«

My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
of money they can not even give it some real plastic?

What a crappy company!


--
Sosumi

In article <>, Sosumi
<> wrote:

> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
> a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
> plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
> of money they can not even give it some real plastic?

at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
sigma lenses were. really.

"nospam" <> wrote in message
news:090120080824599137%...
> In article <>, Sosumi
> <> wrote:
>
>> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
>> saw
>> a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
>> plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
>> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
>> amount
>> of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
>
> at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
> sigma lenses were. really.

You must be kiddin' right?

In article <>, Sosumi
<> wrote:

> >> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
> >> saw
> >> a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
> >> plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
> >> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
> >> amount
> >> of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
> >
> > at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
> > sigma lenses were. really.
>
> You must be kiddin' right?

<http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/vi...ew=next&sid=cb
58ec818bd7cae3a389b19a63057cd0>

There is nothing more objective than direct personal experience, and
I have owned a Sigma lens (puchased new) which contained a front
element connected to the rest of the lens body by sticky tape. It
eventually came unstuck.

<http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KFSN>

A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
tape was failing on a regular basis.

In article <>, Sosumi
<> wrote:

> What a crappy company!

Hmmm...another satisfied user.

In article <090120080912481302%>, nospam
<> wrote:

> A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
> lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
> assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
> tape was failing on a regular basis.


Oh no...you're just another Sigma hater with an anti-Sigma bias.

nospam wrote:
> <http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/vi...ew=next&sid=cb
> 58ec818bd7cae3a389b19a63057cd0>
>
> There is nothing more objective than direct personal experience, and
> I have owned a Sigma lens (puchased new) which contained a front
> element connected to the rest of the lens body by sticky tape. It
> eventually came unstuck.
>
> <http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KFSN>
>
> A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
> lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
> assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
> tape was failing on a regular basis.

OK, that's pretty awesome right there.

"Sosumi" <> wrote in message
news:...
> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
> saw a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the
> matte plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
> amount of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
>
> What a crappy company!



That's a bit harsh, although their quality can be quite variable

I once bought a 135-400 (istr) via mail order. Upon checking it I saw some
loose particles of black plastic (like small slivers) deep between one of
the element groups.

Of course, I rang the company (Warehouse Express) who were happy to refund -
but who also seemed a bit surprised that I was making a fuss. They seemed
to regard this level of build as par for the Sigma course.

On the other hand I've had some really excellent Sigma's - including the
105EX and the cheapie 70-300 APO, so buying Sigma means paying your money
and hoping for the best.

I was under the impression that they were improving.

Regards

Chris

On Jan 9, 11:24 am, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Hbqdneljq4ccbhnanZ2dnUVZ8s6in...@novis.pt>, Sosumi
>
> <sos...@home.nl> wrote:
> > My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
> > a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
> > plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
> > Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
> > of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
>
> at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
> sigma lenses were. really.

And regular one sided tape, I've seen it in one. Not to mention their
higher end lenses sometimes cost as much as OEM stuff for the same
f.l.s and speeds. At the local camera stores who sell this stuff,
there is palpable hatred of Sigma products.

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:10:57 -0000, Chris wrote:

> "Sosumi" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
>> saw a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the
>> matte plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
>> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
>> amount of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
>>
>> What a crappy company!
>
>
>
> That's a bit harsh, although their quality can be quite variable
>
> I once bought a 135-400 (istr) via mail order. Upon checking it I saw some
> loose particles of black plastic (like small slivers) deep between one of
> the element groups.
>
> Of course, I rang the company (Warehouse Express) who were happy to refund -
> but who also seemed a bit surprised that I was making a fuss. They seemed
> to regard this level of build as par for the Sigma course.
>
> On the other hand I've had some really excellent Sigma's - including the
> 105EX and the cheapie 70-300 APO, so buying Sigma means paying your money
> and hoping for the best.
>
> I was under the impression that they were improving.


I actually have two (older) Sigma lenses (both purchased 2nd hand on Ebay)
-- a 28-70 AF f2.8 and a 70-210 AF f2.8 of which I am happy with. Both seem
solidly built and perform well mechanically and optically. But my total
investment is under $400 for both.

My feeling was that the quality has gotten worse not better but other than
my older lenses, and recent comments here and in some recent reviews I have
not much information to base that opinion on.

Not sure I would buy some of the higher priced current new Sigma stuff (not
sight unseen and certainly not when new OEM equivalents are the about the
same price).


--
Brian Sullivan
Courses by Wire (http://www.coursesbywire.com)