Happy enigma about crappy Sigma

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sosumi, Jan 9, 2008.

  1. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
    a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
    of money they can not even give it some real plastic?

    What a crappy company!


    --
    Sosumi
     
    Sosumi, Jan 9, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sosumi

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Sosumi
    <> wrote:

    > My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
    > a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    > plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    > Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
    > of money they can not even give it some real plastic?


    at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
    sigma lenses were. really.
     
    nospam, Jan 9, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:090120080824599137%...
    > In article <>, Sosumi
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
    >> saw
    >> a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    >> plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    >> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
    >> amount
    >> of money they can not even give it some real plastic?

    >
    > at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
    > sigma lenses were. really.


    You must be kiddin' right?
     
    Sosumi, Jan 9, 2008
    #3
  4. Sosumi

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Sosumi
    <> wrote:

    > >> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
    > >> saw
    > >> a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    > >> plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    > >> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
    > >> amount
    > >> of money they can not even give it some real plastic?

    > >
    > > at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
    > > sigma lenses were. really.

    >
    > You must be kiddin' right?


    <http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4703&view=next&sid=cb
    58ec818bd7cae3a389b19a63057cd0>

    There is nothing more objective than direct personal experience, and
    I have owned a Sigma lens (puchased new) which contained a front
    element connected to the rest of the lens body by sticky tape. It
    eventually came unstuck.

    <http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KFSN>

    A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
    lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
    assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
    tape was failing on a regular basis.
     
    nospam, Jan 9, 2008
    #4
  5. Sosumi

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <>, Sosumi
    <> wrote:

    > What a crappy company!


    Hmmm...another satisfied user. :)
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 9, 2008
    #5
  6. Sosumi

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article <090120080912481302%>, nospam
    <> wrote:

    > A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
    > lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
    > assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
    > tape was failing on a regular basis.



    Oh no...you're just another Sigma hater with an anti-Sigma bias.
     
    Mr. Strat, Jan 9, 2008
    #6
  7. Sosumi

    Cynicor Guest

    nospam wrote:
    > <http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4703&view=next&sid=cb
    > 58ec818bd7cae3a389b19a63057cd0>
    >
    > There is nothing more objective than direct personal experience, and
    > I have owned a Sigma lens (puchased new) which contained a front
    > element connected to the rest of the lens body by sticky tape. It
    > eventually came unstuck.
    >
    > <http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KFSN>
    >
    > A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
    > lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
    > assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
    > tape was failing on a regular basis.


    OK, that's pretty awesome right there.
     
    Cynicor, Jan 9, 2008
    #7
  8. Sosumi

    Chris Guest

    "Sosumi" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
    > saw a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the
    > matte plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    > Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
    > amount of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
    >
    > What a crappy company!




    That's a bit harsh, although their quality can be quite variable ;)

    I once bought a 135-400 (istr) via mail order. Upon checking it I saw some
    loose particles of black plastic (like small slivers) deep between one of
    the element groups.

    Of course, I rang the company (Warehouse Express) who were happy to refund -
    but who also seemed a bit surprised that I was making a fuss. They seemed
    to regard this level of build as par for the Sigma course.

    On the other hand I've had some really excellent Sigma's - including the
    105EX and the cheapie 70-300 APO, so buying Sigma means paying your money
    and hoping for the best.

    I was under the impression that they were improving.

    Regards

    Chris
     
    Chris, Jan 9, 2008
    #8
  9. Sosumi

    RichA Guest

    On Jan 9, 11:24 am, nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Sosumi
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
    > > a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    > > plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    > > Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
    > > of money they can not even give it some real plastic?

    >
    > at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
    > sigma lenses were. really.


    And regular one sided tape, I've seen it in one. Not to mention their
    higher end lenses sometimes cost as much as OEM stuff for the same
    f.l.s and speeds. At the local camera stores who sell this stuff,
    there is palpable hatred of Sigma products.
     
    RichA, Jan 9, 2008
    #9
  10. On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:10:57 -0000, Chris wrote:

    > "Sosumi" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
    >> saw a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the
    >> matte plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    >> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
    >> amount of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
    >>
    >> What a crappy company!

    >
    >
    >
    > That's a bit harsh, although their quality can be quite variable ;)
    >
    > I once bought a 135-400 (istr) via mail order. Upon checking it I saw some
    > loose particles of black plastic (like small slivers) deep between one of
    > the element groups.
    >
    > Of course, I rang the company (Warehouse Express) who were happy to refund -
    > but who also seemed a bit surprised that I was making a fuss. They seemed
    > to regard this level of build as par for the Sigma course.
    >
    > On the other hand I've had some really excellent Sigma's - including the
    > 105EX and the cheapie 70-300 APO, so buying Sigma means paying your money
    > and hoping for the best.
    >
    > I was under the impression that they were improving.



    I actually have two (older) Sigma lenses (both purchased 2nd hand on Ebay)
    -- a 28-70 AF f2.8 and a 70-210 AF f2.8 of which I am happy with. Both seem
    solidly built and perform well mechanically and optically. But my total
    investment is under $400 for both.

    My feeling was that the quality has gotten worse not better but other than
    my older lenses, and recent comments here and in some recent reviews I have
    not much information to base that opinion on.

    Not sure I would buy some of the higher priced current new Sigma stuff (not
    sight unseen and certainly not when new OEM equivalents are the about the
    same price).


    --
    Brian Sullivan
    Courses by Wire (http://www.coursesbywire.com)
     
    Brian Sullivan, Jan 9, 2008
    #10
  11. Sosumi

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:12:48 -0800, nospam <> wrote:
    : In article <>, Sosumi
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : > >> My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I
    : > >> saw
    : > >> a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    : > >> plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    : > >> Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that
    : > >> amount
    : > >> of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
    : > >
    : > > at least it's not held together with double-sided tape, like some older
    : > > sigma lenses were. really.
    : >
    : > You must be kiddin' right?
    :
    : <http://www.pentaxuser.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4703&view=next&sid=cb
    : 58ec818bd7cae3a389b19a63057cd0>
    :
    : There is nothing more objective than direct personal experience, and
    : I have owned a Sigma lens (puchased new) which contained a front
    : element connected to the rest of the lens body by sticky tape. It
    : eventually came unstuck.
    :
    : <http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KFSN>
    :
    : A few years back there were reports all over the net about Sigma
    : lenses simply falling apart in their owner's hands. They were
    : assembled with tape inside holding major sections together, and the
    : tape was failing on a regular basis.

    Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 10, 2008
    #11
  12. Sosumi

    TH O Guest

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?


    Who the hell would counterfeit Sigma??
     
    TH O, Jan 10, 2008
    #12
  13. Sosumi

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, TH O
    <tho@tho.23.invalid> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    > > Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?

    >
    > Who the hell would counterfeit Sigma??


    good point. :)
     
    nospam, Jan 10, 2008
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    "Sosumi" <> wrote:

    > My Goodness! Had a Sigma 50-500 in my hand in a store, when I thought I saw
    > a small scratch. I played a little with it, but a hole piece of the matte
    > plastic came of and showed the shiny plastic underneath!
    > Here they sell for 1300,- euro, or about 1800,- US dollars. For that amount
    > of money they can not even give it some real plastic?
    >
    > What a crappy company!


    That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
    cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
    manufacturing quality is lower.

    Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
    precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite the
    build quality.

    --
    I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jan 10, 2008
    #14
  15. Sosumi

    flambe Guest

    Has anyone ever gotten a Nikon 55-200 to find focus in under 7 minutes?
     
    flambe, Jan 10, 2008
    #15
  16. Sosumi

    Tony Polson Guest

    Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    >That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
    >cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
    >manufacturing quality is lower.
    >
    >Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
    >precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite the
    >build quality.



    Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
    samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.
     
    Tony Polson, Jan 10, 2008
    #16
  17. Sosumi

    tomm42 Guest

    On Jan 10, 7:02 am, Tony Polson <> wrote:
    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >
    > >That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
    > >cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
    > >manufacturing quality is lower.

    >
    > >Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
    > >precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite the
    > >build quality.

    >
    > Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
    > samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.



    I worked in a sudio and we bought a Sigma 28-70 f2.8, took us 3 lenses
    to find a sharp one, then we were shooting wwith it when the
    photographer tripped over the wire to the flash pack, a 2 lb head
    falling with a light weight light stand sheared off the front of the
    lens, clean shear.
    But the funniest cheap camera construction was with a Yashica 2 1/4
    twin lens. I was working at a college in charge of a about 100 Yashica
    twin lens cameras that student could take out. A couple were always in
    the repair shop, the camera repair guy called me and asked me to drop
    by. He had one of the cameras totally disassembled, one of the side
    panels was off and there was a color graphic on the inside of the
    panel, obviously something commercial. A friend of the repair man said
    it was from a Japanese beer can, useful recycling in the ealy '70s.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jan 10, 2008
    #17
  18. Sosumi

    Roy G Guest

    "TH O" <tho@tho.23.invalid> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >
    >> Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?

    >
    > Who the hell would counterfeit Sigma??



    I would suspect any of the Chinese so called wholesalers of Shoes, Handbags,
    etc, who keep spamming this group with their wares could be just as
    interested in "genuine replica" Sigma lenses.

    Roy G
     
    Roy G, Jan 10, 2008
    #18
  19. "Tony Polson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
    >>
    >>That's fairly common with discount brands of anything - cameras, TV,
    >>cars, home electronics, etc. The designs are less robust and the
    >>manufacturing quality is lower.
    >>
    >>Making a 50-500mm zoom range work, even marginally, is going to require
    >>precision ground glass. That's why the lens is so expensive despite the
    >>build quality.

    >
    >
    > Sigma always seemed to have the knack of making sure that the review
    > samples submitted to magazines worked perfectly.


    They've also managed to get every one of my lenses to work perfectly too.
     
    Peter Stavrakoglou, Jan 11, 2008
    #19
  20. Sosumi

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:15:55 -0500, TH O <tho@tho.23.invalid> wrote:
    : In article <>,
    : Robert Coe <> wrote:
    :
    : > Is it possible that those were counterfeits of Sigma lenses?
    :
    : Who the hell would counterfeit Sigma??

    Someone who wants to make a $290 profit on a $300 lens.
     
    Robert Coe, Jan 11, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    HEXUS.opinions :: Have a happy happy gaming holiday

    Silverstrand, Dec 23, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    807
    Silverstrand
    Dec 23, 2005
  2. showgun

    happy happy christmas

    showgun, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    1,027
    Guest
    Dec 17, 2003
  3. Steve Roberts

    Enigma Special Edition - Aspect Ratio?

    Steve Roberts, Sep 16, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    515
    Joshua Zyber
    Sep 17, 2003
  4. Rubicon

    A public Wi-Fi enigma

    Rubicon, May 5, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    403
    Rubicon
    May 5, 2008
  5. RichA

    A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, etc, etc.

    RichA, Jun 26, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    794
    Bruce
    Jul 7, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page