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

michael adams <> wrote:

Lots of handwaving, which proves that "michael adams" has not even
read what I have written, blandfaced repetitions what he wrote,
lies (yes, it's a lie if you knowingly repeat a falsehood), etc.

I'll just give you one nugget of his logic, slightly edited
for brevity. No longer you have to prove your claims, the
other side has to disprove it now:

> My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true,
> up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the
> contrary]

My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife
and cannot read. Now, that claim or theory *IS* *TRUE!* up until
such time as he (or anyone else) can produce proof to the contrary.
Have fun, wife beater.

Any further discussion with a liar who won't read (and is a known
wife beater, too, by his own logic) is just not worth it ---
he won't read it (nor understand it) anyway.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
news:7bm0s6-...
> michael adams <> wrote:
>
> Lots of handwaving, which proves that "michael adams" has not even
> read what I have written, blandfaced repetitions what he wrote,
> lies (yes, it's a lie if you knowingly repeat a falsehood), etc.
>
> I'll just give you one nugget of his logic, slightly edited
> for brevity. No longer you have to prove your claims, the
> other side has to disprove it now:
>
> > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true,
> > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the
> > contrary]
>
> My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife
> and cannot read.


Oh dear ! No wonder you substituted that [whatever} there, Wolfgang.

Hoping no-one would notice the difference

And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ?

My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma
lenses. And I have produced evidence in support of that theory -
the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses

You have produced no evidence whatsoever that I beat my wife
and as to your theory it's entirely vacuous and without any meaningful
content.

It's only possible to stop doing something if you're already doing it.
If someone has never beaten their wife then the question of whether
they have stopped doing so is totally meaningless. You might just as
well ask them what noise do blue bananas make, and insist on an
answer to that question instead. Both questions are equally meaningless
and devoid of content. Bananas aren't blue, and don't make a noise. Just
as people who have never beaten their wives can't have stopped doing
something which they never did in the first place.

Tell me Wolfgang, didn't they explain all that to you, on that website
you copied your trick question from ?

< snipped insults, evidence of rank cowardice, attempts to run away etc. etc.>

Looks like someone's finally bitten off more than he can chew.


michael adams


>
> -Wolfgang

michael adams

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:57:49 -0000, "michael adams"
<> wrote:

>
>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
>news:7bm0s6-...
>> michael adams <> wrote:
>>
>> Lots of handwaving, which proves that "michael adams" has not even
>> read what I have written, blandfaced repetitions what he wrote,
>> lies (yes, it's a lie if you knowingly repeat a falsehood), etc.
>>
>> I'll just give you one nugget of his logic, slightly edited
>> for brevity. No longer you have to prove your claims, the
>> other side has to disprove it now:
>>
>> > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true,
>> > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the
>> > contrary]
>>
>> My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife
>> and cannot read.
>
>
>Oh dear ! No wonder you substituted that [whatever} there, Wolfgang.
>
>Hoping no-one would notice the difference
>
>And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ?
>
>My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma
>lenses. And I have produced evidence in support of that theory -
>the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses
>
>You have produced no evidence whatsoever that I beat my wife
>and as to your theory it's entirely vacuous and without any meaningful
>content.
>
>It's only possible to stop doing something if you're already doing it.
>If someone has never beaten their wife then the question of whether
>they have stopped doing so is totally meaningless. You might just as
>well ask them what noise do blue bananas make, and insist on an
>answer to that question instead. Both questions are equally meaningless
>and devoid of content. Bananas aren't blue, and don't make a noise. Just
>as people who have never beaten their wives can't have stopped doing
>something which they never did in the first place.
>
>Tell me Wolfgang, didn't they explain all that to you, on that website
>you copied your trick question from ?
>
>< snipped insults, evidence of rank cowardice, attempts to run away etc. etc.>
>
>Looks like someone's finally bitten off more than he can chew.
>
>
>michael adams
>

He always does that. Knows just enough from what he reads on the net to get
himself in trouble. He can't dazzle anyone with brilliance so he attempts
to baffle them with his bullshit. Now if you ask him about actually using
real cameras in real life, that's a whole other story. That is far outside
the realm of his experiences.

"If I had read as many books as other men, I should have been as ignorant
as they are." - Thomas Hobbes

Nelson J.

Calvin Sambrook wrote:
> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>
> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
> not alone.

Thanks for the warning. In general you should avoid those third-party
lenese at all costs. There are often compatibility problems because the
lens was designed for the cameras available at the time, without any
knowledge of what future camera models with the same lens mount would be
capable of (not only mechanically, but in electronic communication
between the camera and lens).

Every time I'm tempted to but a third-party lens I take a deep breath
and think about the Canon lenses I have that have lasted 12 years with
no problems at all, and decide that if I buy the more expensive lens
then within a few months I'll forget that I paid more for a better lens,
but if I buy the crappy lens I'll have to live with that forever.

SMS

Alan Browne wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <>, Alan Browne
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from
>>> the catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier
>>> company and happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma
>>> garbage, er, product.
>>
>> they *have* done that when there's a non-sigma option. however, there
>> are some lenses that only sigma makes, so they stock them.
>
> In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.

No, it's not an error to try to please everyone, it's an error to
actually please everyone.

Very true. And with an 85% failure rate, if that's true, they are at
least displeasing the renter that is the last one to rent the lens when
it fails.

SMS

Robert Coe wrote:

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

I have seen one, and apparently there were a few people that bought
them. The list of issues with the SD10 was so long that it's hard to
believe anyone would have chosen that over a Canon or Nikon, but
apparently most of those customers had been using the Sigma film SLR and
wanted to continue to use their Sigma mount lenses.

The Foveon technology held great promise at the time it was introduced,
but when they moved from three separate sensors to the stacked sensor
with silicon color separation, it didn't work out.

SMS

michael adams <> wrote:
> "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
>> michael adams <> wrote:

>> > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true,
>> > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the
>> > contrary]

>> My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife
>> and cannot read.

> Oh dear ! No wonder you substituted that [whatever} there, Wolfgang.

Yep, the logic stays the same. Didn't they tell you in first
class in school?

> Hoping no-one would notice the difference

The difference being that ordinarily a theory must be proven
right by the claimant instead of having to be dispelled by the
other side? Yes, you abandoned that method, now, wife beater,
suffer for it.

> And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ?

Yes.

> My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma
> lenses.

Not your only claim, btw, and not the one you *obviously* lied,
after being told in detail your assumed facts don't match up with
reality, and to check them.

> And I have produced evidence in support of that theory -
> the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses

*Someone* *else* did produce the "evidence". Lies again ...
And it's *not* evidence that "there is *only* *one* *website*"
--- in fact, there are other websites "which denigrate[...]
Sigma lenses", as a quick google for "sigma lenses are crap"
shows --- so it's not evidence.

> You have produced no evidence whatsoever that I beat my wife
> and as to your theory it's entirely vacuous and without any meaningful
> content.

I don't need to provide evidence, in your own words: "And that
claim or theory is true, up until such time as you or anyone else
can produce [proof to the contrary]".

But I take it you now see your own theory "entirely vacuous and
without any meaningful content"? Good. That's what it is.

> It's only possible to stop doing something if you're already doing it.

It's only possible to do something instead if one stops the
other thing.

> If someone has never beaten their wife then the question of whether
> they have stopped doing so is totally meaningless.

If someone never stopped renting out Sigma lenses then doing
something instead is totally meaningless.

> You might just as
> well ask them what noise do blue bananas make, and insist on an
> answer to that question instead.

You might just as well ask them what noise orange apples
make, and insist on an answer to that question instead.

> Both questions are equally meaningless
> and devoid of content.

Both assumptions are equally meaningless and devoid of
content. That includes your claims.

> Bananas aren't blue, and don't make a noise.

You've never seen paint and have never stepped on a banana.

> Just
> as people who have never beaten their wives can't have stopped doing
> something which they never did in the first place.

Just as lens renters who have never stopped renting out Sigma
lenses cannot put up websites *instead* of renting out Sigma
lenses.

> Tell me Wolfgang, didn't they explain all that to you, on that website
> you copied your trick question from ?

Tell me michael, didn't they explain all that to you on that
website you copied your false assumptions in question form
trick from?

> Looks like someone's finally bitten off more than he can chew.

Hey, brainiac, did you stop beating your wife, or do you
admit you have to completely prove your claims before they
come to be true?

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg

Nelson J <> wrote:

> He always does that. Knows just enough from what he reads on the net to get
> himself in trouble. [bla bla]

Hello, P&S troll.

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
newsl53s6-...
> michael adams <> wrote:
> > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
> >> michael adams <> wrote:
>
> >> > My claim - or theory - is [whatever] And that claim or theory is true,
> >> > up until such time as you or anyone else can produce [proof to the
> >> > contrary]
>
> >> My claim - or theory - is, then, that michael adams beats his wife
> >> and cannot read.
>
> > Oh dear ! No wonder you substituted that [whatever} there, Wolfgang.
>
> Yep, the logic stays the same. Didn't they tell you in first
> class in school?

So you're claiming are you, that Einstein's Theory of Relativity
is of no more significance than Weisselberg's Theory of Adams Beating
His Wife ?

A straight yes or no will suffice idf youi would be so kind.


>
> > Hoping no-one would notice the difference
>
> The difference being that ordinarily a theory must be proven
> right by the claimant instead of having to be dispelled by the
> other side?


Science progresses by the falsification and replacement of existing
theories.

Have you never heard of Karl Popper ?

Again a straight yes or no answer will suffice.

And if you have, what did Karl Popper have to say on the subject which
was so illuminating ?


> Yes, you abandoned that method, now, wife beater,
> suffer for it.


Trying to make sense of the nonsense that you post, is indeed a
a form of suffering. That's about the first true thing you've said.



>
> > And you have the brass neck to accuse *me* of telling lies ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > My claim or theory is there is only one website which denigrates Sigma
> > lenses.
>
> Not your only claim, btw, and not the one you *obviously* lied,
> after being told in detail your assumed facts don't match up with
> reality, and to check them.

One of those facts being that there is only one lens hirer who has
a webpage denigrating Sigma Lenses. If you're saying that doesn't
match up to reality, then produce some evidence of another such hirer.

I can't say fairer than that, now can I ?


>
> > And I have produced evidence in support of that theory -
> > the actual existence of a website which denigrates Sigma Lenses
>
> *Someone* *else* did produce the "evidence". Lies again ...
> And it's *not* evidence that "there is *only* *one* *website*"
> --- in fact, there are other websites "which denigrate[...]
> Sigma lenses", as a quick google for "sigma lenses are crap"
> shows --- so it's not evidence.

They're not websites. They're posts on forums and chat boards.

Don't you know the difference ?

But of course you do ! Because if they were websites you'd have left
links !



>
> > You have produced no evidence whatsoever that I beat my wife
> > and as to your theory it's entirely vacuous and without any meaningful
> > content.
>
> I don't need to provide evidence, in your own words: "And that
> claim or theory is true, up until such time as you or anyone else
> can produce [proof to the contrary]".

Meaningful theories ! Not nonsesnsical theories like yours.
How many more times ?

Or are you once again going to say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity
is of no more real significance than Weisselberg's Theory of Adams Beating
His Wife ?

< extensive mercy snippage >

>
> Hey, brainiac, did you stop beating your wife, or do you
> admit you have to completely prove your claims before they
> come to be true?


So it's not true that the Sun will definitely rise on Sunday morning then ?
Or on Monday morning, or on tuesday ?




michael adams

....









>
> -Wolfgang

michael adams

Alan Browne wrote:
> Calvin Sambrook wrote:
>> "nospam" <> wrote in message
>> news:231020091224233264%...
>>> In article <>, John Navas
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >just avoid sigma lenses
>>>>
>>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>>>
>>> generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the
>>> sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300
>>> aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you
>>> just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!
>>>
>>> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
>>
>> I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly
>> criticize a major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is
>> almost unheard of.
>
> I was mildly surprised, but not shocked.
>
> I chalk it up to their relative young age as a company coupled to their
> desires of satisfying their customers and the frustrations of Sigma's
> apparently very sub-par service and lackluster reliability.
>
> That page has been their long enough that it appears that Sigma don't
> feel it would be prudent to tackle it legally.
>
> It may also be that Sigma want photographers to own their lenses, not
> rental co's and are trying to "fire" lensrentals by souring the milk.
>
> As this rages through the photographic community, however, it just hurts
> their sales.

Most of their customers would probably not bother to research & find the
info anyways <g>. That said, when I bought my only Sigma lens from the
Calumet pro store in SF, the salesman sneered at me: 'you don't want
that lens' as I handed over $800 or so... that's their 12-24 full format
which has been one of my most used lenses and I'm quite happy with it.

Details on that lens:
Pros:
It is the widest thing available for FX DSLRs ever. While not razor
sharp, it is good and holds respectable sharpness to the corners very
well. There is almost zero barrel/pincushion (except at close focus)
which is great for architectural work. In many ways it is a well built
pro lens, metal body & mount, smooth focus, etc. CAs are not reasonably
well controlled considering it's acrobatics.
Cons:
It has slow max apertures. There was a (CPU?) flaw found for which I
could have sent it back to fix where it messed up metering or something
on certain camera bodies... never been a problem so I haven't bothered.
The hood is a crap design with some kind of crap foam cushion to hold it
in place that ripped off and it slides off all the time (argh!). The
sturdy metal barrel is coated with some sort of powder coating flocking
crap that has peeled off & looks like crap, near the mount. I treat
lenses roughly, they get a lot of use and banging around in the bag.

They have a bunch of very tempting and often quite good lenses that keep
the big guys in competition. The Nikon 14-24 wasn't out yet when I got
this and while stellar, it's more than twice the price and not as wide.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman