Availability of WA lenses

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:36:12 -0500, nospam wrote:

i think his point is that sigma intentionally picks the best of the
bunch to send to a reviewer, rather than luck of the draw.

I'm not going to discuss speculations. Can you prove that Sigma does,
and Canon and Nikon do not?

i'm sure they all pick the best to send to reviewers. why wouldn't
they??

Then don't post a message suggesting that Sigma is the only one.
Still, it's nothing but speculation.

the issue is that sigma has a much wider variability than nikon/canon
and fails a lot more.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...repair-data-30

Seems like they're heading the right way again.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

In article et,
Robert Spanjaard wrote:

the issue is that sigma has a much wider variability than nikon/canon
and fails a lot more.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008...repair-data-30

Seems like they're heading the right way again.

two points don't make for a trend.

Robert Coe wrote:

Sure, but as you surmise, I'm not really a professional; I'm a computer system
manager for a city government. Although I never expected it to happen, I've
started to emerge as the City's "go to" photographer for stock photos and
event coverage. The City has some cameras I could use, but frankly mine are a
lot better. In the recent incident, I was asked to do a photo of the City
Hall. The correct solution is a full frontal shot, in mid-afternoon sunlight,
from the roof of a building across the street. But I couldn't quite get it in
with my 50D and its 18-50mm lens.

Buy the Canon EF-S 11-22. You won't be sorry.

But ... as said before, why not a panorama? That would annihilate any
single-lens shot in total quality.

Doug McDonald

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:15:43 +0000, Bruce wrote:

i think his point is that sigma intentionally picks the best of the
bunch to send to a reviewer, rather than luck of the draw.

I'm not going to discuss speculations. Can you prove that Sigma does,
and Canon and Nikon do not?


You can easily prove it yourself, but it involves doing some simple lens
tests rather than blindly accepting what you read about Sigma lenses in
magazine and web site reviews.

Have you ever tested the lenses you bought? No, I thought not. ;-)

I do test them in the shop before buying them. After that, I only test
them in the field. I don't buy them to shoot test charts; flatbed scanners
can do a much better job at that kind of subject.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:12:12 +0000, Bruce wrote:

Generalising to brand level never makes sense. All brands produce good
and bad products.


Buying Sigma makes no sense at all.

You are obviously a Sigma user. ;-)

I am. And an Tamron and Canon user.

--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

nospam wrote:
In article . net,
Robert Spanjaard wrote:

Review samples of Sigma lenses always seem to achieve stellar
results -

No, they don't. According to the same site, the 24-70mm f/2.8, for
example, is the worst in its class. All other brands are sharper.

i think his point is that sigma intentionally picks the best of the
bunch to send to a reviewer, rather than luck of the draw.

I'm not going to discuss speculations. Can you prove that Sigma
does, and Canon and Nikon do not?

i'm sure they all pick the best to send to reviewers. why wouldn't
they??

the issue is that sigma has a much wider variability than nikon/canon
and fails a lot more.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20

Now let's see, they list only the lenses for which more than 10 percent have
had problems and on those lists there are more Canon models and more Nikon
models listed than Sigma, so, while two specific Sigma models do seem to be
having problems, that doesn't support the contention that Sigmas "fail a lot
more" across the board.

Robert Coe wrote:
Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
universally shared.

Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
that waiting list currently is?

Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.

All advice gratefully received.

Indecisive Bob

That shot would have been a snap as a two- or three-shot composite, and
with much better quality. With the easy availability of stitching
software there's now little need to get the image in one shot, unless
the subject is moving.

I would have taken the shots at ground level or maybe one floor up, and
stitched the image. Best part is, you can do it again, coz the building
is probably still there g

Colin D.

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:13:20 +0000, Bruce wrote:

: But if you really were a professional you wouldn't need to ask for
: this advice, you would just do it. ;-)

Sure, but as you surmise, I'm not really a professional; I'm a computer system
manager for a city government. Although I never expected it to happen, I've
started to emerge as the City's "go to" photographer for stock photos and
event coverage. The City has some cameras I could use, but frankly mine are a
lot better. In the recent incident, I was asked to do a photo of the City
Hall. The correct solution is a full frontal shot, in mid-afternoon sunlight,
from the roof of a building across the street. But I couldn't quite get it in
with my 50D and its 18-50mm lens. The City Hall has a tall tower, so the shot
must be a vertical, and the short dimension isn't quite enough at 18mm. So I
had to settle for an angle shot from the front steps of a post office
diagonally across the street. Our publicity agent was quite happy with it
(it's a lot better than the City Hall picture currently being displayed on the
City's Web site), but the foreground is messy and the perspective causes too
much distortion. A slightly wider lens would solve the problem admirably.

For the price of one of those lenses you could get a copy of Photoshop
and either do perspective correction or stitch multiple photos.

Sure, the lens will last longer, but you may use Photoshop more.

: Also, is there no more suitable option within your camera brand? Nikon
: offers two truly excellent 12-24mm lenses, an f/2.8 FX and a cheaper,
: variable aperture DX. I don't know what Canon has available in this
: focal length range; I rarely needed anything wider than 16mm on my old
: Canon EOS 5D, so chose the 16-35mm f/2.8L.

Canon hasn't enjoyed a great reputation for its WA lenses. I'm sure they make
lenses that would do the job, but I'd like to buy something I'll be happy with
for the foreseeable future.

And if you're using a 50D then the 17-40mm and 16-35mm aren't really
super wide. An equivalent of about 26mm for a full-frame.

--
Ray Fischer

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

the issue is that sigma has a much wider variability than nikon/canon
and fails a lot more.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.20/lens-repair-data-20

Now let's see, they list only the lenses for which more than 10 percent have
had problems and on those lists there are more Canon models and more Nikon
models listed than Sigma, so, while two specific Sigma models do seem to be
having problems, that doesn't support the contention that Sigmas "fail a lot
more" across the board.

they have stopped carrying many sigma lenses because they can't afford
to maintain them and fewer copies will skew the statistics.

they also had a page called the sigma saga (no longer there) where they
explained that sigma lenses account for most of their repairs. many are
dead on arrival and some break while they test them in preparation for
sending to the first customer. when they send them to sigma for
warranty repair, they are refused due to customer abuse, when many
times, only thing that was done was unboxing them, and repairs took
weeks when they were done.

because of that, they only carry sigma when there's no alternative.
sigma has a few unique ranges that nobody else offers, however, for
something like a 70-200, there's no point in a sigma.

In article . net,
Robert Spanjaard wrote:

Have you ever tested the lenses you bought? No, I thought not. ;-)

I do test them in the shop before buying them. After that, I only test
them in the field.

how do you test them? tripod? autofocus? unless it's in tightly
controlled conditions, there will be far too many variables. about the
only thing you can do is weed out the true lemons.

I don't buy them to shoot test charts; flatbed scanners
can do a much better job at that kind of subject.

maybe so but test charts are an excellent way to test a lens. why do
you think eye doctors have you read from a chart?