«

"Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
news:...
> In rec.photo.digital 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.
>
> Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or
> optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose
> photographs have earned me the most money
>


Wrong.
The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself
the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to
the right situation.


--
Peter

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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!

Considering your questionable rediaility on other issues, I wonder if you
really own one. OTPH I really don't care.

>


--
Peter

"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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?


Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want to.
From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try a few.

--
Peter

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:03:45 -0400, "Peter" <>
wrote:

>"Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> In rec.photo.digital 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.
>>
>> Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or
>> optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose
>> photographs have earned me the most money
>>
>
>
>Wrong.
>The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself
>the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to
>the right situation.

Proving yet again that it's NOT about the pixels, or the elusive and
nebulous "image quality" that you all go on about but can never define.

IT'S THE CONTENT.

Content wins, every time.

On Jul 16, 7:23*pm, "N" <N...@onyx.com> wrote:
> "Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:...
>
>
>
> > 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
>
> Computer screens are, to put it mildly, used a lot in business, where
> squarish screens are usually more convenient than landscape.
>
> In the office, I use 2 x 5:4 as you correctly point out, for convenience.
> (I'm a computer programmer.)
>
> At home I use 2 landscape monitors.
>
> --
> N

Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so
any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:09:05 +1200, Me <> 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?

Adorama doesn't have it, but says they'd sell it for $669 if they did. B&H and
Hunt's don't appear to have heard of it yet.

I once paid about $700 for a Sigma telephoto, and so far it's been worth it.
But $670 for a 3rd-party walking-around lens does seem pretty steep. Sigma's
previous walker, the 18-50mm f/2.8, goes for about $250 less. Maybe they're
trying to hold the price up until they run out of the old one.

Bob

On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:46:45 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
: Problem is, most published images are still closer to 4:3 than 3:2 so
: any pro would benefit from a switch to 4:3 as a format.

Without subscribing to that windy assertion, for which you provided no proof,
I'd simply point out that it's better to have the camera format be too wide
than too high, because cropping in the long dimension wastes fewer pixels than
cropping the same amount in the short dimension does.

Bob

On Jul 17, 8:52*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Did you ever solve a Rubik Cube without cheating?
>
> Actually yes, but that was about 30 years ago.
> I have since moved on to other things, some of which include an
> occasional smile.

Not to mention the occasional simile.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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.
>

It's a nice lens and has the typically excellent tokina build quiality. But
it has no internal focus motor.

>>-- 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.

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:18a6d143-fe5e-48a5-87d3-...
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.

It's not a kit lens yet you said it was, you are wrong, it's that simple.
If you actually ever used a kit lens and one of Sigma's EX lenses, you would
now how silly it is to say that an EX lens is a kit lens.