Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 15, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jul 15, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    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?
    Me, Jul 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Mr. Strat Guest

    In article
    <>,
    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.
    Mr. Strat, Jul 16, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, 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?


    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? BTW, is the Sigma fully weatherproof?
    Rich, Jul 16, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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.

    Indeed, Nikon users don't have to pay all that much more (than the
    Sigma) for the AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED DX. This is probably
    better optically as well as having much higher residual value, which
    is important when it comes to upgrading, for example to FX.
    Bruce, Jul 16, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, 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?

    >
    >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.
    Bruce, Jul 16, 2010
    #6
  7. "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > $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.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Jul 16, 2010
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat <> wrote:
    > In article
    > <>,
    > 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 :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 16, 2010
    #8
  9. 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 -- 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.

    - Solomon [wanting a fast zoom in the 50-100mm range..]
    --
    Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
    Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
    Stuffed Crust, Jul 16, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 16, 2:40 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, 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?

    >
    > >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.
    RichA, Jul 16, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Jul 16, 9:23 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > $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.
    RichA, Jul 16, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    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. ;-)
    Bruce, Jul 16, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >On Jul 16, 2:40 am, Bruce <> 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 ....
    Bruce, Jul 16, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:16:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Jul 16, 2:40 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    : > On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    : > wrote:
    : >
    : > >On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, 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?
    : >
    : > >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
    Robert Coe, Jul 16, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat" <>
    wrote:
    : In article
    : <>,
    : 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
    Robert Coe, Jul 16, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
    nospam, Jul 16, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
    Robert Coe, Jul 16, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:17:56 -0700 (PDT), RichA <> wrote:
    : On Jul 16, 9:23 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote:
    : > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    : >
    : > news:...
    : >
    : > > $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/2.8)? 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
    Robert Coe, Jul 16, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Me Guest

    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<> wrote:
    > :> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:24:27 -0700 (PDT), Rich<>
    > :> wrote:
    > :>
    > :> >On Jul 15, 7:09 pm, 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?
    > :>
    > :> >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.
    Me, Jul 16, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Me Guest

    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?
    Me, Jul 16, 2010
    #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. Bucky

    NTL greedy sods

    Bucky, May 3, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    585
    Whiskers
    May 4, 2006
  2. tomas

    greedy broadband'r

    tomas, Sep 21, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    663
    tomas
    Sep 25, 2006
  3. Aardvark

    Re: Evil, greedy Capitalist propaganda

    Aardvark, May 30, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    398
    Aardvark
    May 30, 2010
  4. Buffalo

    Re: Evil, greedy Capitalist propaganda

    Buffalo, May 30, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    Buffalo
    May 30, 2010
  5. RichA

    Slimy, greedy, grasping Apple loses to Amazon

    RichA, Jul 8, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    416
    Views:
    5,262
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Nov 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page