«

"Tony" <> wrote in message
news:iGmbd.59790$. com...
> Linda - I'm almost certain at this point that you are Preddy in another
> disguise. There is somethign trollish about your devotion to Sigma.
>
....and the statement pretty much demonstrates that your 'certain'[ty] has
zero validity in fact. View the message source if you know how. It is
evident to anyone that does know how that your statement is in error.

There is something 'trollish' about your inability to read and comprehend
what has been written. I don't have a devotion to Sigma, I've not talked
about anything but Sigma lenses, and finally I'm devoted to only getting the
best item to fill my needs in the most economical way possible. If it
happens that Sigma comes out on top for a lens I want then that's what I'll
buy, if not I buy the one that is on top for the need in question.

I think the truth is that because I don't take your generalized opinions as
significant in the larger scheme of things does not make me a troll or
wrong. This simply makes me a person who has been left unconvinced by your
arguments, and unpersuaded by what you have said to date, or as Bush says
'Oh forget it'.

Linda

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 16:07:50 -0300, "Linda_N"
<this-is-not-> wrote:

>"Tony" <> wrote in message
>news:iGmbd.59790$ .com...
>> Linda - I'm almost certain at this point that you are Preddy in another
>> disguise. There is somethign trollish about your devotion to Sigma.
>>
>...and the statement pretty much demonstrates that your 'certain'[ty] has
>zero validity in fact. View the message source if you know how. It is
>evident to anyone that does know how that your statement is in error.
>
>There is something 'trollish' about your inability to read and comprehend
>what has been written. I don't have a devotion to Sigma, I've not talked
>about anything but Sigma lenses, and finally I'm devoted to only getting the
>best item to fill my needs in the most economical way possible. If it
>happens that Sigma comes out on top for a lens I want then that's what I'll
>buy, if not I buy the one that is on top for the need in question.
>


I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.

"GT40" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
> That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
> Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>
> If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.

When you say that you are always better going with camera brand lenses, do
you mean that camera brand lenses 'always' produce a better image, are
faster in autofocus, are more quiet and so on, or do you mean that they are
better only because the mount is sure match? (no rechipping/refitting
needed)

Linda

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 17:45:06 -0300, "Linda_N"
<this-is-not-> wrote:

>"GT40" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>
>> I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>> That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>> Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>>
>> If you do want a Sigma lens, look for an HSM unit.
>
>When you say that you are always better going with camera brand lenses, do
>you mean that camera brand lenses 'always' produce a better image, are
>faster in autofocus, are more quiet and so on, or do you mean that they are
>better only because the mount is sure match? (no rechipping/refitting
>needed)

All of the above. I know professionals who use the Sigma 120-300mm
2.8 EX APO IF HSF lens. They claim the AF is slower and makes a
griding noise during autofocus and zoom, they also mentioned that
sometimes the lens didn't auto focus, or stoped auto focusing
unexpectadly. They like the optics just about the same as some of the
Canon glass, but for them the only advantage is price (which maybe
your issue).

Another issue, although I've never seen it, if there is a problem with
the camera and your not using the camera makes lens, they wont fix it.
Like I say, never seen it happen.

In message <>,
GT40 <> wrote:

>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
shown here):

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985


--

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

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:

>In message <>,
>GT40 <> wrote:
>
>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>
>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
>shown here):
>
>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985

Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?

In message <>,
GT40 <> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
>
>>In message <>,
>>GT40 <> wrote:
>>
>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>>
>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
>>shown here):
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
>
>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?

Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:

>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..


--

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

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:

>In message <>,
>GT40 <> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>In message <>,
>>>GT40 <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>>>
>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
>>>shown here):
>>>
>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
>>
>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
>
>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
>
>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

Then you should have quoted that part to start with.

In message <>,
GT40 <> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
>
>>In message <>,
>>GT40 <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <>,
>>>>GT40 <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>>>>
>>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
>>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
>>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
>>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
>>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
>>>>shown here):
>>>>
>>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
>>>
>>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
>>
>>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
>>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
>>
>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..

>Then you should have quoted that part to start with.

My response was immediately after that statement, where it belonged.

I am starting to realize that reading your posts is a total waste of
time, as you bob and weave every time someone actually responds to what
you write.
--

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

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 00:19:18 GMT, wrote:

>In message <>,
>GT40 <> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 22:49:07 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>In message <>,
>>>GT40 <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:32:24 GMT, wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <>,
>>>>>GT40 <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I would avoid consumer Sigma lenses, the pro line is much better.
>>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>>>>>
>>>>>Not always. The Tamron macro lenses, for example, tend to have better
>>>>>optics than the Canon macros. Here's a crop of 10D native pixels of
>>>>>printed text taken with my Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di Macro *AND* a 2x Tamron
>>>>>SP teleconverter (i.e., the resolution of the lens itself would do at
>>>>>least this good with half the pixel pitch, or is at least twice what is
>>>>>shown here):
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/35343985
>>>>
>>>>Whats Tamron lenses go to do with Sigma lenses?
>>>
>>>Nothing, but they have something to do with a statement made in this
>>>thread. Perhaps you will recognize it:
>>>
>>>>>>That said, you are always better going with camera brand lenses, ie,
>>>>>>Canon lens on a Canon camera, and Nikon on Nikon, etc..
>
>>Then you should have quoted that part to start with.
>
>My response was immediately after that statement, where it belonged.
>
>I am starting to realize that reading your posts is a total waste of
>time, as you bob and weave every time someone actually responds to what
>you write.

Now your just lying