«

Continue to be happy with your lens. But if you continue to to pull this
"Oh yous be such a bad bad man foh dissin' mah stuff" crap with me, don't be
too surprized if my reply is less than polite.
Some say I don't suffer fools gladly, but they are wrong.
I don't suffer fools at all.


--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mark B." <> wrote in message
news:_cCdnYwzoam68s7cRVn-...
>
> "Tony" <> wrote in message
> news:zfJ4d.14026$n%. com...
> >I wasn't giving generalizations I ave specific cases that I know of --
two
> > of them. In both cases the lens owner (and I was one of them) was
screwed
> > by
> > Sigma over rechipping. I would say that I have a case and you are
> > whistling
> > you way past the cemetary.
> > People ask for advice and I give them advice based on real experience -
> > if
> > that bothers you - tough. I'm not going to shut up because you think my
> > mentioning the crap Sigma pulls on it's customers might jinx your lens.
> > Forget it pal it ain't the messenger that makes the lens a bad buy -
it's
> > Sigma
>
>
> >> "Tony" <> wrote in message
> >> news:5fh4d.13633$n%. com...
> <snip>
> >> > You are trading price for performance AND for permanence. Sigma is
> >> > always
> >> > a bad deal.
>
>
> Hmmm, looks like a generalization to me. I also speak from experience,
and
> I've been very happy with the 70-200.
>
> Mark
>
>

"Tony" <> wrote in message
news:44P4d.7218$ om...
> Continue to be happy with your lens. But if you continue to to pull this
> "Oh yous be such a bad bad man foh dissin' mah stuff" crap with me, don't
> be
> too surprized if my reply is less than polite.
> Some say I don't suffer fools gladly, but they are wrong.
> I don't suffer fools at all.
>

LOL. Ditto.

Then how can you stand yourself?

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Mark B." <> wrote in message
news:waydnQPW5vH-as7cRVn-...
> "Tony" <> wrote in message
> news:44P4d.7218$ om...
> > Continue to be happy with your lens. But if you continue to to pull this
> > "Oh yous be such a bad bad man foh dissin' mah stuff" crap with me,
don't
> > be
> > too surprized if my reply is less than polite.
> > Some say I don't suffer fools gladly, but they are wrong.
> > I don't suffer fools at all.
> >
>
> LOL. Ditto.
>
>

In message <mrl4d.33264$aW5.8547@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <> wrote:

>OTOH, the only lens I have that got an "ERR99" from my new 20D was my Tokina
>28-70 f2.6-2.8. My Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX fisheye and 17-35 f2.8-4 EX work just
>fine, as does the Tokina, now.

What fixed the Tokina?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Hans Fischl wrote:
> I'm impressed with your original image contrast and sharpness -
irregardless
> of any post image processing. I may have to reconsider. My main
objective
> was to be able to shoot from about 28mm to ~ 140mm without changing
the
> lens - as was the case with the original 28-135 IS. Sensor dust is
getting
> to be a headache. I don't particularly like the idea of having to
shell out
> another 2g for the 20D package just to shoot this range with one
lens. Which
> leaves me with this lens, or possibly the G6 for travel shots with my
10D
> connected to the 100-400IS. Thanks for your constructive input and
the
> constructive input from everyone else.
>
>

I am considering buying the 300D. And since I don't want to lug around
lenses, I too looked for reviews of this lens and it seems to have
gotten good reviews from its owners on dpreview forums. But since my
camera will arrive (from US to India) at the end of november, do post
your experience with the lens if you buy before me.

Cheers,

Siddhartha

<> wrote in message
news:...
> In message <mrl4d.33264$aW5.8547@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <> wrote:
>
> >OTOH, the only lens I have that got an "ERR99" from my new 20D was my
Tokina
> >28-70 f2.6-2.8. My Sigma 15mm f2.8 EX fisheye and 17-35 f2.8-4 EX work
just
> >fine, as does the Tokina, now.
>
> What fixed the Tokina?
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

I don't know, after I took it off and remounted it, it has worked just fine
ever since. In fact, I've had more lockups with the Canon 28-135 (2) than
errors with the Tokina (1).

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In message <JHg5d.34765$aW5.9104@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <> wrote:

>I don't know, after I took it off and remounted it, it has worked just fine
>ever since. In fact, I've had more lockups with the Canon 28-135 (2) than
>errors with the Tokina (1).

I've seen a few lenses cause a problem the first time they are mounted,
and then never cause a problem again afterward.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

<> wrote in message
news...
> In message <JHg5d.34765$aW5.9104@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <> wrote:
>
> >I don't know, after I took it off and remounted it, it has worked just
fine
> >ever since. In fact, I've had more lockups with the Canon 28-135 (2)
than
> >errors with the Tokina (1).
>
> I've seen a few lenses cause a problem the first time they are mounted,
> and then never cause a problem again afterward.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

That's what I'm hoping with this one.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com