Sigma's getting unrealistically greedy

In article
,
RichA wrote:

$1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).

If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

$1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).

If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or
optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose
photographs have earned me the most money :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:
: In article
: ,
: RichA wrote:
:
: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because I'm
one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or because
Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors and
their fanboys?

Bob

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because I'm
one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or because
Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors and
their fanboys?

pure luck.

go look at lensrental's repair statistics and their experiences getting
sigma to fix them. sigma told them 'customer damage' even when it was a
brand new lens, never rented to anyone.

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

$1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).

If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or
optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose
photographs have earned me the most money :-)



Wrong.
The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself
the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to
the right situation.


--
Peter

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:
: In article
: ,
: RichA wrote:
:
: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because
I'm
one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or
because
Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors
and
their fanboys?


Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want to.
From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try a few.

--
Peter

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:03:45 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

$1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).

If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or
optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose
photographs have earned me the most money :-)



Wrong.
The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself
the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to
the right situation.

Proving yet again that it's NOT about the pixels, or the elusive and
nebulous "image quality" that you all go on about but can never define.

IT'S THE CONTENT.

Content wins, every time.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 23:15:41 -0700, NGBarfart
wrote:

In article ,
Schneider wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:03:45 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital Mr. Strat wrote:
In article
,
RichA wrote:

$1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).

If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

Not in my case. My Sigma lens isn't my most expensive or
optically best lens, but as it happens it's the lens whose
photographs have earned me the most money :-)



Wrong.
The lens was just a tool that you apparently use well. You earned yourself
the money by understanding the lens, its capabilities and applying them to
the right situation.

Proving yet again that it's NOT about the pixels, or the elusive and
nebulous "image quality" that you all go on about but can never define.

IT'S THE CONTENT.

Content wins, every time.

Nice!
Fresh sock I see, and a change of Usenet provider.

Was it getting too uncomfortable with giganews? or are they just getting
less tolerant of P&S trolls?

Eh? What's that you said about cameras and photography?

Oh, that's right.

NOTHING

As usual.

Out yourself as an attention deprived resident-TROLL much?

LOL!

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat"
wrote:
: In article
: ,
: RichA wrote:
:
: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because
I'm
one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or
because
Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors
and
their fanboys?


Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want to.
From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try a few.

--
Peter

Would this by chance have been at Sigma USA's location? If so, the next
time you go you must let me know. I work within a five-minute drive from
there.

"Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:46:32 -0700, "Mr. Strat"

wrote:
: In article
: ,
: RichA wrote:
:
: $1000 for a fast kit zoom? Are they insane? As much as an Olympus
: 12-60 (which would destroy the Sigma in every performance area).
:
: If people would just avoid Sigma products, they'd be much better off.

And yet the Sigma lenses I own have performed very well. Is that because
I'm
one of the few people smart enough to know which are the good ones? Or
because
Sigma's QC problems have been greatly exaggerated by Sigma's competitors
and
their fanboys?


Tomorrow I will have the chance to play with any Sigma lenses I want to.
From what I saw today, they seem very well made. But, I will try a few.

--
Peter

Would this by chance have been at Sigma USA's location? If so, the next
time you go you must let me know. I work within a five-minute drive from
there.


I went to the annual NECCC conference at Amherst, MA. Sigma had a booth with
a bunch of their lenses on display, which participants could borrow for a an
hour or two. I tried, without success to convince the rep that the 800 was
much too heavy and I world be happy to carry it home for her. I promised to
return it in less than two years. Here I was being gallant to a nice young
lady and she would not accept my help.

Seriously, where are they located? It sound like a nice idea, especially
since I am semi retired.



--
Peter