Why would anyone buy this Sigma over the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8??

In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses the
actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering what one is
paying the Nikon premium for.
The most useful tests would be of randomly purchased off the shelf lenses
from different vendors to see if optical performance matches that of the
hand picked lenses given to media testers as well as to see if performance
is sustained over time and normal use/abuse of the lens.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 8/28/2010 11:04 AM, lofi wrote:
In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses
the actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering
what one is paying the Nikon premium for.
The most useful tests would be of randomly purchased off the shelf
lenses from different vendors to see if optical performance matches that
of the hand picked lenses given to media testers as well as to see if
performance is sustained over time and normal use/abuse of the lens.

Nikon and Canon both target the press market and for those guys the most
important consideration is that the thing _work_. Cost and image
quality are both secondary to that requirement. If you're standing next
to another guy and the plane is headed for the tower and his Nikon works
and your Sigma decides to crap out you may have blown the Pulitzer.
Sigma seems to be targeting markets for which cost, image quality, or
special capabilities are more important than reliability. So you may be
paying a premium to Nikon and Canon to get more durable mechanisms.

lofi wrote:
In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses the
actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering what one is
paying the Nikon premium for.

Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
dishonest creeps.

Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
Station.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...nyadvisory.asp
--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
lofi wrote:
In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses
the
actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering what one
is
paying the Nikon premium for.

Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
dishonest creeps.

Huh? Sony changes the behavior of their mount and it's Sigma's fault? And
Sigma offers to fix it for free on all current lenses (hint: the
discontinued lenses long predate Sony's acquisition of Minolta) and Sigma's
problematic? You're dead wrong on this one.

Sigma may be you get what you pay for city, but better that they're there
making sure Canon/Nikon build stuff that's worth the price they charge than
not.

Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
Station.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...nyadvisory.asp

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: lofi wrote:
: In my humble experience of comparing side by side Nikon and Sigma lenses the
: actual performance of too many Nikon lenses leaves one wondering what one is
: paying the Nikon premium for.
:
: Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
: Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
: dishonest creeps.
:
: Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
: with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
: cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
: Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
: error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
: to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
: possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
: advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
: Station.
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...nyadvisory.asp

Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility Sigma's
fault?

Bob

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
: Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
: dishonest creeps.
:
: Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
: with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
: cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
: Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
: error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
: to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
: possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
: advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
: Station.
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...nyadvisory.asp

Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility Sigma's
fault?


It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
introduced camera bodies.

This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.



So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface design, (a
questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent infringement. If indeed
the interface design was not patentable, there would be nothing to license.
Something is missing.

--
Peter

On 10-09-11 9:00 , Peter wrote:


So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
would be nothing to license.
Something is missing.

There's not much patentable about a lens mount. Nothing new about
bayonet, nothing new about signals and aperture links.

A lot of 3rd party manufacturing companies "back into" OEM products as
Sigma do (look at all the 3rd party products for computers, cars, etc.).
Typically, Sigma will "re-chip" their lenses once after release to
solve a compatibility issue, but will refuse a 2nd go.

I stay away from Sigma lenses - there aren't many that are optically
superior (there are a few), and almost none that have the build quality
one seeks in a lens collection that will last 20 and more years of
constant use.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-09-11 9:00 , Peter wrote:


So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
would be nothing to license.
Something is missing.

There's not much patentable about a lens mount. Nothing new about
bayonet, nothing new about signals and aperture links.

That's my point. So why would a license be required. That is an illogical
point.
Tell me the manufacturing quality is junk, even if I didn't have first hand
experience with that, it's a logical point.


A lot of 3rd party manufacturing companies "back into" OEM products as
Sigma do (look at all the 3rd party products for computers, cars, etc.).
Typically, Sigma will "re-chip" their lenses once after release to solve a
compatibility issue, but will refuse a 2nd go.

Agreed. Also, I find it interesting that the Kenko mount for Nikon has one
less contact point than Nikon, yet no functinality seems to be lost.


I stay away from Sigma lenses - there aren't many that are optically
superior (there are a few), and almost none that have the build quality
one seeks in a lens collection that will last 20 and more years of
constant use.

For reasons previously stated, I too stay away from Sigma.


--
Peter

On 9/11/2010 9:00 AM, Peter wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
: Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
: dishonest creeps.
:
: Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
: with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
: cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
: Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
: error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
: to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
: possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
: advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
: Station.
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...nyadvisory.asp

Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility
Sigma's
fault?


It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
introduced camera bodies.

This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.



So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
would be nothing to license.
Something is missing.

One thing that is missing is that it is not a matter of Sigma refusing
to license the mount, it is a matter of Canon refusing to provide the
specifications to third parties at _any_ price. Every manufacturer of
Canon-mount lenses other than Canon has to reverse engineer the mount.
Sigma just did a worse job of it than some of their competitors.

On 9/11/2010 9:39 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
On 9/11/2010 9:00 AM, Peter wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
...
Robert Coe wrote:
On 11 Sep 2010 05:38:54 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
:
: Every once in a while I think about possibily trying a Sigma lens.
: Then I discover that they're still a bunch of incompetant and
: dishonest creeps.
:
: Sigma is advising Sony users that its lenses are not compatible
: with the latest Alpha SLT-A55 and SLT-A33 'translucent mirror'
: cameras and it will fix them for free where possible.
: Specifically, the aperture may not operate correctly, giving an
: error message on the camera. The company says it will be offering
: to modify existing lenses free of charge, however this may not be
: possible for some lenses 'discontinued several years ago'. It
: advises owners affected to contact their nearest Sigma Service
: Station.
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10...nyadvisory.asp

Since the lenses preceded the cameras, why is the incompatibility
Sigma's
fault?


It is *absolutely* Sigma's fault because they 'reverse engineer' their
lenses to avoid paying any licence fees to the owners of the interface
design. The result is that Sigma lenses often won't work on newly
introduced camera bodies.

This has happened many times with Sigma lenses used on Canon cameras.
As usual, Sigma refused to licence the Canon EF mount, and reverse
engineered their lenses instead. Sigma had a long series of problems
when their lenses would not work on successive new Canon EOS bodies.



So according to Brucie, either Canon did not patent its interface
design, (a questionable concept,) or Sigma is guilty to patent
infringement. If indeed the interface design was not patentable, there
would be nothing to license.
Something is missing.

One thing that is missing is that it is not a matter of Sigma refusing
to license the mount, it is a matter of Canon refusing to provide the
specifications to third parties at _any_ price. Every manufacturer of
Canon-mount lenses other than Canon has to reverse engineer the mount.
Sigma just did a worse job of it than some of their competitors.


Could be. I have no inside inside information on the thinking of Canon
and Nikon management. It would not be illogical for them to have made
the interface designs open, within limits, as IBM did with the PC. OTOH
it would not be illogical for them to retain some details which they may
regard as proprietary trade secrets. the last being what they do in the
case of RAW formats.


--
Peter