Sigma bails on Olympus 4/3rds

David Dyer-Bennet wrote in :

Bowser writes:

That's OK. Most of us rarely take Sigma seriously. Except for the
occasional good lens, most of their stuff is crap.

Sigma is one of the most aggressive lens companies lately, and has made
some outstandingly good lenses. I've never had a bad lens from them.

I like them. They offer less expensive lenses than Canon and Nikon and
they are just a little bit inferior. In essense, they are doing what Nikon
and Canon won't.

In article , Rich
wrote:

That's OK. Most of us rarely take Sigma seriously. Except for the
occasional good lens, most of their stuff is crap.

Sigma is one of the most aggressive lens companies lately, and has made
some outstandingly good lenses. I've never had a bad lens from them.

I like them. They offer less expensive lenses than Canon and Nikon and
they are just a little bit inferior.

quite a bit more than 'just a little bit inferior.'

In essense, they are doing what Nikon
and Canon won't.

that being rip off the customer.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
nospam writes:

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

That's OK. Most of us rarely take Sigma seriously. Except for the
occasional good lens, most of their stuff is crap.

Sigma is one of the most aggressive lens companies lately, and has made
some outstandingly good lenses. I've never had a bad lens from them.
(Then again, I've chosen all my lenses, from them and others, after
considerable research.)

you must be incredibly lucky. most people need to go through 3 or 4
copies of a sigma lens to get one that actually works properly and is
not decentered or has other problems.

I've never heard anybody claim it's *that* bad, and none of the other
Sigma owners I know have had bad problems.

My two Sigma lenses were good, both better than reviews and comment
had led me to expect. One of them got badly smashed in a fall, went to
Sigma for repair, and came back as good as new. I'm a pleased customer
very willing to go back to Sigma for more lenses.

As a new owner I took an interest in on-line discussions of my lenses,
and discovered that much of the adverse publicity was simply
misunderstanding of very wide angle lenses from novices, e.g. AF not
resulting in good focus, or supposing the natural wide angle linear
perspective "distortion" to be a cheap lens defect rather than an
inherent feature of the projection geometry.

Although I've read accounts of bad problems like decentred lenses the
several Sigma lens owners I know haven't suffered any problems.

I'd hope that considering the very much higher price of similarly
specified Canon and Nikon lenses that they'd be better built with
higher quality control. But if Sigma were as bad as only 30% of their
lenses working properly I can't understand how they're still in
business.

--
Chris Malcolm

In article , Chris Malcolm
wrote:

But if Sigma were as bad as only 30% of their
lenses working properly I can't understand how they're still in
business.

most people don't check for defects or they aren't all that picky about
it. basically, they don't care. relatively few people buy a lens and
then shoot a test chart to check for decentering, front/back focus or
or other flaws. they shoot pictures of their kids and they're happy.