Sigma 70-300mm Sony/Minolta mount lens - a warning
Calvin Sambrook
I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
not alone.
Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
retailer instead but that's another story for later.
So if you're in the market for a telephoto zoom for a Sony alpha body which
has their "fast focus" motor be warned that the Sigma is just not up to the
job. If you decide to buy one anyway please remember to post a note on
usenet if/when it fails so as to warn others.
Rich
> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>
> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
> not alone.
Plastic-c-c-c-c! Strikes again!!!
nospam
<csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>
> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
> not alone.
that's actually a common failure for sigma lenses, not just on sony
cameras.
> Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
> in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
> Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
> retailer instead but that's another story for later.
good move.
> So if you're in the market for a telephoto zoom for a Sony alpha body which
> has their "fast focus" motor be warned that the Sigma is just not up to the
> job. If you decide to buy one anyway please remember to post a note on
> usenet if/when it fails so as to warn others.
just avoid sigma lenses
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
John Navas
in <231020091142362823%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <hbsj1s$nm9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Calvin Sambrook
><csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>>
>> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
>> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
>> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
>> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
>> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
>> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
>> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
>> not alone.
>
>that's actually a common failure for sigma lenses, not just on sony
>cameras.
>just avoid sigma lenses
Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
--
Best regards,
John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >just avoid sigma lenses
>
> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the
sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300
aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you
just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!
<http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
Calvin Sambrook
news:231020091224233264%nos...@nospam.invalid...
I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly criticize a
major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is almost unheard of.
They must be absolutely certain of their position. And what a position, of
Sigma they say:
"Our techs coined the phrase "Sigma'd" to describe any lens that didn't
function."
"[Sigma's] repair turnaround time was, to be charitable, leisurely."
"Sigma was about 5% of our rentals but almost one-third of our customer
complaints."
I wish I'd known about that site before buying.
So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub �200, it's a hobby after
all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens
as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical
reviews. Are Tamron any good?
nospam
<csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> So any recommendations for a cheap-end (ie. sub �200, it's a hobby after
> all) tele zoom for a Sony? My current thoughts are to buy a Sony brand lens
> as surely that must be matched to the body, but they get poor optical
> reviews. Are Tamron any good?
some are and some aren't. it depends on the lens. the tamron 90mm macro
is outstanding, and one of the best macro lenses made. on the other
hand, the tamron 200-400mm was horrible, truly horrible.
Chris Malcolm
Same goes for Sony lenses. Their 18-250mm zoom for example is a
rebadged and slightly improved version of the highly respected
18-250mm Tamron. It's a rare manufacturer that makes no good
lenses. And despite the weak focus gear teeth on some of their heavier
long zooms, some of Sigma's lenses are very good too.
--
Chris Malcolm
Alan Browne
This has been a known problem for some time but it is good to raise it
as a reminder.
Further reading:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga
Alan Browne
> In article <hbsj1s$nm9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Calvin Sambrook
> <csam...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>>
>> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
>> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
>> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
>> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
>> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
>> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
>> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
>> not alone.
>
> that's actually a common failure for sigma lenses, not just on sony
> cameras.
It has been a particular problem in the Sony community of late - eg: if
it's bad on Nikon or Canon it is much worse with Sony bodies (from what
I gather on various groups).
>> Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
>> in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
>> Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
>> retailer instead but that's another story for later.
>
> good move.
>
>> So if you're in the market for a telephoto zoom for a Sony alpha body which
>> has their "fast focus" motor be warned that the Sigma is just not up to the
>> job. If you decide to buy one anyway please remember to post a note on
>> usenet if/when it fails so as to warn others.
>
> just avoid sigma lenses
>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga>
> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga.
me
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
delta cost for that.
michael adams
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:N_adnbGcFqa-hn7X...@giganews.com...
When I first read that link last year - the most interesting question
to me apart from the inordinate lengths they're going to blacken Sigma's
reputation, is the fact that the company in question is based in Cordova
Tennessee. Which with all due respect to Tennesseans is surely hardly
anyone's idea of the lens hiring capital of the US, or of the world for
that matter.
Other than this outfit most of the big lens hirers appear to be over the
counter outfits in big cities linked top retailers which branched out into
mail hire with the growth of the internet.
I'm surprised that nobody has ever stopped to question any of this.
None of the other - mostly OTC big city - hirers websites who I checked both
in the US and UK appear to have any problem with Sigma lenses at all. And from
memory one big seller in the UK offers all lenses including Sigma on 2 weeks
approval prior to purchase.
michael adams
...
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
> to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga.
agreed, along with their blatant lies about their cameras.
nospam
<m...@mine.net> wrote:
> >Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>
> Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
> 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
> equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
> delta cost for that.
that's a very good lens, and there's also a new version of it with a
built-in motor.
Alan Browne
The business model is different. Lensrentals started as a couple guys
with a few lenses lying around that they simply rented out - the
important distinction being that they do it by shipping. In fact you
put the finger directly on _why_ they started the business: if you live
away from a large city then it is hours if not full days away from a
city with a decent (or any) lens rental store.
As to statements like the "inordinate lengths they're going to blacken
Sigma's reputation" I suggest you look at it from their point of view:
all the trouble that is caused by dealing with Sigma's denial of issues
("lens broken by user" - on a lens that is brand new out of the box) and
very slow turn around). That trouble of simply dealing with the problem
costs them more than the lenses themselves.
It is unusual for a company to dedicate a page or two of webspace to
detailing their issues with a supplier. OTOH, they do try to rent out
these lenses to people who want to rent them. Those customers deserve
to know why lensrentals are having such issues with Sigma products.
Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from the
catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier company and
happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma garbage, er, product.
nospam
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> When I first read that link last year - the most interesting question
> to me apart from the inordinate lengths they're going to blacken Sigma's
> reputation, is the fact that the company in question is based in Cordova
> Tennessee. Which with all due respect to Tennesseans is surely hardly
> anyone's idea of the lens hiring capital of the US, or of the world for
> that matter.
what difference does that make? it's a mail order operation. the only
thing that matters is that they have inventory to meet demand and near
a shipping facility (i.e., not in the middle of montana).
> Other than this outfit most of the big lens hirers appear to be over the
> counter outfits in big cities linked top retailers which branched out into
> mail hire with the growth of the internet.
there's plenty of opportunity for more than one lens rental service.
> I'm surprised that nobody has ever stopped to question any of this.
there's nothing to question, that's why.
> None of the other - mostly OTC big city - hirers websites who I checked both
> in the US and UK appear to have any problem with Sigma lenses at all. And from
> memory one big seller in the UK offers all lenses including Sigma on 2 weeks
> approval prior to purchase.
maybe they would just assume take your money rather than being honest.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from the
> catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier company and
> happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma garbage, er, product.
they *have* done that when there's a non-sigma option. however, there
are some lenses that only sigma makes, so they stock them.
John Navas
<ie86e5dso2kr7v05c...@4ax.com>:
If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters, but I've
personally yet to see a case where a good OEM prime didn't significantly
outperform cheaper non-OEM lenses.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
> >
> >Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
> >12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
> >equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
> >delta cost for that.
>
> If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters, but I've
> personally yet to see a case where a good OEM prime didn't significantly
> outperform cheaper non-OEM lenses.
perhaps you need to get out more, and he's not talking about single
focal length lenses anyway.
Alan Browne
In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
Hell, that's a good rule in life too.
michael adams
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
But don't you find it rather strange that no other lens rental company appears
to have had similar problems with Sigma Lenses ? Certainly not to the extent of
publishing entire web pages running them down. But even by simply imposing
specific conditions when hiring Sigma lenses ? Which none of them seem to do.
From reading their website they clearly seem to think that they're God's gift
to photographers - and streets ahead of anyone else. And quite possibly some of
that arrogance rubs off when it comes to their dealings with suppliers.
Again your own opinion doesn't seem to be entirely based on your own personal
experience but also on what you've read on this web page -
" Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga."
What's interesting is that, whether its true or not in this instance, is the credence
which people are willing to place on whatever they happen to read on the internet
on a web page published by an outfit hardly any of them will ever have dealt with,
certainly to the extent of being sure its actually even exists. Simply because
that web page will have been referenced by enough other people. Again very few if
any of whom, will actually have ever dealt with lensrental.
michael adams
...
nospam
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> But don't you find it rather strange that no other lens rental company appears
> to have had similar problems with Sigma Lenses ? Certainly not to the extent
> of
> publishing entire web pages running them down. But even by simply imposing
> specific conditions when hiring Sigma lenses ? Which none of them seem to do.
what makes you think no other rental company hasn't had a problem?
just ask any lens repair shop about sigma lenses, and you'll get a lot
of stories, and not particularly flattering ones.
sigma has a long history of selling crap. granted, their stuff is a lot
better now than when they slapped lenses together with tape (yes,
really), but their q/a is pitiful.
michael adams
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
Sure thing. All the over the counter operations who have to deal face to face with
their customers on a daily basis are likely to rip them off. While an outfit in an
industrial estate right next to the airport in Hicksville Tennessee, maybe a 1000
miles away, most definitely won't.
michael adams
...
nospam
<mjad...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
what makes you think these over the counter operations don't tell the
customer that they should rent a nikon/canon lens instead? or that the
sigma is 'out of stock' when it really means they're all broken? maybe
the store stocks 1 sigma lens for every 10 nikon/canon lenses, just to
appease the sigma fanbois who require sigma for some reason.
Alan Browne
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from the
>> catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier company and
>> happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma garbage, er, product.
>
>
> But don't you find it rather strange that no other lens rental company appears
> to have had similar problems with Sigma Lenses ? Certainly not to the extent of
> publishing entire web pages running them down. But even by simply imposing
> specific conditions when hiring Sigma lenses ? Which none of them seem to do.
I have no reason to doubt Lensrentals claims, and I have not seen a
similar report from any other co. (mainly because I haven't looked,
please posts links if you have found any).
>
> From reading their website they clearly seem to think that they're God's gift
> to photographers - and streets ahead of anyone else. And quite possibly some of
> that arrogance rubs off when it comes to their dealings with suppliers.
My impression is the contrary. They are not arrogant, they are in fact
trying their best to satisfy as many customers as they can. IMO, they
are trying in fact to please too many people who want to rent Sigma
equipment and it is hurting them in frustration, time and effort.
WORSE: Sigma are not doing their part to fix issues in a timely manner
AND MUCH WORSE they are claiming that lenses are damaged by users which
have not even been used yet - therefore they are shooting themselves in
the foot. If they are such incompetent wads, we deserve to know.
>
> Again your own opinion doesn't seem to be entirely based on your own personal
> experience but also on what you've read on this web page -
>
> " Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
> to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga."
My experience with Sigma lenses over many years is that there is only
one single lens that I would consider buying, the 180mm macro. To my
shame I endorsed a Sigma zoom lens to my SO, who bought it, and it's
only in the wake of the that that I discovered it was softer at long
zoom than I had been led to believe. (It has survived the last 4 or 5
years so at least there is that...).
>
> What's interesting is that, whether its true or not in this instance, is the credence
> which people are willing to place on whatever they happen to read on the internet
> on a web page published by an outfit hardly any of them will ever have dealt with,
> certainly to the extent of being sure its actually even exists. Simply because
> that web page will have been referenced by enough other people. Again very few if
> any of whom, will actually have ever dealt with lensrental.
I suggest you stop questioning what we believe in and start thinking
about the Sigma "value proposition". Go to enough groups and you will
find a lot of people weighing in with Sigma issues v. people having
problems with lenses from the better OEM's.
More importantly there is no credible reason to doubt lensrentals
webpage. Certainly if they were lying about it, Sigma would have issued
a cease and desist letter and/or have sued by now. I would bet that
Sigma, instead, are in "Barbara Streisand Effect" defense mode.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> I suggest you stop questioning what we believe in and start thinking
> about the Sigma "value proposition". Go to enough groups and you will
> find a lot of people weighing in with Sigma issues v. people having
> problems with lenses from the better OEM's.
on dpreview, people often go though 4-5 copies before getting a good
one, and with more than one lens model. sometimes they just give up and
buy something else. the fanbois, however, refuse to admit there's a
problem.
> More importantly there is no credible reason to doubt lensrentals
> webpage. Certainly if they were lying about it, Sigma would have issued
> a cease and desist letter and/or have sued by now. I would bet that
> Sigma, instead, are in "Barbara Streisand Effect" defense mode.
that's a good point. if sigma had proof that it was libel, they'd have
taken action.
John Navas
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
<QpKdnT_ppsB5xn7X...@giganews.com>:
Just the opposite, actually.
Calvin Sambrook
> michael adams wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>
>>> Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from the
>>> catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier company and
>>> happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma garbage, er,
>>> product.
>>
>> But don't you find it rather strange that no other lens rental company
>> appears
>> to have had similar problems with Sigma Lenses ? Certainly not to the
>> extent of
>> publishing entire web pages running them down. But even by simply
>> imposing
>> specific conditions when hiring Sigma lenses ? Which none of them seem to
>> do.
>
> I have no reason to doubt Lensrentals claims, and I have not seen a
> similar report from any other co. (mainly because I haven't looked,
> please posts links if you have found any).
>
> More importantly there is no credible reason to doubt lensrentals webpage.
> Certainly if they were lying about it, Sigma would have issued a cease and
> desist letter and/or have sued by now. I would bet that Sigma, instead,
> are in "Barbara Streisand Effect" defense mode.
Well, as the OP, I came at this from the viewpoint of a pissed-off customer.
So although I'm not a lens rental company and I simply don't handle enough
lenses to get data for a statistical sample myself I do have direct, first
hand, experience of Sigma's quality. Not only that but I'm an engineer and
having experienced the failure I trawled around a bit and found plenty of
data, including detailed strip-downs with photos, to support the view that
this particular Sigma lens is simply not made of sufficiently durable
materials to withstand the forces from the Sony motor. Put simply it's just
not up to the job.
Knowing what I now know about one particular Sigma lens design and having
exchanged emails with Sigma's "service" department I read the
lensrentals.com report and it rings true. As I said somewhere else in this
thread, it's very unusual for a rental company to openly criticize a major
supplier. They must be pretty confident of their position and indeed they
publish numbers to back it up.
I certainly won't buy Sigma again.
Alan Browne
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:56:20 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
>> In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
>>
>> Hell, that's a good rule in life too.
>
> Just the opposite, actually.
Hell no! There are two facets of this that apply.
1) The customer that insists that you can provide a service to him that
is nearly in your scope, but actually is not. (And this can be up/down,
that is to say a low-quality service request to your high-quality co.,
or a high-quality service request from your low-brow co).
2) The customer that wears you down. Demands deeper discounts despite a
somewhat low annual volume; demands service beyond the offer
(reasonable, implied, contractual); "exercises" your staff with endless
information requests - but seldom buys, or buys well below the
negotiation point, and so on.
Some businesses actively fire customers, those who demand too much time
and service v. the business brought. (One Harvard prof. estimates this
at about 1% of customers per year).
It's not nice to have to refuse business but point in fact is that while
some clients may bring thin margins others just spin your wheels and
cost you money - persistently.
It is an error to persistently try to please all of your customers, for
some of them are simply not worth it over the short or long term.
We had a few customers who exercised us year in and year out on
proposals for many programs. After years of it with one customer we
concluded that we were a) too high value for his organization's (within
a specific US gov't branch) needs; b) we were uncomptetive in that niche
or c) we were being used to contain another suppliers proposals. I am
talking about proposals that would take from a couple man-months to
several man-years of engineering and management effort to put together.
At one point you simply stop registering for the tender.
Another customer put an onerous liability clause in a contract. We had
bid competitively, with exceptions to some clauses in the tender, and
were told we were the technical and price choice however we had to
accept clause so-and-so. We worried over this, sent it above corporate
to the board (who said no-way). The customer asked: "How much would
your raise your price to accept clause so-and-so." Back to corporate /
back to the board (this is taking months now) and they still said no
way. We fired a customer who had selected us in a competitive bid for
refusing to remove an open ended liability. The co. that eventually
fulfilled the contract is a very reputable firm. We're just amazed that
they accepted that clause.
I recently discussed this issue with the president of a local very
specialized investment casting house: do you sell to ( a major Montreal
aerospace firm )? Hell no! Been burnt a few times. They are famous
for causing companies to invest in capital equipment and process
engineering to finally move on to the next lowest bidder despite
promises of a long term relationship. (I have heard this about this
buyer from dozens of companies in the industry). They move on to other
customers. (Our company however did do successful business with that
firm. But it was in a very specialized niche where we were leaders or
at worst 2nd - they had few other options). IOW a fired customer for
one co. might be a good or perfect match for another co.
For a fresh new company trying to grow and develop its market, all
comers are welcome. When a company has matured and wants to employ its
resources efficiently they begin to look at customers that are marginal
(keep and try to improve) and persistently lossy (drop).
A much used aphorism goes you spend 80% of your effort on 20% of your
customers (or earnings or profit, etc.). That's fair.
The other side of that is that 80% of your customers only bring in 20%
of your revenue/profit. At the bottom of that 80% are a couple or a few
who are really dragging you down for no return or cause you negative
returns. So when you spend a disproportionate effort on 1% of your
customers it's simply not fair to yourself - and for that matter your
other customers who deserve your attention. Resources are always
limited. This is in essence the saga that Lensrentals are having with
Sigma.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
> >
> >Hell, that's a good rule in life too.
>
> Just the opposite, actually.
wrong. you'll go broke trying to please *everyone*.
John Navas
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
<qoqdnXNmQrA_4n7X...@giganews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:56:20 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote
>
>>> In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
>>>
>>> Hell, that's a good rule in life too.
>>
>> Just the opposite, actually.
>
>Hell no! There are two facets of this that apply.
>
>1) The customer that insists that you can provide a service to him that
>is nearly in your scope, but actually is not. (And this can be up/down,
>that is to say a low-quality service request to your high-quality co.,
>or a high-quality service request from your low-brow co).
>
>2) The customer that wears you down. Demands deeper discounts despite a
>somewhat low annual volume; demands service beyond the offer
>(reasonable, implied, contractual); "exercises" your staff with endless
>information requests - but seldom buys, or buys well below the
>negotiation point, and so on.
>
>Some businesses actively fire customers, those who demand too much time
>and service v. the business brought. (One Harvard prof. estimates this
>at about 1% of customers per year).
Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
*all* customers.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Some businesses actively fire customers, those who demand too much time
> >and service v. the business brought. (One Harvard prof. estimates this
> >at about 1% of customers per year).
>
> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
> *all* customers.
try to yes, but you *can't* please everyone, and in some cases it's
cheaper to send the customer packing.
in fact, i know of one company that not only refunded the purchase
price, but *paid* for the customer to get a competing product. the
customer was nothing but trouble, constantly calling tech support, and
wasting everyone's time.
Bob Larter
Rubbish. Back when I ran a service department for a computer products
company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome
clients by proving that they were actually costing us money.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Noons
>>
>> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
>> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
>> *all* customers.
>
> Rubbish. Back when I ran a service department for a computer products
> company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome
> clients by proving that they were actually costing us money.
>
Hmmmmm.......
I wonder why you stopped running that service department?
<g,d&r>
Annika1980
>
> Sigma appear to be in denial as emails to them have either been ignored or
> in one case I've simply been told they will repair it under warrantee.
> Remember that's a two month old lens - I elected to get a refund from the
> retailer instead but that's another story for later.
>
If you go to McDonalds to eat, don't bitch about the food.
Alan Browne
Trying to satisfy is not the same as realizing that a customer is not
worth it. A customer that is consistently draining resources is poison
to the bottom line and reduces service to other (profitable) customers
who deserve more attention.
I'll repeat what I said in the other post. 80-20 rule is fine. But
when that lowest 1% of your customers absorbs resources, time and money
well beyond the return from that customer, it's time they moved on. And
then those resources are free for other profitable customers.
Alan Browne
Sick 'em on a competitor - now that's a win-win!!!
Calvin Sambrook
news:b4d552a8-efaf-4afe...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
That's a bit harsh, accepting that Sigma are at the cheaper end I'd expect
performance which wasn't as good as more expensive lenses. Slower focus,
softer, more CA, noisier - they are all things which one can choose to
accept in a cheaper lens or one can decide those matter to you enough to pay
more. A life of two months is definitely unacceptable.
In the UK we now have a reasonably strong Sale of Goods Act which has an
assumption that (for non-perishable goods) if something breaks in the first
6 months it was was faulty at purchase unless the retailer can prove
otherwise. People are only just waking up to what that means in practice
and it can be hard work enforcing your rights (that will be the subject of
another post one day) but it does mean that manufacturers like Sigma can no
longer get away with the sort of things they once did.
Alan Browne
Right on the money. Or lack of it.
Robert Coe
: In article <N_adnbCcFqY-hn7X...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
: <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
:
: > Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
: agreed, along with their blatant lies about their cameras.
If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon lenses,
with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it
doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses
(including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them.
Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
one.
Bob
John Navas
<0eu8e590tjb9mcnve...@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:54:42 -0700, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>: In article <N_adnbCcFqY-hn7X...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>: <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>:
>: > Yep. Whatever grudging acceptance I've had for Sigma has been reduced
>: > to "avoid" with the lensrentals saga.
>:
>: agreed, along with their blatant lies about their cameras.
>
>If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon lenses,
>with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it
>doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses
>(including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them.
With good budget OEM lenses are available, I personally don't think the
difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.
If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
RustY �
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:s8v8e5p0p8ap5el4u...@4ax.com...
> ...................I personally don't think the
> difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.
> If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
>
>
I now only own Canon lenses - some cheap e-bay ones and some new 'L' series
glass but never again will I buy non genuine lenses. For what I do it really
isn't worth the money saved.
nospam
<b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
> one.
a few people do but it's a tiny tiny minority. sigma's market share is
well under 0.5%.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >If money grew on trees, we'd probably all have mostly Canon or Nikon lenses,
> >with the occasional Sigma (30mm f/1.4) or Tokina (11-16) thrown in. But it
> >doesn't, so we make compromises. My wife and I have four Sigma lenses
> >(including the 30mm) and are not at all unhappy with them.
>
> With good budget OEM lenses are available, I personally don't think the
> difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.
for you, but you don't speak for everyone. i think his point is that
the third party lens makers make lenses that nikon/canon do *not* make.
> If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
some third party lenses definitely deliver, just as some nikon/canon
lenses do not. it all depends on the particular lens.
Alan Browne
> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
Wrong.
While the wide variety of third party lenses are somewhat 2nd class
lenses, they do produce some notable lenses that stand on their own for
image and build quality. These include:
Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
notably good portrait lens.
Sigma's 180mm macro.
Severa Tokina's.
And quite a few others.
Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's
do not do at all.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
> notably good portrait lens.
it's not just very good. it's *excellent*, one of the best macro lenses
made.
> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's
> do not do at all.
how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)
Miles Bader
> John Navas wrote:
>> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
>
> Wrong.
>
> While the wide variety of third party lenses are somewhat 2nd class
> lenses, they do produce some notable lenses that stand on their own for
> image and build quality.
Indeed. There have been, and are, great lenses from 3rd parties, and
there are also of course crap lenses from OEMs.
I dunno what on earth Navas was thinking when he posted that, since it's
such an obviously silly statement. While many camera makers are also
excellent lens makers, they certainly have no monopoly on that, and
since (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined interface,
they enjoy no particular advantage over others when making lenses for
their own platform.
-Miles
--
"I distrust a research person who is always obviously busy on a task."
--Robert Frosch, VP, GM Research
nospam
wrote:
> I dunno what on earth Navas was thinking when he posted that, since it's
> such an obviously silly statement.
i seem to recall he said he bought a third party lens once and got
burned, so he refuses to buy any other third party lenses, no matter
what. apparently he is not aware of the duds that nikon/canon make.
> While many camera makers are also
> excellent lens makers, they certainly have no monopoly on that, and
> since (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined interface,
> they enjoy no particular advantage over others when making lenses for
> their own platform.
true, but the exact mount protocol is still reverse engineered, and
many times not particularly well.
sigma in particular is known for needing lenses rechipped to work on
newer cameras. sigma also cheaps out and reuses cpu chips, which means
one lens might share its lens id with another lens, and that means that
the exif information in the photo will show incorrect data. it also
means that there can be a serious problem with the cameras that provide
for focus adjust, since they look at the mounted lens id to know
whether to apply a particular adjustment. it's actually amazing sigma
gets away with this crap.
Alan Browne
> In article <2bqdnQc4U7AEOnnX...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
>> notably good portrait lens.
>
> it's not just very good. it's *excellent*, one of the best macro lenses
> made.
Haven't we gone over this?
There are several better, including the Nikkor 105 micro, the Minolta
100 f2.8 macro, the Leica, and so on. But the Tamron is very close.
Note that where the word "macro" appears, then "best" = "sharpest".
Where it is better than both the Nikkor and the Minolta is as a portrait
lens with its smoother bokeh. It has taken on a mythical legend status
that makes people believe it's better than it actually is. Value wise,
it is likely the best, period.
>
>> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's
>> do not do at all.
>
> how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)
No idea. A pretty damn good photog at a photo club I used to belong to
had a Sigma 50-500 - and he made some damn good shots with it coupled to
a 20D. Not a lens I'd ever buy, however.
No spam please
news:87ws2ji...@catnip.gol.com...
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> While the wide variety of third party lenses are somewhat 2nd class
>> lenses, they do produce some notable lenses that stand on their own for
>> image and build quality.
>
> Indeed. There have been, and are, great lenses from 3rd parties, and
> there are also of course crap lenses from OEMs.
>
> I dunno what on earth Navas was thinking when he posted that, since it's
> such an obviously silly statement. While many camera makers are also
> excellent lens makers, they certainly have no monopoly on that, and
> since (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined interface,
> they enjoy no particular advantage over others when making lenses for
> their own platform.
>
> -Miles
Hello Miles.
Is it true that " ... (current) lens mounts are a simple and well-defined
interface ..."?
Sigma have well-known problems with some of their EF mount lenses and some
of Canon's bodies.
I've read (in a photo newsgroup) that this is because Sigma reverse-engineer
the EF mount rather than pay Canon a licence fee to get the full EF
specification.
I know that Sigma do try to keep up-to-date. Sigma UK will re-chip a lens
when there is a compatibility problem so long as they still have chips in
stock.
Regards, Rog.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> There are several better, including the Nikkor 105 micro, the Minolta
> 100 f2.8 macro, the Leica, and so on. But the Tamron is very close.
i did say one of the best, not *the* best.
> >> Further, as others have noted, Sigma produce niche lenses that the OEM's
> >> do not do at all.
> >
> > how 'bout that 200-500mm f/2.8 :)
>
> No idea. A pretty damn good photog at a photo club I used to belong to
> had a Sigma 50-500 - and he made some damn good shots with it coupled to
> a 20D. Not a lens I'd ever buy, however.
the 50-500 is nothing at all like the 200-500 f/2.8:
<http://www.heidertorres.com.br/blogs/sigzilla.jpg>
<http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/static/image/2007/03/09/pma_sigma14l.
jpg>
Alan Browne
Oh, the "Bigma". Indeed a niche lens! Probably does a good job. Just
glad I'm not doing it.
Alan Browne
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:231020091224233264%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <95v3e59c3ofa2ihu7...@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >just avoid sigma lenses
>>>
>>> Amen. You tend to get what you pay for.
>>
>> generally true but some sigma lenses are not cheap. for instance, the
>> sigma 300-800 is $10k and the 120-300 is $3200 (b&h). the 120-300
>> aspires to be #1 for being unreliable, with an 84.6% failure rate. you
>> just can't get failure rates like that when you pay less!
>>
>> <http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20>
>
> I'm deeply shocked. For a commercial rental company to openly criticize
> a major supplier in the way that lensrentals have done is almost unheard
> of.
I was mildly surprised, but not shocked.
I chalk it up to their relative young age as a company coupled to their
desires of satisfying their customers and the frustrations of Sigma's
apparently very sub-par service and lackluster reliability.
That page has been their long enough that it appears that Sigma don't
feel it would be prudent to tackle it legally.
It may also be that Sigma want photographers to own their lenses, not
rental co's and are trying to "fire" lensrentals by souring the milk.
As this rages through the photographic community, however, it just hurts
their sales.
nospam
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> Oh, the "Bigma". Indeed a niche lens! Probably does a good job. Just
> glad I'm not doing it.
the 50-500 is known as bigma and the 200-500 is known as sigzilla. it's
ridiculously impractical, but it definitely got them publicity.
J. Clarke
This makes it sound like Sigma is reverse-engineering to because they are
too cheap to pay for a license, when in fact Canon claims that NOBODY has
been provided the EF specification.
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> This makes it sound like Sigma is reverse-engineering to because they are
> too cheap to pay for a license, when in fact Canon claims that NOBODY has
> been provided the EF specification.
according to this post, tamron and cosina have agreements in place:
<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=16953224>
Only Tamron and Cosina have such a agreements in place, which is why
you don't hear about those lenses needing to be rechipped the way you
continually hear about Sigmas and Tokinas. My own Sigma 30mm f1.4
needs to go in to be rechipped for compatability for my Nikon D200.
Check the Japanese IP law journals, there have been a couple of
interesting suits between Sigma and Canon. Not what one calls a
"working relationship".
Pete Stavrakoglou
news:0eu8e590tjb9mcnve...@4ax.com...
Some of us do buy their cameras and like them. Being a Sigma DSLR user,
I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with
only one. Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and
the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with.
Pete Stavrakoglou
news:3PKdnfzsB5MfK3nX...@giganews.com...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <2bqdnQc4U7AEOnnX...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Tamron's 90mm series of macro lenses which is a very good macro and a
>>> notably good portrait lens.
>>
>> it's not just very good. it's *excellent*, one of the best macro lenses
>> made.
>
> Haven't we gone over this?
>
> There are several better, including the Nikkor 105 micro, the Minolta 100
> f2.8 macro, the Leica, and so on. But the Tamron is very close.
The Sigma 70mm and 105mm macro are also some of the best macro lenses in
that range.
Pete Stavrakoglou
The 50-500mm is definitely not at all like the 200-500mm f2.8. That lens
comes with it's own pack mule at no extra charge.
nospam
<nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
> > one.
> Some of us do buy their cameras and like them.
the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at
the same time!
> Being a Sigma DSLR user,
> I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with
> only one.
there are a *lot* of posts in the sigma forum on dpreview with various
problems. the sd14 has lockups and writes corrupted files, the dp1 and
dp2 have a lovely red grid problem, the lens mechanism fails, the
autofocus is slow, battery drains in hours even when not using it, etc.
> Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and
> the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with.
i've seen posts where sigma usa rejected repairs and claimed 'customer
damage' followed by fanbois saying 'you packed it wrong' or some such
garbage. always the user's fault, never sigma.
there are also posts where a camera or lens had to be sent to sigma
japan for 2-3 *months*, only to have it come back with a different set
of problems.
Bob Larter
I've bought one Sigma lens. Never again. All my others are genuine Canons.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 25/10/2009 3:43 PM:
>>>
>>> Companies that fire customers put themselves out of business slowly but
>>> surely. The most successful companies are the ones that try to satisfy
>>> *all* customers.
>>
>> company, I was able to convince management to fire several troublesome
>> clients by proving that they were actually costing us money.
>>
>
> Hmmmmm.......
> I wonder why you stopped running that service department?
> <g,d&r>
It was because the company was acquired by a pair of morons who thought
that an MBA was a good substitute for actually knowing how to run a
business. After putting up with several months of bullshit from them, I
quit to join a friend's DotBomb business.
Pete Stavrakoglou
> In article <hc5119$g8v$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
> <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> > Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never
>> > seen
>> > one.
>
>> Some of us do buy their cameras and like them.
>
> the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at
> the same time!
Comedy is not your thing, don't quit your day job.
>> Being a Sigma DSLR user,
>> I've got a fair number of their lenses and have experienced problems with
>> only one.
>
> there are a *lot* of posts in the sigma forum on dpreview with various
> problems. the sd14 has lockups and writes corrupted files, the dp1 and
> dp2 have a lovely red grid problem, the lens mechanism fails, the
> autofocus is slow, battery drains in hours even when not using it, etc.
I was addressing the lens reliablitiy, try reading what I wrote. Never
mentioned the camera reliablility.
>> Sigma USA's customer service is excellent in my experience and
>> the experiences of other Sigma users I'm in continual contact with.
>
> i've seen posts where sigma usa rejected repairs and claimed 'customer
> damage' followed by fanbois saying 'you packed it wrong' or some such
> garbage. always the user's fault, never sigma.
You are talking about one incident, I know the thread you are talking about.
My out-of-warranty camera years ago required a repair that was taken care of
at no cost to me and I was offered a loaner until mine was reparied. I
guess we can put you into the "Anti-fanboy" club. If it makes you feel
good, go ahead.
Robert Coe
: RustY � wrote:
: > "John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
: > news:s8v8e5p0p8ap5el4u...@4ax.com...
: >
: >> ...................I personally don't think the
: >> difference in cost is great enough to warrant non-OEM lenses.
: >> If your needs aren't critical, then budget OEM lenses are fine.
: >> If they are critical, then non-OEM lenses won't really deliver.
: >>
: >>
: > I now only own Canon lenses - some cheap e-bay ones and some new 'L' series
: > glass but never again will I buy non genuine lenses. For what I do it really
: > isn't worth the money saved.
:
: I've bought one Sigma lens. Never again. All my others are genuine Canons.
What was the Sigma lens you bought and didn't like?
Wolfgang Weisselberg
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> what makes you think these over the counter operations don't tell the
> customer that they should rent a nikon/canon lens instead? or that the
> sigma is 'out of stock' when it really means they're all broken? maybe
> the store stocks 1 sigma lens for every 10 nikon/canon lenses, just to
> appease the sigma fanbois who require sigma for some reason.
Because that would shatter his conspiracy theory, and thus it
just can't be.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> But don't you find it rather strange that no other lens rental company appears
> to have had similar problems with Sigma Lenses ? Certainly not to the extent of
> publishing entire web pages running them down. But even by simply imposing
> specific conditions when hiring Sigma lenses ? Which none of them seem to do.
You're basically saying "Nobody else in a do-not-blame culture
does blame Sigma (in a way visible to you), so they must be wrong".
How do you know that the "specific conditions" aren't "higher
prices than they would take for non-sigma lenses of that
price point and features"?
> From reading their website they clearly seem to think that they're God's gift
> to photographers - and streets ahead of anyone else. And quite possibly some of
> that arrogance rubs off when it comes to their dealings with suppliers.
They seem to demand that lenses actually work. That's sheer
arrogance. They should be glad that someone actually lets
them buy broken crap. Right?
> What's interesting is that, whether its true or not in this instance, is the credence
> which people are willing to place on whatever they happen to read on the internet
> on a web page published by an outfit hardly any of them will ever have dealt with,
> certainly to the extent of being sure its actually even exists. Simply because
> that web page will have been referenced by enough other people. Again very few if
> any of whom, will actually have ever dealt with lensrental.
What's interesting is that *you* ask credence to a "Sigma isn't
bad" mantra on the basis that all the reports of variable quality
and problems from Sigma aren't personal experience.
Will you ask next to trust resellers whose resellerratings are
unearthly with matching comments on the basis that we, personally,
haven't been burned many times yet?
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> the cool thing about it is that they can *all* fit into one big room at
>> the same time!
> Comedy is not your thing, don't quit your day job.
It's not comedy, it's the plain truth: you *can* fit all Sigma
owners in the big blue room with the curious yellow ball ...
-Wolfgang
Bob Larter
A used 100-300mm zoom. After buying it, I discovered that the one mode I
hadn't tested it with (aperture-priority, set higher than wide-open)
caused an Err 99 on my (Canon) DSLR. Also, the grip started coming away
from the body of the lens.
SMS
> I post this as a warning for anyone researching this lens before purchase.
>
> I have a Sony a200 and recently bought a Sigma 70-300mm zoom. The reviews
> say it makes great pictures and I agree, the optical performance is great,
> especially for a cheap-ish lens. What the reviews don't tell you is that
> this lens was designed before Sony started fitting more powerful focus
> motors to their range of bodies. The extra torque from the newer motor is
> clearly too much for the plastic gears in the lens and mine lasted just two
> months before failing with stripped teeth. Subsequent research shows I'm
> not alone.
Thanks for the warning. In general you should avoid those third-party
lenese at all costs. There are often compatibility problems because the
lens was designed for the cameras available at the time, without any
knowledge of what future camera models with the same lens mount would be
capable of (not only mechanically, but in electronic communication
between the camera and lens).
Every time I'm tempted to but a third-party lens I take a deep breath
and think about the Canon lenses I have that have lasted 12 years with
no problems at all, and decide that if I buy the more expensive lens
then within a few months I'll forget that I paid more for a better lens,
but if I buy the crappy lens I'll have to live with that forever.
SMS
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <oq6dncI5jvZOz37X...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Were I in lensrentals shoes I would simply drop them completely from
>>> the catalog and get rid of the inventory. Less hassle = happier
>>> company and happier customers, even if they can't rent the Sigma
>>> garbage, er, product.
>>
>> they *have* done that when there's a non-sigma option. however, there
>> are some lenses that only sigma makes, so they stock them.
>
> In business it can be an error to try to please everyone.
No, it's not an error to try to please everyone, it's an error to
actually please everyone.
Very true. And with an 85% failure rate, if that's true, they are at
least displeasing the renter that is the last one to rent the lens when
it fails.
SMS
> Does anybody actually buy Sigma's cameras? I'm pretty sure I've never seen
> one.
I have seen one, and apparently there were a few people that bought
them. The list of issues with the SD10 was so long that it's hard to
believe anyone would have chosen that over a Canon or Nikon, but
apparently most of those customers had been using the Sigma film SLR and
wanted to continue to use their Sigma mount lenses.
The Foveon technology held great promise at the time it was introduced,
but when they moved from three separate sensors to the stacked sensor
with silicon color separation, it didn't work out.
Paul Furman
Most of their customers would probably not bother to research & find the
info anyways <g>. That said, when I bought my only Sigma lens from the
Calumet pro store in SF, the salesman sneered at me: 'you don't want
that lens' as I handed over $800 or so... that's their 12-24 full format
which has been one of my most used lenses and I'm quite happy with it.
Details on that lens:
Pros:
It is the widest thing available for FX DSLRs ever. While not razor
sharp, it is good and holds respectable sharpness to the corners very
well. There is almost zero barrel/pincushion (except at close focus)
which is great for architectural work. In many ways it is a well built
pro lens, metal body & mount, smooth focus, etc. CAs are not reasonably
well controlled considering it's acrobatics.
Cons:
It has slow max apertures. There was a (CPU?) flaw found for which I
could have sent it back to fix where it messed up metering or something
on certain camera bodies... never been a problem so I haven't bothered.
The hood is a crap design with some kind of crap foam cushion to hold it
in place that ripped off and it slides off all the time (argh!). The
sturdy metal barrel is coated with some sort of powder coating flocking
crap that has peeled off & looks like crap, near the mount. I treat
lenses roughly, they get a lot of use and banging around in the bag.
They have a bunch of very tempting and often quite good lenses that keep
the big guys in competition. The Nikon 14-24 wasn't out yet when I got
this and while stellar, it's more than twice the price and not as wide.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Savageduck
I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my
D70, and other than some initial operator errors resulting in
vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever
since on the D70 & my D300.
I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp
and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Furman
> In article <vbm6e5pki52sitr9m...@4ax.com>, John Navas>>> Not a 100% rule to follow. I'm happy with my Tokina AT-X 124 DX Pro
>>> 12-24mm f4 lens, which is substantially cheaper than the Nikon
>>> equivalent. Yes, it's not and AF-S lens, but I couldn't justify the
>>> delta cost for that.
>> If it's good enough for you, that's all that matters, but I've
>> personally yet to see a case where a good OEM prime didn't significantly
>> outperform cheaper non-OEM lenses.
>
> perhaps you need to get out more, and he's not talking about single
> focal length lenses anyway.
I think the 14mm f/2.8 Sigma prime gets better reviews than the Nikon,
or very close, or better in some respects and significantly cheaper. In
this case the Sigma came years after the Nikon and Nikon now has a much
better zoom. There are other examples of pro lenses like 300/2.8 where
the Sigma performs very well for a fraction of the preposterous cost of
the OEM. And old examples of Cult lenses from Tokina, Cosina, etc, or
the Nikon Series E lenses that were supposed to be cheap and weren't
given the Nikkor label but in fact were really great lenses. Lots of the
third party Macro lenses are excellent.
Robert Coe
wrote:
: I have to agree Paul, I got a Sigma 12-24mm back in 2005 to use with my
: vignetting, which I have now overcome, it has performed flawlesly ever
: since on the D70 & my D300.
:
: I have since picked up a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which is wonderful, sharp
: and fast and the Sigma isn't getting much use now.
Where did you find the Tokina? Both B&H and Adorama have had it back-ordered
for months.
Bob
Savageduck
A friend got it for me overseas back in June. I had been trying to get
a copy from those vendors also.
--
Regards,
Savageduck