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

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

>> 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.

Here we go again ... Michael, have you stopped beating your wife?
A straight yes or no will suffice!

Alternatively you could admit that your question is full of
falsehoods and thus invalid.

>> 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.

You are not doing science, you are doing accusation.
Accusations which, I might add, are trivially, even for you,
found to fail because of falsification. Which means you are
one of
a) terminally lazy and savage, to not check trivially
checkable facts --- and I told you where you were wrong!
b) a liar and savage, knowingly uttering falsehoods
c) mentally not capable of separating true from false
statements

> 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 ?

Irrelevant, you are *not* doing science. Alternatively, you
should have no problem with me putting up the theory that you are a
wife-beater, since you can trivially falsify it --- *can't* *you*?

>> 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.

So your theory is that you are mentally incapable?

>> 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.

One of those 'facts' that you didn't check. Prove you did check
that fact. Can't even describe what you did to assertain that
fact? Thought so.

Actually, that's not even exactly what you claimed the first
time around. Details don't matter, do they?

> If you're saying that doesn't
> match up to reality, then produce some evidence of another such hirer.

That you cannot read is proven again. Reread what I wrote.

But yes, you are a wife-beater --- produce some evidence that
you do not hit your wife.

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

Of course you cannot ... without admitting you might have
been wrong.

>> > 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 ?

Ah, dear michael has a "special" understanding what a website is.
It's anything that agrees with his theory ...

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

I thought you were able to use google, but now I doubt you can
copy and paste an URL. But you surely can explain why Sigma
lenses rate last here:
http://www.lensplay.com/lenses/lens_defect_results.php
Must be an international conspiracy.

>> > 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 ?

My theory is meaningful. Prove the opposite, if you like.

> 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 ?

Are you going to stop beaing your 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 ?

*So* you are going to stop beating your wife on Sunday morning?
Or on Monday morning, or on Tuesday?

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg

nospam wrote:
> In article <>, John Navas
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>>> Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
>>> 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
>>> equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
>>> delta cost for that.
>> If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters, but I've
>> personally yet to see a case where a good OEM prime didn't significantly
>> outperform cheaper non-OEM lenses.
>
> perhaps you need to get out more, and he's not talking about single
> focal length lenses anyway.

I think the 14mm f/2.8 Sigma prime gets better reviews than the Nikon,
or very close, or better in some respects and significantly cheaper. In
this case the Sigma came years after the Nikon and Nikon now has a much
better zoom. There are other examples of pro lenses like 300/2.8 where
the Sigma performs very well for a fraction of the preposterous cost of
the OEM. And old examples of Cult lenses from Tokina, Cosina, etc, or
the Nikon Series E lenses that were supposed to be cheap and weren't
given the Nikkor label but in fact were really great lenses. Lots of the
third party Macro lenses are excellent.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:40:49 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
: I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my
: D70, and other than some initial operator errors resulting in
: vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever
: since on the D70 & my D300.
:
: I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp
: and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.

Where did you find the Tokina? Both B&H and Adorama have had it back-ordered
for months.

Bob

Robert Coe