«

In article <090120080912481302%>,
lid says...
> 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.

Actually, 3M VHB ("Very High Bond") tapes have been in use for decades
to bond all sorts of things, so their use in a camera lens is not that
surprising.

Done properly, it's a fast, clean, low-waste method of construction, and
it's used in everything from cell phones to skyscrapers.

However, it is CRITICAL that the surfaces be prepared properly, and the
correct tape (there are hundreds) be selected for the materials to be
bonded together. If that gets screwed up, it will almost certainly fail
at some point.

http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/VHB/Tapes/

--Gene

In article <>,
Robert Coe <> wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:15:55 -0500, TH O <> wrote:
> : In article <>,
> : Robert Coe <> wrote:
> :
> : > Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?
> :
> : Who the hell would counterfeit Sigma??
>
> Someone who wants to make a $290 profit on a $300 lens.

LOL. Just like Sigma's $280 profit.

Peter Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "Tony Polson" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
>>> That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
>>> cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
>>> manufacturing quality is lower.
>>>
>>> Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
>>> precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite the
>>> build quality.
>>
>> Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
>> samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.
>
> They've also managed to get every one of my lenses to work perfectly too.
>
>
I have 2 Sigmas and have not had any issues with either of them.
Replaced the 18-135 with an 18-200 OS HSM just for the extra reach and
the OS.
The salesman and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR & the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM out
on the counter ... the Nikon was over R2000,00 ( +/- $300 )more. He let
me take both into the garden / car park and take some shots. I took 3
shots at 3 various focal lengths from each lens. ( Agreed .... it was
not a really technical test .... just similar to my regular style of
shooting ) After printing them out on 6x4 paper nobody behind the
counter was able to tell the difference between the Nikon and the Sigma.
That, plus the fact I never had any problems with the previous Sigma was
enough to persuade me to choose the Sigma. Just as an aside, the Nikon
distributors here in South Africa have huge mark ups on their products,
I know that for a fact as I have bought from retailers such as B&H in NY
and the products have landed here via courier cheaper than buying local.
I held up a Nikon D300 yesterday, the price sticker was R30 000,00 ( $4
400,00 ) does that figure sound about right in the US ... just curious ?
Bernard

Bernard Rother wrote:
> Peter Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> "Tony Polson" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
>>>> That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
>>>> cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
>>>> manufacturing quality is lower.
>>>>
>>>> Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
>>>> precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite
>>>> the
>>>> build quality.
>>>
>>> Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
>>> samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.
>>
>> They've also managed to get every one of my lenses to work perfectly too.
>>
> I have 2 Sigmas and have not had any issues with either of them.
> Replaced the 18-135 with an 18-200 OS HSM just for the extra reach and
> the OS.
> The salesman and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR & the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM out
> on the counter ... the Nikon was over R2000,00 ( +/- $300 )more. He let
> me take both into the garden / car park and take some shots. I took 3
> shots at 3 various focal lengths from each lens. ( Agreed .... it was
> not a really technical test .... just similar to my regular style of
> shooting ) After printing them out on 6x4 paper nobody behind the
> counter was able to tell the difference between the Nikon and the Sigma.
> That, plus the fact I never had any problems with the previous Sigma was
> enough to persuade me to choose the Sigma. Just as an aside, the Nikon
> distributors here in South Africa have huge mark ups on their products,
> I know that for a fact as I have bought from retailers such as B&H in NY
> and the products have landed here via courier cheaper than buying local.
> I held up a Nikon D300 yesterday, the price sticker was R30 000,00 ( $4
> 400,00 ) does that figure sound about right in the US ... just curious ?
> Bernard

More like $1,700 US

I have 1 Sigma lens, a 12-24 full frame (that I'd like to try on full
frame) and my only complaint is the foam tape on the slide-on cap peeled
off. Oh it does have some minor incompatibility with my D200 which isn't
worth sending in to update.

"Bernard Rother" <> a écrit dans le message de
news: v76dnU5Vr-...
> Peter Stavrakoglou wrote:
>> "Tony Polson" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
>>>> That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
>>>> cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
>>>> manufacturing quality is lower.
>>>>
>>>> Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
>>>> precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite
>>>> the
>>>> build quality.
>>>
>>> Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
>>> samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.
>>
>> They've also managed to get every one of my lenses to work perfectly too.
> I have 2 Sigmas and have not had any issues with either of them. Replaced
> the 18-135 with an 18-200 OS HSM just for the extra reach and the OS.
> The salesman and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR & the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM out
> on the counter ... the Nikon was over R2000,00 ( +/- $300 )more. He let me
> take both into the garden / car park and take some shots. I took 3 shots
> at 3 various focal lengths from each lens. ( Agreed .... it was not a
> really technical test .... just similar to my regular style of shooting )
> After printing them out on 6x4 paper nobody behind the counter was able to
> tell the difference between the Nikon and the Sigma. That, plus the fact I
> never had any problems with the previous Sigma was enough to persuade me
> to choose the Sigma. Just as an aside, the Nikon distributors here in
> South Africa have huge mark ups on their products, I know that for a fact
> as I have bought from retailers such as B&H in NY and the products have
> landed here via courier cheaper than buying local.
> I held up a Nikon D300 yesterday, the price sticker was R30 000,00 ( $4
> 400,00 ) does that figure sound about right in the US ... just curious ?
> Bernard

At 4" x 6" anything looks good. Check both lenses full size on your
computer monitor and you may be surprised. The best way to go about it is
to shoot the same scene with the camera on a tripod at the same focal lenght
(or close enough) with the same settings and flip between two similar shots
from the two lenses or have the two pictures displayed side by side. If you
are going to pay good money for a lens, get a good one... no, get a great
one, you will never regret your purchase.

Jean

jean wrote:
> "Bernard Rother" <> a écrit dans le message de
> news: v76dnU5Vr-...
>> Peter Stavrakoglou wrote:
>>> "Tony Polson" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
>>>>> That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
>>>>> cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
>>>>> manufacturing quality is lower.
>>>>>
>>>>> Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
>>>>> precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite
>>>>> the
>>>>> build quality.
>>>> Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
>>>> samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.
>>> They've also managed to get every one of my lenses to work perfectly too.
>> I have 2 Sigmas and have not had any issues with either of them. Replaced
>> the 18-135 with an 18-200 OS HSM just for the extra reach and the OS.
>> The salesman and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR & the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM out
>> on the counter ... the Nikon was over R2000,00 ( +/- $300 )more. He let me
>> take both into the garden / car park and take some shots. I took 3 shots
>> at 3 various focal lengths from each lens. ( Agreed .... it was not a
>> really technical test .... just similar to my regular style of shooting )
>> After printing them out on 6x4 paper nobody behind the counter was able to
>> tell the difference between the Nikon and the Sigma. That, plus the fact I
>> never had any problems with the previous Sigma was enough to persuade me
>> to choose the Sigma. Just as an aside, the Nikon distributors here in
>> South Africa have huge mark ups on their products, I know that for a fact
>> as I have bought from retailers such as B&H in NY and the products have
>> landed here via courier cheaper than buying local.
>> I held up a Nikon D300 yesterday, the price sticker was R30 000,00 ( $4
>> 400,00 ) does that figure sound about right in the US ... just curious ?
>> Bernard
>
> At 4" x 6" anything looks good. Check both lenses full size on your
> computer monitor and you may be surprised. The best way to go about it is
> to shoot the same scene with the camera on a tripod at the same focal lenght
> (or close enough) with the same settings and flip between two similar shots
> from the two lenses or have the two pictures displayed side by side. If you
> are going to pay good money for a lens, get a good one... no, get a great
> one, you will never regret your purchase.
>
> Jean
>
>
Hi Jean, I still have those pics on the PC and still prefer the Sigma
results. Any ideas how one can post the pics on the web while retaining
the EXIF data ? When I post them I'll call them "A" and "B" and you can
take a gander before before checking the EXIFs.
Bernard.

"Peter Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:

>"Tony Polson" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
>>>
>>>That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
>>>cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
>>>manufacturing quality is lower.
>>>
>>>Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
>>>precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite the
>>>build quality.
>>
>>
>> Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
>> samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.
>
>They've also managed to get every one of my lenses to work perfectly too.


Really? How would you know?

Have you tested them on an optical bench?

Sigma knows that the vast majority of its customers will simply
believe the magazine and web reviews, and never test their own lenses.
And the vast majority of Sigma owners will be perfectly happy with
lenses that display serious flaws when bench tested.

Bernard Rother <> wrote:
>
>I have 2 Sigmas and have not had any issues with either of them.
>Replaced the 18-135 with an 18-200 OS HSM just for the extra reach and
>the OS.
>The salesman and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR & the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM out
>on the counter ... the Nikon was over R2000,00 ( +/- $300 )more. He let
>me take both into the garden / car park and take some shots. I took 3
>shots at 3 various focal lengths from each lens. ( Agreed .... it was
>not a really technical test .... just similar to my regular style of
>shooting ) After printing them out on 6x4 paper nobody behind the
>counter was able to tell the difference between the Nikon and the Sigma.

So the opinion of the *sales staff* was that the Sigma was just as
good as the Nikkor?

Of course they would say that, because they make far more money
selling you a Sigma lens!

>That, plus the fact I never had any problems with the previous Sigma was
>enough to persuade me to choose the Sigma. Just as an aside, the Nikon
>distributors here in South Africa have huge mark ups on their products,

The Sigma mark-ups are even bigger! Here in the UK, the percentage
mark-up on Sigma lenses is more than double, and sometimes treble the
mark-up on camera brand lenses, especially Nikon and Canon.

So the sales staff love selling Sigma lenses, because they are far,
far more profitable.

TH O <> wrote:

>In article <>,
> Robert Coe <> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:15:55 -0500, TH O <> wrote:
>> : In article <>,
>> : Robert Coe <> wrote:
>> :
>> : > Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?
>> :
>> : Who the hell would counterfeit Sigma??
>>
>> Someone who wants to make a $290 profit on a $300 lens.
>
>LOL. Just like Sigma's $280 profit.


It's amazing how easy it is to con people.

When it comes to dressing up a mediocre product to make it look
expensive, Sigma are top of the tree.

Their lenses sell for less than camera brand lenses because they are
very cheaply made.

The camera stores love them because they have the highest mark-up of
any brand of lens. The dealer's margin is at least double and often
treble that of a Nikon, Canon or other camera brand lens.

Tony Polson wrote:
> Bernard Rother <> wrote:
>> I have 2 Sigmas and have not had any issues with either of them.
>> Replaced the 18-135 with an 18-200 OS HSM just for the extra reach and
>> the OS.
>> The salesman and I had the Nikon 18-200 VR & the Sigma 18-200 OS HSM out
>> on the counter ... the Nikon was over R2000,00 ( +/- $300 )more. He let
>> me take both into the garden / car park and take some shots. I took 3
>> shots at 3 various focal lengths from each lens. ( Agreed .... it was
>> not a really technical test .... just similar to my regular style of
>> shooting ) After printing them out on 6x4 paper nobody behind the
>> counter was able to tell the difference between the Nikon and the Sigma.
>
> So the opinion of the *sales staff* was that the Sigma was just as
> good as the Nikkor?

No .... the Nikkor was just as good as the Sigma, so there was no need
to spend additional funds for a similar photographic result..
>
> Of course they would say that, because they make far more money
> selling you a Sigma lens!
>
>> That, plus the fact I never had any problems with the previous Sigma was
>> enough to persuade me to choose the Sigma. Just as an aside, the Nikon
>> distributors here in South Africa have huge mark ups on their products,
>
> The Sigma mark-ups are even bigger! Here in the UK, the percentage
> mark-up on Sigma lenses is more than double, and sometimes treble the
> mark-up on camera brand lenses, especially Nikon and Canon.
>
> So the sales staff love selling Sigma lenses, because they are far,
> far more profitable.
>