Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy

Reply
Thread Tools

Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2010
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone reviewed
>it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in the group to buy one,
>but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no independent data to go on.



Is there really any such thing as "independent data" to go on? Review
samples are very carefully selected and may not be at all
representative of the lenses that people actually buy in stores. Sigma
is notorious for this.

The only answer is to buy one from a store with a good returns policy,
test it yourself, thoroughly, and see if it meets your standards. If
not, send it back for a refund.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2010
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:00:25 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >
: >Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone
: >reviewed it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in
: >the group to buy one, but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no
: >independent data to go on.
:
: Is there really any such thing as "independent data" to go on?
: Review samples are very carefully selected and may not be at all
: representative of the lenses that people actually buy in stores.
: Sigma is notorious for this.
:
: The only answer is to buy one from a store with a good returns
: policy, test it yourself, thoroughly, and see if it meets your
: standards. If not, send it back for a refund.

I was hoping one of you guys would beat me to it! ;^)

Bob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2010
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:32:54 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 11:00:25 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:06:00 -0400, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: >
>: >Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone
>: >reviewed it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in
>: >the group to buy one, but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no
>: >independent data to go on.
>:
>: Is there really any such thing as "independent data" to go on?
>: Review samples are very carefully selected and may not be at all
>: representative of the lenses that people actually buy in stores.
>: Sigma is notorious for this.
>:
>: The only answer is to buy one from a store with a good returns
>: policy, test it yourself, thoroughly, and see if it meets your
>: standards. If not, send it back for a refund.
>
>I was hoping one of you guys would beat me to it! ;^)



You won't catch me buying a Sigma lens ever again; I have been burned
too many times already, starting in 1975. Lessons have been learned.

I have never owned, used or tested a Sigma lens that fulfilled Sigma's
claims for its performance. Never, not once, nada. The differences
were significant, and that also applied on several occasions where I
tested more than one sample.

When you take Sigma lenses apart, the build quality, even on the
nice-looking EX lenses, is absolutely atrocious.

You don't always get what you pay for, but you hardly ever get what
you didn't pay for.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete Stavrakoglou
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2010
"Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4c53823c$0$5505$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com...
> "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:46:10 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>> : "Robert Coe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> : news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> : > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:09:05 +1200, Me <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>> :
>> : The 17-50 has OS and also a new type of glass that is suppossed to be
>> : similar to Canon's flourite glass. Those two things will account for
>> the
>> : higher price compared to an older model like the 18-50mm EX.
>>
>> Now that the 17-50 is apparently available (even at B&H), has anyone
>> reviewed
>> it? I guess I could see myself being one of the first in the group to buy
>> one,
>> but I'm a bit squeamish about doing so with no independent data to go on.

>
>
> FWIIW
> Yesterday I tested the Sigma 8-16 again. I was very unhappy about the fit
> on my camera. The fit was so tight I could almost, but not quite feel the
> metal grinding. The rep at Sigma tried to convince me that the fit was
> supposed to be that tight. The first lens I tried was not so tight.
> Application to your issue: Sigma seems to be inconsistent in its tooling
> and be careful.
> --
> Peter


That sure was a tight fit, tighter than I'd ever seen in any lens I have,
Sigma or otherwise. I recently acquired a Tokina 11-16mm and put it on for
a test drive yesterday. That one has a very tight fit on both of my Canon
bodies, yet all the other lenses - including Tokinas - don't fit that
tightly.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Greedy and non greedy quantifiers Dan Kelly Ruby 4 01-19-2008 08:36 PM
Greedy quantifier - Java 0 07-11-2005 01:34 AM
RegEx: Is there such a thing as "non-greedy backwards"? mrclean_ii@hotmail.com Java 5 01-25-2005 04:07 PM
Regex again - non-greedy matching kaeli Java 3 05-07-2004 07:36 PM
greedy v. non-greedy matching Matt Garrish Perl Misc 4 02-16-2004 03:25 PM



Advertisments