«

On Jul 16, 9:23*am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-...
>
> > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? *Are they insane? *As much as an Olympus
> > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
>
> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
>
> Two things which should be obvious to you:
>
> 1) *the lens will sell for less than MSRP as all of Sigma's lenses do
> 2) *it's not a kit lens
>
> You need to find something constructive to do with your time inmstead of
> going off half-cocked like you did once again.

It's a wide to mid-angle zoom, slightly faster than a kit lens. That's
all.

On 16 Jul 2010 15:09:40 GMT, Stuffed Crust <>
wrote:

>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <> wrote:
>>>http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
>>
>> The Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (phew!) is well made and
>> significantly cheaper. It is unlikely to be bettered by the Sigma.
>
>There's also the Tokina 165 (16-50/2.8 DX), also cheaper and generally
>well-regarded


I've never seen one, But thanks for reminding me about it.

>-- but.
>
>What differentiates the new Sigma is optical image stabilization and an
>internal ultrasonic focus motor. The lenses aren't directly comparable
>because of that.


Sorry, I had kind of assumed that Tamron had by now updated their lens
with a focusing motor so it would work on the D40, D40X, D60 and D80
(and any other Nikon DSLR bodies I may have forgotten which lack the
screwdriver drive. Of course Tamron has already done this to other
key lenses in their range.


> - Solomon [wanting a fast zoom in the 50-100mm range..]


You may have a long wait.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
wrote:
>On Jul 16, 2:40*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus
>> Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled
>> Four Thirds sensors.
>
>Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise


Not on my D700, it isn't!


> I consider 3:2 sensor a waste because of their format.


Yes, you have to crop it quite severely to get to 16:9.

Of course you have to crop Four Thirds even more severely, and there
isn't really enough image information to start with ....

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
: On Jul 16, 2:40*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: > >On Jul 15, 7:09*pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
: > >> On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote:> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? *Are they insane? *As much as an Olympus
: > >> > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
: >
: > >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
: >
: > >> Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price
: > >> will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP.
: > >> You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every
: > >> performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that
: > >> assumption. *So perhaps it's you who is insane?
: >
: > >So you think the Sigma will beat the Olympus? *Do you know any other
: > >lens companies that measure lenses at 60lppm, including Zeiss or
: > >Leica? *
: >
: > It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus
: > Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled
: > Four Thirds sensors.
:
: Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise, I consider 3:2
: sensor a waste because of their format.

How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is
towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no
longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is pretty
much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 aspect
ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs.

Bob

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat" <>
wrote:
: In article
: <49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e->,
: RichA <> wrote:
:
: > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because I'm
one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or because
Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors and
their fanboys?

Bob

In article <>, Robert Coe
<> wrote:

> : If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.
>
> And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because I'm
> one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or because
> Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors and
> their fanboys?

pure luck.

go look at lensrental's repair statistics and their experiences getting
sigma to fix them. sigma told them 'customer damage' even when it was a
brand new lens, never rented to anyone.

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp

I may have to put that puppy on my wish list, along with the 7D I'd use it on.
;^)

But believe me when I tell you that I'll never pay $980 for it.

Bob

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:17:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
: On Jul 16, 9:23*am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
: > "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:49d5c14b-019a-4a26-a30e-...
: >
: > > $1000 for a fast kit zoom? *Are they insane? *As much as an Olympus
: > > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
: >
: > >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
: >
: > Two things which should be obvious to you:
: >
: > 1) *the lens will sell for less than MSRP as all of Sigma's lenses do
: > 2) *it's not a kit lens
: >
: > You need to find something constructive to do with your time inmstead of
: > going off half-cocked like you did once again.
:
: It's a wide to mid-angle zoom, slightly faster than a kit lens. That's
: all.

Have you ever used the current version of that lens (the 18-50mm f/2.? It
weighs twice as much as a kit lens, and you could probably crack walnuts with
it. And unlike any kit lens I ever saw, it's a CA zoom.

Bob

On 17/07/2010 9:41 a.m., Robert Coe wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA<> wrote:
> : On Jul 16, 2:40 am, Bruce<docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...@gmail.com>
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :> >On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, Me<u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> :> >> On 16/07/2010 10:22 a.m., RichA wrote:> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
> :> >> > 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
> :>
> :> >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
> :>
> :> >> Sigma MSRP is almost meaningless, except that you can guess street price
> :> >> will be about 60% +/- 10% of MSRP.
> :> >> You also just assume that an Olympus 4/3 lens will be "better in every
> :> >> performance area", but you have no data at all on which to base that
> :> >> assumption. So perhaps it's you who is insane?
> :>
> :> >So you think the Sigma will beat the Olympus? Do you know any other
> :> >lens companies that measure lenses at 60lppm, including Zeiss or
> :> >Leica?
> :>
> :> It's a pity that a lens of such optical excellence as the Olympus
> :> Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 SWD can only be used on crippled
> :> Four Thirds sensors.
> :
> : Well, you could consider high ISO a waste due to noise, I consider 3:2
> : sensor a waste because of their format.
>
> How can you say that with a straight face? You must know that the trand is
> towards wider, not higher, formats. Even TV sets and laptop computers no
> longer use the 4:3 aspect ratio. The 1280x1024 flat-screen monitor is pretty
> much the last non-wide holdout, and that may be mainly because its 5:4 aspect
> ratio is moderately convenient when it's used in pairs.
>
Perhaps he thinks the trend is a plot.

On 16/07/2010 6:31 p.m., Bruce wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:22:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA<>
> wrote:
>> $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
>> 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10071501sigma1750mm.asp
>
>
> The Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF (phew!) is well made and
> significantly cheaper. It is unlikely to be bettered by the Sigma.
>
Is that another one that's been replaced with Tamron's sad excuse for
in-lens focus motor?