Why would anyone buy this Sigma over the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 27, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Aug 27, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Peter Guest

    Peter, Aug 27, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 27, 6:55 pm, "Peter" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp

    >
    > Why did you post this?
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Because the lens is new and this is a photography equipment discussion
    group.
    RichA, Aug 28, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Tim Conway Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp
    >

    I had an old Sigma 70-210 f2.8 I bought in the early 90s. It got good
    reviews and I thought it was sharp. I tried to sell it to B&H and they
    claimed the aperture was frozen or something so I guess it's trash. At the
    time I had used it, though, I liked it. Not a Nikkor, but it was all I
    could afford. I paid 900 or so.
    Tim Conway, Aug 28, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "RichA" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Aug 27, 6:55 pm, "Peter" <> wrote:
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp

    >
    > Why did you post this?
    >
    > --
    > Peter


    Because the lens is new and this is a photography equipment discussion
    group.


    Most of us here can read. A posting should have some incisive and impartial
    analysis, based upon knowledge. Those elements are sadly lacking in your
    posting.

    Peter
    Peter, Aug 28, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Bowser" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.
    >>
    >>http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp

    >
    > Have you seen any tests comparing these lenses? How do you know the
    > Sigma isn't a better lens?



    It could be. Sigma makes some very high priced lenses. But, after some
    personal experience with them, which I recently posted here, it would take a
    lot of convincing to get me even to put another Sigma on any of my cameras.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 28, 2010
    #6
  7. On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:45 -0700, RichA wrote:

    > Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.
    >
    > http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp


    They probably got the price wrong.
    The Canon EF mount version is only $1699.

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689577-REG/Sigma_589101_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

    Both versions are listed at the same price of €1499 at my local shop:
    http://www.cameraland.nl/product/559/18795/
    http://www.cameraland.nl/product/560/18796/

    --
    Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
    Robert Spanjaard, Aug 28, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 27, 7:52 pm, Bowser <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:53:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.

    >
    > >http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp

    >
    > Have you seen any tests comparing these lenses? How do you know the
    > Sigma isn't a better lens?


    Don't make me laugh.
    RichA, Aug 28, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 8/28/2010 11:04 AM, lofi wrote:
    > In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses
    > the actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering
    > what one is paying the Nikon premium for.
    > The most useful tests would be of randomly purchased off the shelf
    > lenses from different vendors to see if optical performance matches that
    > of the hand picked lenses given to media testers as well as to see if
    > performance is sustained over time and normal use/abuse of the lens.


    Nikon and Canon both target the press market and for those guys the most
    important consideration is that the thing _work_. Cost and image
    quality are both secondary to that requirement. If you're standing next
    to another guy and the plane is headed for the tower and his Nikon works
    and your Sigma decides to crap out you may have blown the Pulitzer.
    Sigma seems to be targeting markets for which cost, image quality, or
    special capabilities are more important than reliability. So you may be
    paying a premium to Nikon and Canon to get more durable mechanisms.
    J. Clarke, Aug 28, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:4c786920$1$5511$-secrets.com...
    >> "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> On Aug 27, 6:55 pm, "Peter" <> wrote:
    >>> "RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>>
    >>> news:...
    >>>
    >>> > Even the older Nikon which you can pick up for around $1500 used.
    >>>
    >>> >http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10082701sigma70200mmnikon.asp
    >>>
    >>> Why did you post this?
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Peter

    >>
    >> Because the lens is new and this is a photography equipment discussion
    >> group.
    >>
    >>
    >> Most of us here can read. A posting should have some incisive and
    >> impartial analysis, based upon knowledge. Those elements are sadly
    >> lacking in your posting.
    >>
    >> Peter

    >
    > Most of us here can choose whether to write - you did and replied to his
    > post.



    And your point, in context is.........?

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Aug 31, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    lofi <> wrote:
    >In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses the
    >actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering what one is
    >paying the Nikon premium for.


    Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
    Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
    dishonest creeps.

    Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
    with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
    cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
    Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
    error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
    to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
    possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
    advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
    Station.
    http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091002sigmasonyadvisory.asp
    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Sep 11, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >:
    >: Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
    >: Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
    >: dishonest creeps.
    >:
    >: Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
    >: with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
    >: cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
    >: Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
    >: error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
    >: to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
    >: possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
    >: advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
    >: Station.
    >: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091002sigmasonyadvisory.asp
    >
    >Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility Sigma's
    >fault?



    It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
    lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
    design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
    introduced camera bodies.

    This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
    As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
    engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
    when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.

    The only other brand which has similar problems was Tokina. Some
    Tokina lenses weren't fully compatible with all functions of some
    Nikon camera bodies. But Tokina *had* licenced the mount, and paid a
    licence fee to Nikon for the privilege. A mistake had been made
    somewhere, that's all.

    I think the affected lenses were all exchanged for new ones at no cost
    to the owners. The numbers involved were extremely small compared to
    the huge numbers of Sigma lenses that have given problems over the
    years.

    I am short of lenses at the moment, having sold my 14-24mm, 24-70mm
    and 70-200mm f/2.8 Nikkors. While several of my older lenses were
    being repaired, I borrowed two Sigma lenses from my friendly camera
    store, a used 28-70mm f/2.8-4 and a new 12-24mm.

    Both broke on the second day. The entire lens assembly fell out of
    the barrel of the 28-70mm, hit the concrete and smashed, and the
    focusing motor of the 12-24mm gave up after an hour's shooting. The
    28-70mm is an insurance claim and the 12-24mm a warranty repair.
    Apparently the 12-24mm has this problem if it gets anything faintly
    resembling hard use, and my friendly dealer recommended focusing
    manually. :-(

    Optically, the results from the 12-24mm were surprisingly good, with
    much less distortion than I expected and good FX coverage with
    vignetting at 12mm that was not too excessive (about two and a third
    stops wide open). The results from the 28-70mm were appalling, with
    unsharp results regardless of aperture and a strong yellow cast. And
    after the lens assembly fell out, it didn't perform at all. ;-)
    Bruce, Sep 11, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>:
    >>: Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
    >>: Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
    >>: dishonest creeps.
    >>:
    >>: Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
    >>: with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
    >>: cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
    >>: Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
    >>: error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
    >>: to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
    >>: possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
    >>: advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
    >>: Station.
    >>: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091002sigmasonyadvisory.asp
    >>
    >>Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility Sigma's
    >>fault?

    >
    >
    > It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
    > lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
    > design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
    > introduced camera bodies.
    >
    > This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
    > As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
    > engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
    > when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.
    >



    So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface design, (a
    questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent infringement. If indeed
    the interface design was not patentable, there would be nothing to license.
    Something is missing.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Sep 11, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 9/11/2010 9:00 AM, Peter wrote:
    > "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>> On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>> :
    >>> : Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
    >>> : Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
    >>> : dishonest creeps.
    >>> :
    >>> : Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
    >>> : with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
    >>> : cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
    >>> : Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
    >>> : error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
    >>> : to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
    >>> : possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
    >>> : advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
    >>> : Station.
    >>> : http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091002sigmasonyadvisory.asp
    >>>
    >>> Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility
    >>> Sigma's
    >>> fault?

    >>
    >>
    >> It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
    >> lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
    >> design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
    >> introduced camera bodies.
    >>
    >> This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
    >> As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
    >> engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
    >> when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.
    >>

    >
    >
    > So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
    > design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
    > infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
    > would be nothing to license.
    > Something is missing.


    One thing that is missing is that it is not a matter of Sigma refusing
    to license the mount, it is a matter of Canon refusing to provide the
    specifications to third parties at _any_ price. Every manufacturer of
    Canon-mount lenses other than Canon has to reverse engineer the mount.
    Sigma just did a worse job of it than some of their competitors.


    >
    J. Clarke, Sep 11, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 9/11/2010 9:39 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > On 9/11/2010 9:00 AM, Peter wrote:
    >> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>> On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
    >>>> : Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
    >>>> : dishonest creeps.
    >>>> :
    >>>> : Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
    >>>> : with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
    >>>> : cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
    >>>> : Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
    >>>> : error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
    >>>> : to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
    >>>> : possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
    >>>> : advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
    >>>> : Station.
    >>>> : http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091002sigmasonyadvisory.asp
    >>>>
    >>>> Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility
    >>>> Sigma's
    >>>> fault?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
    >>> lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
    >>> design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
    >>> introduced camera bodies.
    >>>
    >>> This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
    >>> As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
    >>> engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
    >>> when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
    >> design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
    >> infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
    >> would be nothing to license.
    >> Something is missing.

    >
    > One thing that is missing is that it is not a matter of Sigma refusing
    > to license the mount, it is a matter of Canon refusing to provide the
    > specifications to third parties at _any_ price. Every manufacturer of
    > Canon-mount lenses other than Canon has to reverse engineer the mount.
    > Sigma just did a worse job of it than some of their competitors.
    >


    Could be. I have no inside inside information on the thinking of Canon
    and Nikon management. It would not be illogical for them to have made
    the interface designs open, within limits, as IBM did with the PC. OTOH
    it would not be illogical for them to retain some details which they may
    regard as proprietary trade secrets. the last being what they do in the
    case of RAW formats.


    --
    Peter
    peter, Sep 11, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "J. Clarke" <> wrote:
    >
    >One thing that is missing is that it is not a matter of Sigma refusing
    >to license the mount, it is a matter of Canon refusing to provide the
    >specifications to third parties at _any_ price. Every manufacturer of
    >Canon-mount lenses other than Canon has to reverse engineer the mount.
    >Sigma just did a worse job of it than some of their competitors.



    That's interesting, because until now I had understood that Tokina and
    Tamron paid licence fees to Canon for the use of the EF mount, or to
    be more precise, the electronic interface. I also understood that was
    why owners of Tokina and Tamron lenses in EF mount never had any
    problems when Canon brought out a new model. Meanwhile, owners of
    Sigma lenses in EF mount had no end of problems.

    I was also under the impression that either Carl Zeiss or Cosina are
    paying licence fees to Canon for the Carl Zeiss ZE lenses that Cosina
    manufactures to fit the Canon EF mount. Is that not the case?
    Bruce, Sep 11, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    J. Clarke Guest

    On 9/11/2010 10:30 AM, peter wrote:
    > On 9/11/2010 9:39 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    >> On 9/11/2010 9:00 AM, Peter wrote:
    >>> "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>>> On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>>> :
    >>>>> : Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
    >>>>> : Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
    >>>>> : dishonest creeps.
    >>>>> :
    >>>>> : Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
    >>>>> : with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
    >>>>> : cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
    >>>>> : Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
    >>>>> : error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
    >>>>> : to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
    >>>>> : possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
    >>>>> : advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
    >>>>> : Station.
    >>>>> : http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091002sigmasonyadvisory.asp
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility
    >>>>> Sigma's
    >>>>> fault?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
    >>>> lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
    >>>> design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
    >>>> introduced camera bodies.
    >>>>
    >>>> This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
    >>>> As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
    >>>> engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
    >>>> when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
    >>> design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
    >>> infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
    >>> would be nothing to license.
    >>> Something is missing.

    >>
    >> One thing that is missing is that it is not a matter of Sigma refusing
    >> to license the mount, it is a matter of Canon refusing to provide the
    >> specifications to third parties at _any_ price. Every manufacturer of
    >> Canon-mount lenses other than Canon has to reverse engineer the mount.
    >> Sigma just did a worse job of it than some of their competitors.
    >>

    >
    > Could be. I have no inside inside information on the thinking of Canon
    > and Nikon management. It would not be illogical for them to have made
    > the interface designs open, within limits, as IBM did with the PC. OTOH
    > it would not be illogical for them to retain some details which they may
    > regard as proprietary trade secrets. the last being what they do in the
    > case of RAW formats.


    While I can't find a link to an official statement, it has been said
    repeatedly that Chuck Westfall at Canon has stated publicly that Canon
    has never licensed the EF protocol to any other manufactuerer.
    >
    J. Clarke, Sep 11, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 10-09-11 9:24 , Peter wrote:
    >> "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On 10-09-11 9:00 , Peter wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
    >>>> design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
    >>>> infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
    >>>> would be nothing to license.
    >>>> Something is missing.
    >>>
    >>> There's not much patentable about a lens mount. Nothing new about
    >>> bayonet, nothing new about signals and aperture links.

    >>
    >> That's my point. So why would a license be required. That is an
    >> illogical point.

    >
    > What they're avoiding licensing is the definite protocol between the lens
    > and the body. Sigma are reverse engineering it instead of paying Canon
    > for the official protocol plan - a license and protocol that would
    > typically involve a "future proofing" plan/protocol such that these issues
    > would not occur.
    >
    > As they don't, the future isn't guaranteed and for that matter it gives
    > Canon the opportunity to find ways to make Sigma look even worse each time
    > a new body comes out they can "jam" Sigma lenses. All's fair in
    > competition, and for that matter there is no obligation on Canon's part to
    > license it even if Sigma want to pay for it.
    >



    I have no first hand knowledge. According to a prior poster, Canon does not
    make its interface information available to anyone.
    It would seem to me that while there is money in manufacturing the bodies,
    camera manufacturers might very well make a lot more on their optics. But
    then, I'm just speculating.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Sep 11, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:110920101437447761%...
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> What they're avoiding licensing is the definite protocol between the
    >> lens and the body. Sigma are reverse engineering it instead of paying
    >> Canon for the official protocol plan - a license and protocol that would
    >> typically involve a "future proofing" plan/protocol such that these
    >> issues would not occur.

    >
    > not only did they do that but sigma blatantly stole canon's electronic
    > protocol for their own sigma mount lenses (used with the sd series
    > cameras). for the actual physical mount, they used the pentax k mount
    > with minor changes. converting a sigma mount lens to a canon ef mount
    > lens is little more than swapping the back plate and soldering wires.
    > pentax lenses fit if you cut off the aperture coupling pin.
    >
    >> > Agreed. Also, I find it interesting that the Kenko mount for Nikon has
    >> > one less contact point than Nikon, yet no functinality seems to be
    >> > lost.

    >>
    >> I don't know enough about the interface to reply, but offhand, the pin
    >> may have been there for lens/body combos that are unlikely (or
    >> impossible) to use with the Kenko.

    >
    > depends which pin. some nikon lenses have more pins than others, namely
    > the ones with af-s and vr. kenko may have decided that a lens on an
    > extension tube can't use a particular feature and was able to omit the
    > pin controlling that feature.



    The Kenko extension tubes and 1.4 extender, work fine with my 70-200mm f2.8,
    which is af-s and VR.


    --
    Peter
    Peter, Sep 11, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    Peter Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:110920101527286808%...
    > In article <4c8bd78d$0$5487$-secrets.com>, Peter
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> The Kenko extension tubes and 1.4 extender, work fine with my 70-200mm
    >> f2.8,
    >> which is af-s and VR.

    >
    > do you know which pin is missing?



    No! I am simply curious about it, I once asked Kenko but received no
    meaningful answer. Hey, the thing works. The Nikon contact may be reserved
    for a future feature.

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Sep 11, 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. Rudi Cheow

    Malfunction on Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR - anyone had this?

    Rudi Cheow, Sep 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    421
    Uranium Committee
    Sep 24, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    397
  3. Giovanni Azua
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    293
    hotchkisstrio
    Jun 6, 2005
  4. Canon 200mm f2.8/L vs. 70-200mm f/4L

    , Sep 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    348
    JohnR66
    Sep 22, 2005
  5. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    807
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page