Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 17:37:30 -0400, wrote:

No, I haven't missed it. There is nothing wrong with the lens, it's just a
bit big and heavy for a mobile photographer. On a Gimball head, maybe it's
not such a problem.

How is this really any bigger and heavier than a 400 f/4? And fwiw I carry
and handhold mine on a near daily basis walking the dog for several miles
at a time.

Sorry, I was thinking of it in comparison to the 300mm f/2.8.

??? The 200-400mm VR weighs nearly a pound more than the 300mm
f/2.8 VR Nikkor. They're both pretty hefty, but as I mentioned in
my other reply, it's the 400mm f/2.8 lens that's the real beast.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:35:26 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

"Timmo" wrote:
"Floyd L. Davidson" wrote in message
...

With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
in their range. With
Nikon, this isn't always the case.

nonsense.

Care to elaborate?

*You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.

Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
troll post,

Still trolling are we!


There is always one or two in every ng. I wonder who the other is.

It's a waste of bandwidth when you write a bunch of
nonsense to see what others will say.

I am not going to nit-pick ...

That's all you did though. It's just about the same as
complaining that you have to have a red dot on the left
side, and one company uses yellow dots or only puts them
on the left side. It's nonsense.

Get used to it, Canon makes good equipment, and so does
Nikon. A lot of people won't buy the same brand that
you did, and often it will be for good reasons.

In article , Bob Larter
wrote:

To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20

sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
(and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

also,

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga

Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser
for us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.

Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.

We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
many problems as to be unusable.

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:09:29 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article , Bob Larter
wrote:

To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20

sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
(and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

What exactly do you mean by lens failure. Is it just poor image quality
or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?


also,

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga

Since day 1 the Sigma brand has always been a bit of a money loser for
us: they broke more frequently than the other brands.

Sigma lenses failed at a rate of 30% per year, compared to less than
5% for Canon, Tamron, Nikon, Tokina, and Zeiss.

We aren¹t going to stop renting Sigma entirely but we are going to
close out two lines (the 150-500 and 120-400) that have developed so
many problems as to be unusable.

In article , measekite
wrote:

To be honest, I've had one bad experience with a Sigma lens that's put
me off thrid-party lenses for my Canon bodies.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.11.30/lens-repair-data-20

sigma has the honor of having the top five most unreliable lenses that
they offer, with the #1 position having a whopping 84.6% failure rate
(and that particular lens isn't cheap either).

What exactly do you mean by lens failure.

the failures are listed in the link: zoom mechanism, calibration,
autofocus and stabilization for sigma.

Is it just poor image quality
or is the build quality so bad it just falls apart?

actually, some very old sigma lenses did fall apart.