"Carl Zeiss" not "Carl Zeiss"?
Roland
a bit expensive in that range so I found a camera shop selling a Zeiss
f2.8 version. Suited me fine. But is was cheap (Mint- £39
http://www.mxv.co.uk/stock/olympus.htm). So I asked them if there was
anything wrong with it. They said it was made in JAPAN but since it had
the "Carl Zeiss" label then they thought it should be okay.
Since when did "Carl Zeiss" start making lenses in Japan?
Roland
Gary Sanford
Probably around the time that Yashica started making Contax's. From
what I understand, the Japanese made Zeiss lenses are made under close
scrutiny on the parent company and are of the utmost quality.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary Sanford
Email here only:
sanf...@ibm.net (pgp public key available)
Howard
Roland:
Although these are for a Contax G user...the information should pertain to
all Zeiss lenses manufactured in Japan.
Check out these web pages-
http://www.broadpool.com/contaxg/FAQ/lenses.htm
http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/lenses.html#lenses/notes
Howard
Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:387BB8...@virgin.net...
Bill Schaffel
quite a number of years. If you visit the Carl Zeiss web
site, you can see why under the history section. Carl Zeiss
also sold Contax to Kyocera, who also owns Yeshica. Kyocera
also manufacturers the Carl Zeiss lenses under strict
supervision from Carl Zeiss. This is the main reason the
Carl Zeiss lenses are cheaper than their Leica counterparts.
Timothy J. Heiks
Since about 1974, or perhaps even earlier. The Carl Zeiss Foundation entered
into a joint venture with Yashica and the Porsche Design Group to begin
developing the current line of Contax cameras (starting with the Contax RTS
in 1974). Some lenses for these cameras (originally the 1,4/50 and 1,7/50)
were manufactured in Japan and others were manufactured in West Germany.
Beginning the the early 80's equipment and personnel were transferred to
Japan and **MOST** lenses for Contax SLRs were manufactured there. Today,
almost all lenses for Contax SLRs, the Contax G system, the Contax 645, Sony
video cameras and other equipment are made in Japan. Lenses for Hasselblad
are still made in Germany.
There is some useful historical information on the Kyocera web site at:
www.contaxcameras.com/home/history.html if you really care about all this.
Interestingly, Zeiss does not make a 24mm macro lens for Contax and I was
not aware that they made lenses for Olympus at all. It would be educational
to be able to see a picture of this lens.
Tim
wzh...@my-deja.com
One is a 18mm Distagon f/4 and other is 300mm Tele-Tessar f/4. I think
there're some lenses are still made in Germany even today.
Wei
In article <85ge84$3tjc$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
"Howard" <hma...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Roland:
> Although these are for a Contax G user...the information should
pertain to
> all Zeiss lenses manufactured in Japan.
>
> Check out these web pages-
> http://www.broadpool.com/contaxg/FAQ/lenses.htm
> http://www.novia.net/~jlw/contax/lenses.html#lenses/notes
>
> Howard
>
> Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:387BB8...@virgin.net...
> > I was after a 24mm lens for my Olympus gear today. Their own lenses
are
> > a bit expensive in that range so I found a camera shop selling a
Zeiss
> > f2.8 version. Suited me fine. But is was cheap (Mint- £39
> > http://www.mxv.co.uk/stock/olympus.htm). So I asked them if there
was
> > anything wrong with it. They said it was made in JAPAN but since it
had
> > the "Carl Zeiss" label then they thought it should be okay.
> >
> > Since when did "Carl Zeiss" start making lenses in Japan?
> >
> > Roland
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Takuji Tanaka
Olympus cameras.
Tak
Roland (roland.rash...@virgin.net) wrote:
: I was after a 24mm lens for my Olympus gear today. Their own lenses are
Shinichi Hayakawa
one. I have seen some Japanese made CZ Jena zoom lenses in Nikon or Pentax
K mount before.
Although CZ Jena made generally decent optics, they were, IMHO, not on a par
with contemporary Japanese or (West German) Carl Zeiss lenses. In this
case, maybe you should consider yourself lucky with the "Made in Japan"
label rather than "Made in East Germany" one.
Shinichi
Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:387BB8...@virgin.net...
Anders Svensson
> I was after a 24mm lens for my Olympus gear today. Their own lenses are
> a bit expensive in that range so I found a camera shop selling a Zeiss
> f2.8 version. Suited me fine. But is was cheap (Mint- £39
> http://www.mxv.co.uk/stock/olympus.htm). So I asked them if there was
> anything wrong with it. They said it was made in JAPAN but since it had
> the "Carl Zeiss" label then they thought it should be okay.
>
> Since when did "Carl Zeiss" start making lenses in Japan?
>
> Roland
Roland
There are two possibilities:
One is that this lens is a real Carl Zeiss lens, adapted to Olympus. This
is perhaps true and if it is, so much better.
The other is that this is a "Zeiss" lens, riding on a lapse in the
trademark laws and simply a generic brand name engineered third party lens.
I strongly suspect the latter, both because of the price and because of
that also camera lenses being made in places where brand names aren't
respected as much as we are used to.
Don't get the nice people answering your "Zeiss in Japan" question wrong.
They are quite right, but they may not be talking about this particular
lens.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
MarkTwain
In the mid eighties the UK importer of Carl Zeiss Jena (East Germany),that
was also
importer of Sigma, sold some Sigma made lens badged "Carl Zeiss Jena".
They were available in the most common mounts (including Contax/Yashica
mount).
After, they were also available in other countries, but the distribution
was limited because few countries allowed the use of the Carl Zeiss name by
CZ East Germany.
BTW, the true CZJ lenses were produced in East Germany until 1990 in
Praktica bayonet mount.
Regards
"Roland" <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote in message
GChuven
many years ago when I bought a lens for my Exakta. It was made in Japan, but
said "Zeiss Pancolar."
Gary
Gary Sanford
wrote:
>Isn't the label "Carl Zeiss Jena?" If so, the company is the East German
>one. I have seen some Japanese made CZ Jena zoom lenses in Nikon or Pentax
>K mount before.
>
>Although CZ Jena made generally decent optics, they were, IMHO, not on a par
>with contemporary Japanese or (West German) Carl Zeiss lenses. In this
>case, maybe you should consider yourself lucky with the "Made in Japan"
>label rather than "Made in East Germany" one.
>
>Shinichi
I have a multicoated Jena 20mm f:2.8 for 35mm format and a
MC 50mm f:4 for medium format that I think are as good as any
comparable lenses.
Gary Sanford
<nop4...@Yahoo.Nospam.com> wrote:
> The lens you mention is made by Sigma.
> In the mid eighties the UK importer of Carl Zeiss Jena (East Germany),that
>was also
>importer of Sigma, sold some Sigma made lens badged "Carl Zeiss Jena".
> They were available in the most common mounts (including Contax/Yashica
>mount).
> After, they were also available in other countries, but the distribution
>was limited because few countries allowed the use of the Carl Zeiss name by
>CZ East Germany.
>
> BTW, the true CZJ lenses were produced in East Germany until 1990 in
>Praktica bayonet mount.
>
FWIW, they were also made in M42/Pentax screwmount for 35mm and in
Pentacon6/Kiev60 mount for medium format. The best examples are
comparable to West German designs.
Godfrey DiGiorgi
owned by Carl Zeiss Group, licensed to Kyocera for their high end line
of cameras. In the past, the Contax brand name was used by the Zeiss
Ikon subsidiary of Carl Zeiss Group, now long gone.
The Carl Zeiss/Kyocera relationship is almost 25 years old now, and
dates from shortly after Kyocera acquired Yashica. CZG was looking for a
high quality, high volume manufacturing partner for their lens products
and started a collaboration with Kyocera in the late '70s. Zeiss brand
lenses are produced both in Germany and in Japan, with Zeiss personnel
running the operation, at CZ's own facilities in Germany and at the
Kyocera facilities in Japan.
Godfrey
Godfrey DiGiorgi
production facility. Carl Zeiss Oberkochen indicated production at the
Oberkochen facility. They haven't used these designators in 30+ years
... I would be surprised if modern production techniques did not produce
optics that are superior on average.
Godfrey
Bill Schaffel
Either shortly before or at the end of the war, the company
opened their West German facility. When the Soviet Union
seized East Germany, Carl Zeiss set up total operations in
West Germany. The East Germans began using the existing
equipment to manufacture Carl Zeiss Jena lenses which was
really no longer part of Carl Zeiss. This equipment was
later moved to the Kiev works where they turned out the
Contax II and III clones.
Shinichi Hayakawa wrote:
>
> Isn't the label "Carl Zeiss Jena?" If so, the company is the East German
> one. I have seen some Japanese made CZ Jena zoom lenses in Nikon or Pentax
> K mount before.
>
> Although CZ Jena made generally decent optics, they were, IMHO, not on a par
> with contemporary Japanese or (West German) Carl Zeiss lenses. In this
> case, maybe you should consider yourself lucky with the "Made in Japan"
> label rather than "Made in East Germany" one.
>
> Shinichi
>
> Roland <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> news:387BB8...@virgin.net...
Ton Maas
"Shinichi Hayakawa" <sh...@gol.com> wrote:
>Isn't the label "Carl Zeiss Jena?" If so, the company is the East German
>one. I have seen some Japanese made CZ Jena zoom lenses in Nikon or Pentax
>K mount before.
I seem to remember that the "Carl" bit was added by the Western branch of
Zeiss (in Oberkochen) after the war, to help distinguish their products
from the GDR based "Zeiss" company in Jena. But maybe I'm wrong here :-)
Ton
MarkTwain
I depends of your point of view.
East German CZJ was based in Jena in the original CZ factory,
after the war they produced their own designs like the Pancolar and the
Biometar.
The company that was formed after the war with CZJ remains, Jenoptik, is
one
of German biggests. Saying that East German CZJ is not really part of CZ is
a bit
questionable, perhaps they were the "real" Carl Zeiss Jena.
Regards
"Bill Schaffel" <sch...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> Before the end of of World War II, Carl Zeiss was in Jena.
> Either shortly before or at the end of the war, the company
> opened their West German facility. When the Soviet Union
> seized East Germany, Carl Zeiss set up total operations in
> West Germany. The East Germans began using the existing
> equipment to manufacture Carl Zeiss Jena lenses which was
> really no longer part of Carl Zeiss. This equipment was
> later moved to the Kiev works where they turned out the
> Contax II and III clones.
>
> Shinichi Hayakawa wrote:
> >
> > Isn't the label "Carl Zeiss Jena?" If so, the company is the East
German
> > one. I have seen some Japanese made CZ Jena zoom lenses in Nikon or
Pentax
> > K mount before.
> >
Dick
> In article <kkWe4.91$a7.1...@nnrp.gol.com>,
> "Shinichi Hayakawa" <sh...@gol.com> wrote:
>
> >Isn't the label "Carl Zeiss Jena?" If so, the company is the East German
> >one. I have seen some Japanese made CZ Jena zoom lenses in Nikon or Pentax
> >K mount before.
>
> Zeiss (in Oberkochen) after the war, to help distinguish their products
> from the GDR based "Zeiss" company in Jena. But maybe I'm wrong here :-)
>
> Ton
>
>
>
filed a successful court suit which prevented the East Germany firm from
marketing its lenses in West Germany and in most countries outside of the
Soviet bloc as Zeiss lenses, which is why they were called Jena lenses.
Dick
Roland
IN JAPAN UNDER LICENCE FROM VEB CARL ZEISS JENA"
I stuck it on the end of an OM-10 and took a look through and it was
SIGMA straight away. I could tell. Apalling colouring plus very poor
resolution. Shite!
Sigma lenses are surely the curse of photography.
And they lie and deceive into the bargain.
Roland
flyboy803
> poor
> resolution. Shite!
> Sigma lenses are surely the curse of photography.
> And they lie and deceive into the bargain.
> Roland
Hey, Sigma makes some damned good lenses, specifically their 105mm
macro...the 105 is an extraordinary piece of glass, about the sharpest
I've ever owned, and that includes some Nikkor glass in my bag...Sigma
might make some dogs as well, but it hardly makes them the curse of
photography...
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Ettore Hag
I'm so confused by reading your answers to Roland.
I have a Carl Zeiss Jena telezoom aquired by 1989. This is a 70-300 (f/
4.5-5.6) lens "made in Japan under licence from veb Carl Zeiss Jena", a P/K
version, and I still use it since I find it's a good optical quality.
Someone has also this model, and experience using it?
And, what manufacturer has really produced this lens?
Thanks in advance and sorry for my english
Ettore
Roland escribió en mensaje <387BB8...@virgin.net>...
Jim Williams
>IN JAPAN UNDER LICENCE FROM VEB CARL ZEISS JENA"
>
>I stuck it on the end of an OM-10 and took a look through and it was
>resolution. Shite!
>
Wow, this IS turning into an intriguing saga! I'm pretty sure the Carl
Zeiss Foundation is still based in Oberkochen, not Jena. Jena was the site
of the pre-World-War-II Zeiss works, and the East Germans used the "Carl
Zeiss Jena" nameplate on their lenses, but I thought all that went out
after East/West reunification. Ditto, I suspect, with "VEB" (an
abbreviation for a German phrase that I believe translates roughly as
"People's State-Owned Industry" and also was seen in the VEB Pentacon
name.)
A wild guess would be that some wise-ass Japanese company bought the name
from some legal residuary of the East German Zeiss/Pentacon holdings and
now is happily slapping it on cheesy optics. Wonder what the real Carl
Zeiss Foundation thinks of all this?!
MDDESKEY
>> poor
>> resolution. Shite!
I have some fine Sigma lenses. [And I can spell, too.]
TiagoFranco
> Wow, this IS turning into an intriguing saga! I'm pretty sure the Carl
> Zeiss Foundation is still based in Oberkochen, not Jena. Jena was the site
> of the pre-World-War-II Zeiss works, and the East Germans used the "Carl
> Zeiss Jena" nameplate on their lenses, but I thought all that went out
> after East/West reunification. Ditto, I suspect, with "VEB" (an
> abbreviation for a German phrase that I believe translates roughly as
> "People's State-Owned Industry" and also was seen in the VEB Pentacon
> name.)
>
The VEB Carl Zeiss Jena was one of the biggest East German conglomerates,
that included among others the VEB Pentacon (camera manufacturers).
In the beggining of the eighties they changed their name to Jenoptik Jena,
they
were the owners of the CZJ name, and were allowed to use it in East Europe,
UK and
most of Southern Europe and Asia, but NOT in most north european countries
and the USA.
After German reunification, Jenoptik went public and is now one of the
biggest German companies (www.jenoptik,com)
However same parts were sold:
-The East German camera production facility was bought by Schneider, they
got the Praktica, Exakta and Meyer brand names.
They still make cameras in Dresden (www.pentacon-dresden.de)
-The original Praktica factory was handed back to the Noble family, and
in now KW Dresden, they still make cameras (www.kamera-werk-dresden.de)
- The camera lens production facility was sold to Dr Optics. The lens
production was stopped, now they only make binoculars.
-Even CZ West bought the Jena telescope production facility.
> A wild guess would be that some wise-ass Japanese company bought the name
> from some legal residuary of the East German Zeiss/Pentacon holdings and
> now is happily slapping it on cheesy optics. Wonder what the real Carl
> Zeiss Foundation thinks of all this?!
>
The lens is a pre-reunification model, when some West European importers
of Carl Zeiss Jena and Praktica, made available Sigma made zooms
labeled Carl Zeiss Jena.
At that time East German engineers were struggling to produce their
first zooms the Vario-Prakticars, when they were made available they were
only in Praktica bayonet mount
Regards
ArtKramr
>From: "Jim Williams" j...@nospam.never.net
>Date: 1/13/00 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <B4A3ED0...@24.3.242.51>
>
>>I got the lens today. It's shite. "CARL ZEISS JENA II", but "LENS
>MADE
>>IN JAPAN UNDER LICENCE FROM VEB CARL ZEISS JENA" I stuck it on the end of
an OM-10 and took a look through and it was
>>SIGMA straight away. I could tell. Apalling colouring plus very poor
>>resolution. Shite!
It can't be as bad as a Sigma. Nothing is as bad as a Sigma.
Arthur
flyboy803
> poor
> >>resolution. Shite!
> It can't be as bad as a Sigma. Nothing is as bad as a Sigma.
> Arthur
What might be as "bad as a Sigma" are those who fail to keep up with
what Sigma makes nowadays, and condemn all of Sigma's lenses based on
assumptions that were valid years ago...don't mean to offend, but there
a good many in these groups who deal in information that has long
ceased to be legitimate...it's analagous to those who believe you can
still buy a mint 124G for around $100...
jj, curmudgeon and tiring philalethist
flyboy803 <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> It can't be as bad as a Sigma. Nothing is as bad as a Sigma.
>> Arthur
Have you tried the new Sigma 105 macro?
>What might be as "bad as a Sigma" are those who fail to keep up with
>what Sigma makes nowadays, and condemn all of Sigma's lenses based on
>assumptions that were valid years ago...don't mean to offend, but there
>a good many in these groups who deal in information that has long
>ceased to be legitimate...it's analagous to those who believe you can
>still buy a mint 124G for around $100...
How about the 170-500 telezoom?
Carefull with that mirror-shake now.
--
Copyright j...@research.att.com 1999, all rights reserved, except transmission
by USENET and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any
use by a provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this
article and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
AuctionFan
>I got the lens today. It's shite.
Shite? You mean one of those guys from the mid-east that Israelis use for
target practice?
AF.
David Bedno
-
-A friend of mine bought a Sigma last month It came apart in his hands the first
-day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens.
Excuse me?
A lens falls apart in his hands and he pays to get it *repaired*?
I find it hard to believe that neither the dealer he bought it from, nor
Sigma don't offer warranties and return policies for this sort of thing.
On the other hand, if he didn't buy from a reputable dealer, well, then
he's taking his chances.
--
David Bedno drs...@crl.com
http://www.seuss.org
"I have no humble opinions."
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/14/00 12:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <09920fb9...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>
>
> I could tell. Apalling colouring plus very
>> poor
>> >>resolution. Shite!
>> Arthur
>
>
>what Sigma makes nowadays, and condemn all of Sigma's lenses based on
>assumptions that were valid years ago...don't mean to offend, but there
>a good many in these groups who deal in information that has long
>ceased to be legitimate...it's analagous to those who believe you can
>still buy a mint 124G for around $100...
>
>
A friend of mine bought a Sigma last month It came apart in his hands the first
day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens. I don't think
that is information that has long ceased to be legitimate. And what the price
of a 124G has to do with a Sigma lens is beyond me.
Arthur
Roland
>
> In article <09920fb9...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>,
> flyboy803 <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> Arthur
>
Yep. Sent it back. The optics were very sharp and the brightness of the
image very good but if you have background light then it reflects all
over the place inside the lens and can cloud your image.
Roland
Roland
>
> >Subject: Re: I got the lens - it's shite
> >From: flyboy803 flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid
> >Date: 1/14/00 12:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <09920fb9...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com>
> >
> > I could tell. Apalling colouring plus very
> >> poor
> >> >>resolution. Shite!
> >> Arthur
> >
> >
> >what Sigma makes nowadays, and condemn all of Sigma's lenses based on
> >assumptions that were valid years ago...don't mean to offend, but there
> >a good many in these groups who deal in information that has long
> >ceased to be legitimate...it's analagous to those who believe you can
> >still buy a mint 124G for around $100...
> >
> >
>
> A friend of mine bought a Sigma last month It came apart in his hands the first
> day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens. I don't think
> that is information that has long ceased to be legitimate.
I think it this case it could be a fault with the manufacturer of the
sticky-tape they use to keep the lens elements in place. :o)
Roland
Roland
>
> . Apalling colouring plus very
> > poor
> > resolution. Shite!
> > Roland
>
> Hey, Sigma makes some damned good lenses, specifically their 105mm
> macro...the 105 is an extraordinary piece of glass, about the sharpest
> I've ever owned, and that includes some Nikkor glass in my bag...Sigma
> might make some dogs as well, but it hardly makes them the curse of
> photography...
Yes. Very sharp. I took mine back and got a refund. If you have
background light and the lens is stopped open near full then you get
internal reflections that can cloud your image.
Roland
Dave Jepson
first
>day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens. I don't
think
price
>of a 124G has to do with a Sigma lens is beyond me.
>
>Arthur
If he bought a new one why didn't he take it back instead of paying to
rebuild it?
If he bought an old one surely it would have been one of those which built
the 'assumptions that were valid years ago'.
Do you read uptodate reviews? Compare the Sigma EX70-200 f2.8 HSM APO and
Canon's 70-200 f2.8L. Not far off, but it is cheaper. And performance of the
EX105mm macro is about identical to the Canon equivalent, but again about
2/3 price. Not saying they are better value, just pointing out that Sigma
make some great lenses, as well as some not so good, which is true of any
manufacturer of consumer lenses.
Dave
ArtKramr
>Date: 1/15/00 3:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3880...@eeyore.callnetuk.com>
Sigmas are garbage.
Arthur
LEDMRVM
first day out.
After thirty years of active photography and associating with people who used a
variety of name brand and third party lenses, I have never seen this happen. (I
have seen some other problems.) Makes me inclined to believe that where there
is smoke, there is a screwdriver.
Believe what you like,
Regards,
Ed M.
Bob Beaver
wrote...
>
>Hi all,
>
>I'm so confused by reading your answers to Roland.
>I have a Carl Zeiss Jena telezoom aquired by 1989. This is a 70-300 (f/
>4.5-5.6) lens "made in Japan under licence from veb Carl Zeiss Jena", a P/K
>version, and I still use it since I find it's a good optical quality.
>Someone has also this model, and experience using it?
>
>And, what manufacturer has really produced this lens?
>
>Thanks in advance and sorry for my english
>
>Ettore
Don't know what your Zeiss lens is, but Carl Zeiss lenses have been made in
Japan under license by Yashica since the 1970's, when Carl Zeiss collaborated
with Yashica to produce the Contax RTS lenses. Some lenses were still made in
Germany and they had the anodized aluminum bayonet mounts versus the chrome
plated brass mounts of the Japanese lenses. The precision of assembly was
better on the German lenses; the optical axis of all the glass elements were
perfect, whereas those of the Japanese lenses were slightly off center. Since
then, a lot more Zeiss lenses are made in Japan, and the construction quality
has improved.
Bob Beaver
(LEDMRVM) wrote...
Or a sledge hammer. :)
flyboy803
> >
> A friend of mine bought a Sigma last month It came apart in his
> day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens.
> I don't think
> that is information that has long ceased to be legitimate. And
> what the price
> of a 124G has to do with a Sigma lens is beyond me.
> Arthur
Sheesh, I really thought my point was obvious, I think you missed the
word analagous...if your "friend's" Sigma was new, then what the heck
is he paying to get it fixed for???...I still say, as to many others
here, that Sigma is presently making some damned good lenses...
kymarto
lenses are in the bags of working photojournalists.
--
Toby
remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail
ArtKramr <artk...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000115092739...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: I got the lens - it's shite
> >From: "Dave Jepson" dje...@bigfoot.com
> >Date: 1/15/00 3:21 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3880...@eeyore.callnetuk.com>
> >
> >>A friend of mine bought a Sigma last month It came apart in his hands
the
> >first
> >>day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens. I
don't
> >think
> >>that is information that has long ceased to be legitimate. And what the
> >price
> >>of a 124G has to do with a Sigma lens is beyond me.
> >>
> >>Arthur
> >
> >
Magambo
>>
>> Arthur
>>
I had a Sigma 55mm macro lens and it was junk. I returned it (hell, it
wouldn't even work right with my EOS). And I tried a bunch of other Sigma
lenses and thought they were junk. But... I have a Sigma 17-35 EX HSM lens
that is simply marvelous, built like a tank, sharp, etc, etc. So not all
Sigmas are equal, just like any other lens manufacturer, and maybe... not a
good idea to judge the family by either the black sheep or the Harvard Law
grad....
TravGlen
the two "Big Boys" (Nikon & Canon) are making some real crap.
"flyboy803" <flyboy80...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:034f2f50...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
>
> > >
> > A friend of mine bought a Sigma last month It came apart in his
> > hands the first
> > day out. The repair cost was greater than the price of the lens.
> > I don't think
> > that is information that has long ceased to be legitimate. And
> > what the price
> > of a 124G has to do with a Sigma lens is beyond me.
> > Arthur
>
Shinichi Hayakawa
Bob Beaver <Bo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:85qbig$46n$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
Today, most of the Carl Zeiss lenses for Kyocera-Contax cameras are
manufactured by Kyocera Optics in the ourskirts of Tokyo. This company was
formerly known as Tomioka Kogaku (=Optics) and is one of the oldest
lensmakers in Japan. Tomioka is famous for, among others, its Yashinon and
Yashikor lenses for the Yashica TLRs.
These Kyocera-made lenses are considered genuine Carl Zeiss because they are
designed by German CZ engineers and manufactured and inspected under strict
German specifications.
Ettore's Carl Zeiss Jena zoom is a totally different breed. Firstly, before
the German unification, Carl Zeiss Jena and West German Carl Zeiss had
nothing in common in terms of SLR-lens designs or manufacturing techniques.
Secondly, as many people have pointed out, CZ Jena branded Japanese lenses
were just OEM. They were not designed by CZ Jena people. It seems like
Sigma was the original manufacturer of these lenses, but there may be
others.
Shinichi
Edward
shroud that is necessary to prevent clouding from stray light. This is
needed because is was so short. The irony is that the shroud doubled the
length, making it a long as any other macro. The center of gravity is pulled
back considerably, though, since the shroud is light. This makes it more
stable on a tripod. Does the 105 have such a shroud? Even if it doesn't come
with one, maybe that was the problem and one should be added.
Ed
"Roland" <roland.rash...@virgin.net> wrote
> >
> > Have you tried the new Sigma 105 macro?
>
> Yep. Sent it back. The optics were very sharp and the brightness of the
> image very good but if you have background light then it reflects all
> over the place inside the lens and can cloud your image.
>
> Roland
ccap...@citnet.com
I just bought a Sigma EX 105mm lens. I am very happy with it. I've
compared the results of this lens to Nikon's new 105mm lens. You can't tell the
difference.... You guys should really concentrate on your photography skills
rather than fight about how sharp your lenses are. A bad photographer with a sharp
lens doesn't make a great picture.
Joe
On 14 Jan 2000 16:40:44 GMT, artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
-->>Subject: Re: I got the lens - it's shite
-->>From: "Jim Williams" j...@nospam.never.net
-->>Date: 1/13/00 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
-->>Message-id: <B4A3ED0...@24.3.242.51>
-->>
-->>>I got the lens today. It's shite. "CARL ZEISS JENA II", but "LENS
-->
-->>MADE
-->>>IN JAPAN UNDER LICENCE FROM VEB CARL ZEISS JENA" I stuck it on the end of
-->an OM-10 and took a look through and it was
-->>>SIGMA straight away. I could tell. Apalling colouring plus very poor
-->>>resolution. Shite!
-->
-->It can't be as bad as a Sigma. Nothing is as bad as a Sigma.
-->
-->Arthur
tgab...@bellsouth.net
The problem is ten or fifteen years from now. Your Sigma will be where?
I know where all of my 15 to 35 years old Nikon lenses are. Fully in
service with NO mechanical failures. Ever. And I know it is not a matter
of sharpness because most of the time it is not an issue. What it is is
a matter that the new lens I buy next week I will be using 15 to 35
years from now.
Will you be using the Sigma then?
Obakesan
In article <38B07250...@bellsouth.net>, tgab...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
[snip]
>I know where all of my 15 to 35 years old Nikon lenses are. Fully in
>service with NO mechanical failures. Ever. And I know it is not a matter
>of sharpness because most of the time it is not an issue. What it is is
>a matter that the new lens I buy next week I will be using 15 to 35
>years from now.
well I wonder if that is fully true ... there are issues with the older
nikon bodys using the newer lenses ... as well as the reverse too I
think?
also, perhaps there may be some changes soon? I know that my Pentax MX
still operates, and that was bought in the early 80's but will we still
see 35mm in another 35 years? I don't know, it's unlikely that it will
dissappear, however times are changing, and 35 years is a long time to
look ahead. There is digital, and while it's so-so now, look at what
computers have changed into in the last 20 years.
I know that there are a lot of 35mm's out there, but still ....
>
>Will you be using the Sigma then?
>
probably not, but what is the cost benefit for him in the mean time??
--
See Ya
(when the bandwidth gets better ;-)
Chris Eastwood Please remove undies for reply
Photographer, Stunt Programmer
Motorcyclist and dingbat
Yeti Man
in with some other gear I bought.
It is acctually pretty sharp, but contrast is not that good (according
to the guy I got it from).
I shot it side by side to a Canon 100 macro, out of curisity. It is
indeed pretty sharp, but color and contrast falls short. Not to say its
horrible, just not in the same league.
The build quality and focusing motor are a joke, though it has a REALLY
NICE hood with it.
That said, I think the EX series are a far cry better than the older
series I have tried (comparing their old 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 to
the newer EX versions). A big step up in build quality.
But its hard to live down a (deserved) reputation for your past.
Quantum Mechanics.... The dreams stuff is made of.
Klaus Schroiff
due to poor customer service and poor quality control. There's a simple
market rule that states that a satisfied customer will tell the good
story to just one person. On the other side bad experiences will be told
to avg. 7 persons. So that's the story why many people (like myself)
persist that Sigma lenses are crap regardless whether this is true or
not.
From what I've seen Sigma has indeed improved quite a bit. The new EX
line-up seems to be pretty nice mechnically (though worse than e.g.
Tokina AT-X). Optically Sigma had always some good designs - no doubts
about that. Nonetheless their lenses still feature about the worst flare
resistance in the industry IMO.
Has anyone tried a Sigma one the new EOS 1v yet ? I guess this will be
another interesting story in this context ...
regards
Klaus
Tony Spadaro
I have a Sigma 24mm f2.8 in Canon EOS mount. It's 6 years old and an
excellent lens. I know, however that if I buy a newer Canon body this
lens will probably not work with it. I paid 170 dollars, and can
probably recover 2/3 of that if I sell. That's not too shabby for 6
years of good pictures. And if I don't buy a new body, I'll probably
get another 6 years, perhaps 12 from it. Maybe even that 15 years
someone was so worried about.
I buy my stuff to use today. I try to make sure it will be usable,
and that I'm getting a good price, but I have no interest in carefully
assembling a collection of "jewels". I let others worry about resale
value. I know too many people who won't take their camera out in the
cold, or the rain, or the heat because it's too valuable to risk. There
are guys who leave their camera home because the heat in the car trunk
will damage it, and they don't want to carry it in the city where a
thief might grab it.
I'd rather take pictures than polish my gear and keep tabs on it's
current market value.
--
35mm film scanning, digital retouch, and restoration.
in Chapel Hill, N.C. USA. All work Strictly Confidential
http://dark_alley_photography.homestead.com/darkalleyretouch.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kar Yan Mak
use; it matters much that we be masters of all we do use."
Don't let this stuff bother you...
>I just bought a Sigma EX 105mm lens. I am very happy with it. I've
>compared the results of this lens to Nikon's new 105mm lens. You can't tell
>the
>difference.... You guys should really concentrate on your photography
>skills
>rather than fight about how sharp your lenses are. A bad photographer with a
>sharp
>lens doesn't make a great picture.
Sincerely yours,
Kar Yan Mak
http://www.kyphoto.com
-----------------------------------
To send me an e-mail, please remove "NS"
Frank2001
You're right it won't work on a newer body and unfortunately you're wrong about
the value. It's worth about 45% or $75.00.
I have one and while it was usable it produced good photos.
My 35-135 and 28-105, however both fell apart in short order.
The 75-300 DL I bought fortunately fell appart in only a day so I was able to
return it.
Sigma is S***!
Frank in Atlanta
ski2_...@my-deja.com
shots.
I've done OK with it on a construction site for about six months
(a city library in-progress series of photographs) and on the
interior of a new church in town. The folks cannot handle the
wide-angle view ... just be sure to tote your tripod to keep the
horizon level. I'll guess the lens has paid for itself 1-1/2 times
thus far.
If it smells like crap than it must be ...
= = =
In article <16717-38...@storefull-118.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
Tony Spadaro
> the value. It's worth about 45% or $75.00.
I based my estimate on the price dealers put on them used, in "like
new" condition, then went down a bit (from 75%) to allow for the fact
that I'm not a dealer.
I have no familiarity with the lenses that failed on you, but I don't
baby my equipment, and simply have not had a single problem with the
24. I frequently borrow a Sigma 50mm macro that is older than my lens,
and have known several people with various Sigmas. No problems they
ever told me about.
35mm film scanning, digital retouch, and restoration.
in Chapel Hill, N.C. USA. All work Strictly Confidential
http://dark_alley_photography.homestead.com/darkalleyretouch.html
Yeti Man
want to compare color, you should have a custom 8x10 from each lens,
under the same lighting and exposure settings..... printed by a QUALITY
lab! You guys make me laugh..."
NO...... If you REALLLLY want to campare color, you shoot SLIDES on the
SAME ROLL side by side, taking carefull notes, same studio lighting and
exposure settings for each lens, testing at various apertures and
subject distances to really ge a feel for the two lenses.
Then the lab issues are moot, and you see what the lenses REALLY do.
When I do testing (of any kind) I limit the variables as much as
possible. I wouldn't DREAM of testing color or contrast of lenses using
prints, or even comparing different rolls for that matter.
Frank2001
>new" condition, then went down a bit (from 75%) to allow for the fact
>that I'm not a dealer.
> I have no familiarity with the lenses that failed on you, but I don't
>baby my equipment, and simply have not had a single problem with the
>24. I frequently borrow a Sigma 50mm macro that is older than my lens,
>and have known several people with various Sigmas. No problems they
>ever told me about.
>
IIe.
So it's now useless.
I do baby my equipment.
cap...@eticomm.net
The color in your image depends a lot on the lab. If you really want to
compare color, you should have a custom 8x10 from each lens, under the same lighting
just photographed a model in my boss' studio with my Pentax ZX-5N and my Sigma EX
105mm.... She was wearing a red velvet top and the shirt, and her jump right off
of the paper when you look at it. I've also used my boss' Nikon N90s with his Nikon
105mm.... The Sigma is equal, if not better than the Nikon lens.... I don't care
about the past, all I know is that the Sigma 105mm lens is great. If it wasn't, I
would have sent it back to B+H and got something else. They give you a trial
period. I can't see buying a Nikon N90 and have to spend 800 bucks for a Nikon
lens... for what.... just to say I have a Nikon... ?? come on....
Joe
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 21:27:52 -0600 (CST), Yeti...@webtv.net (Yeti Man) wrote:
-->Well, I have a Sigma 90 f2.8 macro. I only have it because It was thrown
-->in with some other gear I bought.
--> It is acctually pretty sharp, but contrast is not that good (according
-->to the guy I got it from).
-->I shot it side by side to a Canon 100 macro, out of curisity. It is
-->indeed pretty sharp, but color and contrast falls short. Not to say its
-->horrible, just not in the same league.
--> The build quality and focusing motor are a joke, though it has a REALLY
-->NICE hood with it.
-->
--> That said, I think the EX series are a far cry better than the older
-->series I have tried (comparing their old 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 to
-->the newer EX versions). A big step up in build quality.
--> But its hard to live down a (deserved) reputation for your past.
-->
-->
-->
--> Quantum Mechanics.... The dreams stuff is made of.
Tony Spadaro
You can get it updated, and from what I've heard, at no charge. I
doubt I would bother to do so myself, partly out of laziness, partly
because I have 2 bodies it works on and no plan to sell either, and
partly because you never know what will happen to something on a truck,
but it can be done.
--
Frank2001
Thanks for the tip,
I sent an email to Sigma.
We'll see what happens.
Frank in Atlanta
Tony Parkinson
news:20000221212215...@ng-de1.aol.com...
Strange, my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 works fine on both my EOS 50E and my Elan II E
-------------------------------------------------
Come to Photocountry
www.photocountry.photoshot.com
-------------------------------------------------
Tony Spadaro
>
Newer ones are backward compatible, it's the older ones that are the
problem.
Speaking of problems, could you add the beginning to your website
address. Some of us are on very primitive software and need all the
help we can get. Here's an example.
http://www.photocountry.photoshoot.com
With that little bit added I can click through. Without it I have to
type, which sometimes makes my browser lock up.
WReid17537
>would have sent it back to B+H and got something else. They give you a trial
>period. I can't see buying a Nikon N90 and have to spend 800 bucks for a
>Nikon
>lens... for what.... just to say I have a Nikon... ?? come on....
>
>Joe
Joe, if you like the sigma, try the vivitars. You'll lovem.
mdar...@my-deja.com
making 8x10 color prints, probably a magnifying glass on a toilet
paper tube will do about the same job, if you stop it down far enough.
This is hardly a difficult test for a lens to pass.
--Michael
In article <38b30228...@news.eticomm.net>,
cap...@eticomm.net wrote:
>
> The color in your image depends a lot on the lab. If you really
want to
> compare color, you should have a custom 8x10 from each lens, under the
same lighting
> and exposure settings..... printed by a QUALITY lab! You guys make me
laugh... I
> just photographed a model in my boss' studio with my Pentax ZX-5N and
my Sigma EX
> 105mm.... She was wearing a red velvet top and the shirt, and her
jump right off
> of the paper when you look at it. I've also used my boss' Nikon N90s
with his Nikon
> 105mm.... The Sigma is equal, if not better than the Nikon lens....
I don't care
> about the past, all I know is that the Sigma 105mm lens is great. If
it wasn't, I
> would have sent it back to B+H and got something else. They give you
a trial
> period. I can't see buying a Nikon N90 and have to spend 800 bucks
for a Nikon
> lens... for what.... just to say I have a Nikon... ?? come on....
>
> Joe
>
Tony Parkinson
news:88tjrb$j5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>
> >
> Newer ones are backward compatible, it's the older ones that are the
> problem.
>
Strange !! I got my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 in '94 and the EOS50E/Elan II E wasn't
out until '95 !!
-------------------------------------------------
Come to Photocountry
http://www.photocountry.photoshot.com
-------------------------------------------------
smit...@my-deja.com
is actually heavier than the new 70-200 f2.8 HSM. I thought this was
the common perception of those that owned this lens.
-Brett
> That said, I think the EX series are a far cry better than the older
> series I have tried (comparing their old 28-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 to
> the newer EX versions).
Daniel ROCHA
about
> the value. It's worth about 45% or $75.00.
It won't work because the body manufacturer modify (for having these results
: problems of uncompatibilites) the chip inside the body.
Therefore the body manufacturer can hope sold more lenses !
But Sigma make the update for free (under warranty)
--
------------
Daniel ROCHA °-° Développeur HTML
Portail : http://perso.magic.fr/drocha
Spock's Brain
"Daniel ROCHA" <dro...@babel.fr> wrote in message
news:88u70v$6o3$1...@reader1.fr.uu.net...
> > You're right it won't work on a newer body and unfortunately you're
wrong
> about
> > the value. It's worth about 45% or $75.00.
>
> It won't work because the body manufacturer modify (for having these
results
> : problems of uncompatibilites) the chip inside the body.
> Therefore the body manufacturer can hope sold more lenses !
If that were true, then there would be numerous reports of problems using
old Canon, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax lenses on new Canon, Nikon, Minolta and
Pentax AF bodies. There aren't. I haven't heard of a single such incident
with Minolta AF lenses, even on the Minolta mailing list. There have been
problems with third party lenses, like Sigmas and Tamrons, but nothing about
OEM lenses. I'm sure it is the same way with Canon, Nikon, and Pentax.
>
> But Sigma make the update for free (under warranty)
Unfortunately, since the warranty is only for a year you aren't likely to
get the satisfaction. You'll probably have had the lens for at least a year
when a new body that is in compatible comes out.
David Kilpatrick
> Without intending any comment about Sigma optics: if all you're doing is
> making 8x10 color prints, probably a magnifying glass on a toilet
> paper tube will do about the same job, if you stop it down far enough.
> This is hardly a difficult test for a lens to pass.
> --Michael
>
Sorry, but I can tell the difference between good and bad lenses in a 6 x 4
print, let alone a 10 x 8. If it was all down to sharpness and nothing else
I might not, but it isn't.
I had no idea Sigma were still suffering from the old quality control
reputation. Sure, their lenses were crap 30 years ago - two out of every
three were next to unusable - but today they are one of the most highly
respected optical firms in Japan and they make more lenses, and do more
work, for other big names than you would dream of. I don't especially like
all their designs, and I hold no brief for them, but they are not shit.
Have people really forgotten what AWFUL rubbish a month's salary could get
you by way of a 28mm in 1972? We live in a world full of positively
wonderful lenses, where almost any model sold can be used professionally.
All those 'ratings' are relative. There are some dogs around, but they are
just as often found from Nikon, Canon, Minolta or whatever as cheap zooms to
sell cameras through catalogues, as they are from independents.
I have an EOS 620 with an early-ish 28-70mm; this lens is extremely bad,
just plain bad. I got a Sigma UC 24-70mm to replace it and it is so much
better you can't believe it - sharpness, contrast, vignetting, colour,
distortion, the lot.
David Kilpatrick
--
Read about our photo magazines: http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Personal website: http://www.maxwellplace.demon.co.uk/pandemonium/
David Bindle
> Tony Spadaro <a_sp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:88tjrb$j5k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > >
> > Newer ones are backward compatible, it's the older ones that are the
> > problem.
> >
>
> Strange !! I got my Sigma 24mm f/2.8 in '94 and the EOS50E/Elan II E wasn't
> out until '95 !!
Exactly, I have both 28-80 2.8 and 70-210 2.8 pre-EX versions and both
work fine on a new EOS-3.
D.B.
W Scott Elliot
news:951243581.3279.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> I had no idea Sigma were still suffering from the old quality control
> reputation. Sure, their lenses were crap 30 years ago - two out of every
> three were next to unusable - but today they are one of the most highly
> respected optical firms in Japan and they make more lenses, and do more
> work, for other big names than you would dream of. I don't especially like
> all their designs, and I hold no brief for them, but they are not shit.
I still have a 200 f/3.5 Sigma in Konica mount that I bought in 1977 or
1978. It has a unique close focusing feature that I have not seen on any
other lens (a prime with two focusing rings - one for close focusing). It
has been a good reliable lens for over 20 years. It appears that Sigma has
been making good quality lenses for some time.
I will admit that I got the Sigma 200 when I returned a Sigma 80-200 lens
that I had for about 2 weeks and decided it couldn't produce a sharp image
under any circumstance. Most zooms were pretty poor at that time.
Scott Elliot
http://mypage.direct.ca/s/selliot
Mike
Though I could stay out of this one, but in with the lions!
Let me say, Photography is NOT my expertise. There.
This "discussion" sounds a LOT like any other discussion you will
find on any message board. NO company, be it Nikon, Cannon, Sigma,
Minolta ect.. can please everyone, it is just not possible.
In graphic design (that is MY field of expertise) you will have a
client who will like one colour or font over another you (the
designer) thinks is better. My point is that everyone has an opinion
on what is crap and what is *Best* to them.
Is it fair to judge any company based on what they did in the past?
Maybe it would be better to see what they are doing NOW and in the
near future.
If I spent more cash on Nikon lenses than 3rd party ones would I
support Nikon? Heck ya! I don't want to think I got ripped off! I want
to think I bought the RIGHT thing, and I will go to almost any lenghts
to prove that I'm smart. Opposite is true if I bought more 3rd party
lenses.
I've read so far that every company produces awesome lenses, and
horrible ones too. No company goes out of its way to produce junk, or
to give itself a horrible reputation.
I own 2 Nikon lenses and 2 3rd party lenes. I guess this puts me in
the middle of the road.
Life is all about learning, you never stop. Here is a great quote I
tell someone about lenses. You may not notice the difference in
quality between them, but you will notice your pocket is lighter.
My 2 Cents.
Mike LePard
Kelowna, BC, Canada
On Sun, 20 Feb 2000 23:34:02 GMT, ccap...@citnet.com wrote:
>
> I just bought a Sigma EX 105mm lens. I am very happy with it. I've
>compared the results of this lens to Nikon's new 105mm lens. You can't tell the
>difference.... You guys should really concentrate on your photography skills
>rather than fight about how sharp your lenses are. A bad photographer with a sharp
>lens doesn't make a great picture.
>
>Joe
>
>
>On 14 Jan 2000 16:40:44 GMT, artk...@aol.comnojunk (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>-->>Subject: Re: I got the lens - it's shite
>-->>From: "Jim Williams" j...@nospam.never.net
>-->>Date: 1/13/00 6:58 PM Pacific Standard Time
>-->>Message-id: <B4A3ED0...@24.3.242.51>
>-->>
>-->>>I got the lens today. It's shite. "CARL ZEISS JENA II", but "LENS
>-->
>-->>MADE
>-->>>IN JAPAN UNDER LICENCE FROM VEB CARL ZEISS JENA" I stuck it on the end of
>-->an OM-10 and took a look through and it was
>-->>>SIGMA straight away. I could tell. Apalling colouring plus very poor
>-->>>resolution. Shite!
>-->
>-->It can't be as bad as a Sigma. Nothing is as bad as a Sigma.
>-->
>-->Arthur
>
Tony Spadaro
>
I think I got mine in 93, but maybe not till 94. I'll try it on a
friend's Elan II. It would be nice if it worked, but if it does not,
cest la vie. Perhaps there is someone around who knows the full story
of the Sigma/Canon license war.
--
35mm film scanning, digital retouch, and restoration.
in Chapel Hill, N.C. USA. All work Strictly Confidential
http://dark_alley_photography.homestead.com/darkalleyretouch.html
mdar...@my-deja.com
"David Kilpatrick" <da...@maxwellplace.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Sorry, but I can tell the difference between good and bad lenses in a
6 x 4
> print, let alone a 10 x 8. If it was all down to sharpness and nothing
else
> I might not, but it isn't.
Sorry, I could tell the difference in a 6 x 4 if all I was looking at
was the things you're looking at, but let's not be tunnel-vision bokeh
zealots :-) here--a 20x24 is going to give you a LOT more total
information.
However, if it all boiled down to bokeh and nothing else. . . .
BRblad
>Maybe it would be better to see what they are doing NOW and in the
>near future.
Its a little tricky to evaluate future performance...at least for us
earthlings.
KEYSAL
go....
First off, hey folks, dont use print film to evaluate lenses even if you are
primarily going to be using only print film to shoot with. Unless you can judge
the bare negatives for color and contrast ( which I doubt ) you will only
receive a subjective print to help you evaluate the lens quality and printing
skills of the photolab. Very little information of the lens you are using will
be discernable. Use a nice slow slide film on a tripod and take images of
things with lots of detail and lots of contrast.
Now as far as Sigma lenses I have never used one but have friends who have and
seemed to like them fine. Back when I was a photo pup the Sigma lens brand was
the bait and switch money maker of many unscruplous camera dealers. Example...
I walked into store X and asked to if they carried any long Canon , tamron, or
tokina brand lenses. I was looking for something in the neighborhood of 300mm.
The store clerk jumped at the chance to inform me that those lenses arent any
good because they have too much glass in them and ruin the image. One eye brow
went up as I listened. He told me of this much better lens made by sigma that
was a 300mm mirror lens, It had less glass and was more compact and higher
quality. My other Eye brow raised. I informed the clerk that I was using a
Canon AE-1 ( brand new back then ) and that I wouldnt be able to adjust the
aperture on the lens because.... well because it had no aperature. He told me
to just stopdown meter then manually set the shutter speed. I informed him that
my camera only had full stop shutter speed increments. He responded thats ok
because you should always shoot slide film a full stop under exposed from what
it says and print film one stop over exposed. Then my jaw dropped open. So with
that I bid him thanks for showing me his wares and left the store never to
return.
I can say I was put off the Sigma brand because of its history and its place as
the push merchandise.
Im always willing to consider equipment that delivers performance for less $$
but with a moderate amount of patience and wheeling dealing with a camera store
that you are known at and do regular business with they will cut me deals
constantly on various high end quality " Doctor owned" used equipment that I
rarely find the need to buy new. Gotta love the doctor photgraphers who get
bored with a camera system and switch over to something else <G>
Keysal
Frank2001
>>doubt I would bother to do so myself, partly out of laziness, partly
>>because I have 2 bodies it works on and no plan to sell either, and
>>partly because you never know what will happen to something on a truck,
>>but it can be done.
>>35mm film scanning, digital retouch, and restoration.
>>in Chapel Hill, N.C. USA. All work Strictly Confidential
>>http://dark_alley_photography.homestead.com/darkalleyretouch.html
>>
>>
>I sent an email to Sigma.
>We'll see what happens.
>Frank in Atlanta
>
"We regret to inform you that 24mm f2.8 lens parts is no longer available to
be compatible
with Elan II e camera. It cannot be compatible with the camera."
So go ahead, waste your money on Sigma lenses, just don't ever upgrade you
camera and if it doesn't fall apart you'll have a so so lens for a couple of
years.
Frank in Atlanta
Mike
Just like ANY company, be it Nikon, Cannon, Carl Z, or whatever
everyone can make a few bad lenses off the lline.
I don't feel more comfortable knowing it is a brand name lens or
a 3rd party one.
Hey, we are always learning more everyday. :)
Mike.
Klaus Schroiff
> everyone can make a few bad lenses off the lline.
>
> I don't feel more comfortable knowing it is a brand name lens or
> a 3rd party one.
One major issue is compatibility, especially in EOS land and here the
brand label is indeed reassuring.
Klaus
Mike
Thanks, I didn't know much about how brand names lenses are vs.
other brand name cameras. As an EOS user, (or Canon user) do you find
compatability difficult?
Mike.
Klaus Schroiff
> other brand name cameras. As an EOS user, (or Canon user) do you find
> compatability difficult?
Well, this is roughly the history as far as I remember it:
EOS 5/A2E:some older Sigma produced wild aperture operations when
pressing the shutter release button (but continued to work)
EOS 50/Elan II/RebelG: virtually all Sigmas produced prior of the
50/Elan II malfunctioned locking the camera mirror in upward
position. (1st chip upgade wave, some lenses not upgradable)
EOS 3: many Sigmas (except HSM I think) produced problems with
erratic AF operation or, again, mirror locking problems.
(2nd chip update wave)
EOS 1v: we'll see ...
To be honest Tokina lenses suffered from similar problems though
I never heard that they denied a firmware upgrade for a lens.
Rechipping is free within the warranty period only (obviously).
AFAIK Tamron remained compatible over the years. There're rumors
that Tamron did actually license the mount, another rumor is that
they seem to produce some of the "kit" lenses for the original
manufacturers as well. Well, rumors ... maybe they've just hired
the better software pirates ...
Sigma and Tokina did certainly just reverse engineer the camera-lens
communication - obviously not good enough though.
You may have a look at
http://www.photozone.de/sigma.htm
for some "stories".
regards
Klaus
Mike
with its incompatabilities with some lenses. I am sure its a great
camera, but its too bad that a Canon owner really has to look out what
lens(es) they buy. :(
Mike.
Thanks for the information by the way! :)
Klaus Schroiff
> with its incompatabilities with some lenses. I am sure its a great
> camera, but its too bad that a Canon owner really has to look out what
> lens(es) they buy. :(
Well, the sad thing is that Sigma & Co. seem t o refuse to obtain a
license
which is a normal thing to do in other industries if you want to use
patented
products.
I guess this is the reason why they state that lenses fit the Canon EOS
"mount" - there's no word that these lenses are actually compatible. A
subtile difference ...
Anyway, Pentax users reported problems as well. Less so for Minolta AF
and
Nikon. Tamron had some problems with the F5 AFAIR.
Klaus
Derek Clarke
> Whow, interesting. Sounds like a Canon is more computer than camera
> with its incompatabilities with some lenses. I am sure its a great
> camera, but its too bad that a Canon owner really has to look out what
> lens(es) they buy. :(
If you have a Canon EOS body with any lens and a flashgun on top you
actually have a 3 computer network in your hands!
The incompatibilities aren't Canon's fault. They'd be perfectly willing to
sell a license to make EOS mount lenses to Sigma, and no doubt the
information about the comms protocols too, but Sigma would rather
reverse-engineer things than pay the license fee.
The trouble with reverse-engineering is that you won't be able to deduce
functions that aren't actually used by the camera and lens combination
you're using for the exercise.
So several times they've been caught out when a new body arrives, because
it uses features that have obviously been present from the year dot as
Canon lenses have never needed re-chipping.