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

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
> >
> >Hell, that's a good rule in life too.
>
> Just the opposite, actually.

wrong. you'll go broke trying to please *everyone*.

nospam

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >Some businesses actively fire customers, those who demand too much time
> >and service v. the business brought. (One Harvard prof. estimates this
> >at about 1% of customers per year).
>
> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
> *all* customers.

try to yes, but you *can't* please everyone, and in some cases it's
cheaper to send the customer packing.

in fact, i know of one company that not only refunded the purchase
price, but *paid* for the customer to get a competing product. the
customer was nothing but trouble, constantly calling tech support, and
wasting everyone's time.

nospam

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:28:49 -0400, Alan Browne
> <> wrote in
> <>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:56:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>>> <> wrote
>>>> In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
>>>>
>>>> Hell, that's a good rule in life too.
>>> Just the opposite, actually.
>> Hell no! There are two facets of this that apply.
>>
>> 1) The customer that insists that you can provide a service to him that
>> is nearly in your scope, but actually is not. (And this can be up/down,
>> that is to say a low-quality service request to your high-quality co.,
>> or a high-quality service request from your low-brow co).
>>
>> 2) The customer that wears you down. Demands deeper discounts despite a
>> somewhat low annual volume; demands service beyond the offer
>> (reasonable, implied, contractual); "exercises" your staff with endless
>> information requests - but seldom buys, or buys well below the
>> negotiation point, and so on.
>>
>> Some businesses actively fire customers, those who demand too much time
>> and service v. the business brought. (One Harvard prof. estimates this
>> at about 1% of customers per year).
>
> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
> *all* customers.

Rubbish. Back when I ran a service department for a computer products
company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome
clients by proving that they were actually costing us money.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 3:43 PM:
>>
>> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
>> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
>> *all* customers.
>
> Rubbish. Back when I ran a service department for a computer products
> company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome
> clients by proving that they were actually costing us money.
>

Hmmmmm.......
I wonder why you stopped running that service department?
<g,d&r>

Noons

On Oct 23, 11:46*am, "Calvin Sambrook" <csambr...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
> in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
> Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
> retailer instead but that's another story for later.
>

If you go to McDonalds to eat, don't bitch about the food.

Annika1980

"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
news:b4d552a8-efaf-4afe-babc-...
On Oct 23, 11:46 am, "Calvin Sambrook" <csambr...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored
>> or
>> in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
>> Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
>> retailer instead but that's another story for later.
>
>
> If you go to McDonalds to eat, don't bitch about the food.

That's a bit harsh, accepting that Sigma are at the cheaper end I'd expect
performance which wasn't as good as more expensive lenses. Slower focus,
softer, more CA, noisier - they are all things which one can choose to
accept in a cheaper lens or one can decide those matter to you enough to pay
more. A life of two months is definitely unacceptable.

In the UK we now have a reasonably strong Sale of Goods Act which has an
assumption that (for non-perishable goods) if something breaks in the first
6 months it was was faulty at purchase unless the retailer can prove
otherwise. People are only just waking up to what that means in practice
and it can be hard work enforcing your rights (that will be the subject of
another post one day) but it does mean that manufacturers like Sigma can no
longer get away with the sort of things they once did.

Calvin Sambrook

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:54:42 -0700, nospam <> wrote:
: In article <N_adnbCcFqY->, Alan Browne
: <> wrote:
:
: > Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
: > to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga.
:
: agreed, along with their blatant lies about their cameras.

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
one.

Bob

Robert Coe

"John Navas" <> wrote in message
news:...

> ...................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.
>
>
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.

RustY ©

In article <>, Robert Coe
<> wrote:

> Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
> one.

a few people do but it's a tiny tiny minority. sigma's market share is
well under 0.5%.

nospam

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >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.
>
> With good budget OEM lenses are available, I personally don't think the
> difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.

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.

> If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.

some third party lenses definitely deliver, just as some nikon/canon
lenses do not. it all depends on the particular lens.

nospam