Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:37:49 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:37:11 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:27:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

: : : Doesn't say much about problems with QC. You two 'lucked out'
: : : and got a good copy. Noone says Sigma cannot build good lenses
: : : --- only that they don't do that consistently enough for comfort.

: : How many Sigma lenses have you ever owned, Wolfgang? How good
: : were they?

: : I shall refer you to lensrentals.com, who have owned *many* dozen.

: : Another 1 or 3 or 10 lenses from me doesn't make a difference
: : to statistics. Just as one lottery winner doesn't mean every
: : ticket wins the main price.

: In other words, none. I thought as much.

: Looks like you try to invent facts.

The only fact I've "invented" is that you've never owned any Sigma lenses. If
I'm wrong about that, please set me straight.

Since for statistics any number of Sigma glass I might have owned
(not being a rental or sales place) will be insignificant, I'll
decline to comment on that number, except for pointing out that
you cannot know it.

: Since I suppose you'll ask, or assume, my wife and I own four of them. Are
: they the best lenses we own? No. But all have been a very good value for the
: money.

: Ok. You own *F*O*U*R* Sigma lenses. Probably bought over
: several years. How many percent of Sigma's lenses are they?

No answer is also an answer.


: Consider: their annual turnover is 36 billion yen (that's roughly
: 450 million USD).

: See the point why 4 so-so-but-real-cheap lenses just don't say much?

No answer is also an answer.


: We get many more 1 million EUR lottery winners per year ...
: from a single lottery.

I didn't say that my ownership of four Sigma lenses says anything.

No, you did imply that only personal ownership of a few Sigma
lenses made you able to talk about their QA quality.

I only
mentioned it so that when I pointed out that you don't own any, you couldn't
say that I don't either.

You, not I, are the one making claims about the poor quality of Sigma lenses.

Sigma can build good lenses ... but it's far to easy to get a bad
(i.e. not sharp etc.) copy. And some of their lenses are not
very rugged compared to other lenses.

And those claims are based on *no* first-hand experience. Right?

*Any* claims on deaths due to traffic accidents, drug use or heart
failure are also not first-hand experience. Are they therefore
in any way less real, less valid or less reliable than a personal
experience that's only shareable if you turn into a ghost and
haunt people?

Ah, fine that you agree that they are not.

Fine that you agree that first-hand experience is unable to say
much about nation-wide death numbers due to traffic accidents and
likewise unable to say much about Sigma's QA. The sample set is
way to small that way, be it 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 lenses.

Good, then we agree.

-Wolfgang