Sigma execs contract advance Mad Cow disease

In article
,
RichA wrote:

It's the only answer.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11052010sigmasd1.asp

Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

In article , Mr. Strat
wrote:

It's the only answer.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1105/11052010sigmasd1.asp

Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

not anymore they don't. even the sigma fanbois have given up and are
calling for a boycott.

Mr. Strat wrote:

[Sigma]
Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Mr. Strat wrote:

[Sigma]
Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

They make some good lenses. The 70/2.8 macro is great and the 12-24 zoom is
a blast (there's a new version coming out; the old version is _very_ good
for tight interiors, but IQ at the corners outdoors (in my copy at all but
14 mm) is problematic, so I'll grab the new version the instant it's
released).

Many of their lenses are _for the price_ products, and as such are very
good, useful tools for a lot of people.

Grumble. I'm off to an exotic foreign city* half way around the world
Friday, and I'd love to take the new 12-24 with my, but it's not out yet. So
I thought I'd blow some serious money and get the Canon 8-15mm fisheye
instead. One of the reasons I've passed on fisheyes so far is that I can't
decide FF or circular. I like both effects, but they are both below my
threshold for getting used enough to be worth lugging. So despite the insane
price, the 8-15 isn't completely unreasonable. But it isn't out yet either.
Sheesh.

*: Boston, MAg.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

Mr. Strat wrote:

[Sigma]
Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
dime on Sigma's crappy products.

In rec.photo.digital David J. Littleboy wrote:

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Mr. Strat wrote:

[Sigma]
Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

They make some good lenses. The 70/2.8 macro is great and the 12-24 zoom is
a blast (there's a new version coming out; the old version is _very_ good
for tight interiors, but IQ at the corners outdoors (in my copy at all but
14 mm) is problematic, so I'll grab the new version the instant it's
released).

Their recent 8-16mm wide angle for crop sensor cameras is newer
technology than the old 12-24mm, and is very good indeed. At the
moment it's hard to compare it with the competition, because there
isn't any :-)

Many of their lenses are _for the price_ products, and as such are very
good, useful tools for a lot of people.

Grumble. I'm off to an exotic foreign city* half way around the world
Friday, and I'd love to take the new 12-24 with my, but it's not out yet. So
I thought I'd blow some serious money and get the Canon 8-15mm fisheye
instead. One of the reasons I've passed on fisheyes so far is that I can't
decide FF or circular. I like both effects, but they are both below my
threshold for getting used enough to be worth lugging. So despite the insane
price, the 8-15 isn't completely unreasonable. But it isn't out yet either.
Sheesh.

If you can put up with a totally fully manual lens, the (nominally)
8mm Samyang fisheye is FF on crop sensors (the 180 degree circle is
exscribed on the sensor rectangle) and circular on FF. It also has a
new projection which compresses the edges less which IIRC some call
"stereographic". Makes more of the image useful for such things as
group portraits in confined spaces, and allows it to be "unfished"
with less loss of resolution.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 5/24/2011 4:19 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital David J. wrote:

"Wolfgang wrote in message
...
Mr. wrote:

[Sigma]
Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

They make some good lenses. The 70/2.8 macro is great and the 12-24 zoom is
a blast (there's a new version coming out; the old version is _very_ good
for tight interiors, but IQ at the corners outdoors (in my copy at all but
14 mm) is problematic, so I'll grab the new version the instant it's
released).

Their recent 8-16mm wide angle for crop sensor cameras is newer
technology than the old 12-24mm, and is very good indeed. At the
moment it's hard to compare it with the competition, because there
isn't any :-)


I tested one when it first came out, at Sigma HQ, where I expected they
would give me a decent one.
For reasons previously stated, I decided it was a POC.

--
Peter

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:
Mr. Strat wrote:

[Sigma]
Does anybody take this company and their products seriously?

When your livelihood depends on that, you pretty much take it
seriously. (Mine doesn't.)

I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
dime on Sigma's crappy products.

And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
do professional photography.

-Wolfgang

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
dime on Sigma's crappy products.

And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
do professional photography.

Having done photography in many contexts for 45 years, it's pretty easy
to distinguish between Sigma and quality equipment.

Mr. Strat wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg wrote:

I did photography professionally for many years, and never wasted a
dime on Sigma's crappy products.

And there are those who don't waste a dime on Canon or Nikon and
do professional photography.

Having done photography in many contexts for 45 years, it's pretty easy
to distinguish between Sigma and quality equipment.

Good to know you have indeed tested all of Sigma's offerings and
aren't prejudiced. And that you completely understood that not
wasting a dime on something doesn't prove anything but that one
usually has no real experience with that something.

-Wolfgang