKdnfzsB5MfK3nXnZ2dnUVZ_v2dn ...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
i did say one of the best, not *the* best.
the 50-500 is nothing at all like the 200-500 f/2.8:
<[link]>
<[link].
jpg>

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T20:37:26Z

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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T20:35:13Z

Haven't we gone over this?
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.
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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T20:34:37Z

In article <87ws2ji6fj....@catnip.gol.com >, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org>
wrote:
i seem to recall he said he bought a third party lens once and got
burned, so he refuses to buy any other third party lenses, no matter
what. apparently he is not aware of the duds that nikon/canon make.
true, but the exact mount protocol is still reverse engineered, and

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T20:07:12Z

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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T19:51:14Z

In article <2bqdnQc4U7AEOnnXnZ2dnUVZ_sKdn ...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
it's not just very good. it's *excellent*, one of the best macro lenses
made.
how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T19:31:36Z

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. These include:
Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
notably good portrait lens.
Sigma's 180mm macro.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T19:09:26Z

In article <s8v8e5p0p8ap5el4u0n3v1ud9p8tk i6...@4ax.com>, John Navas
for you, but you don't speak for everyone. i think his point is that
the third party lens makers make lenses that nikon/canon do *not* make.
some third party lenses definitely deliver, just as some nikon/canon
lenses do not. it all depends on the particular lens.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T19:09:24Z

In article <0eu8e590tjb9mcnver1ash9f20sc0 vj...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
a few people do but it's a tiny tiny minority. sigma's market share is
well under 0.5%.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T16:58:14Z

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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T16:35:58Z

<0eu8e590tjb9mcnver1ash9f20sc0 vj...@4ax.com>:
With good budget OEM lenses are available, 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.

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T16:22:07Z

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

Re: Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning

2009-10-25T15:46:22Z

Right on the money. Or lack of it.