A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 29th 12, 11:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

Robert Coe wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:37:49 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:37:11 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:27:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg


: : : Doesn't say much about problems with QC. You two 'lucked out'
: : : and got a good copy. Noone says Sigma cannot build good lenses
: : : --- only that they don't do that consistently enough for comfort.


: : How many Sigma lenses have you ever owned, Wolfgang? How good
: : were they?


: : I shall refer you to lensrentals.com, who have owned *many* dozen.


: : Another 1 or 3 or 10 lenses from me doesn't make a difference
: : to statistics. Just as one lottery winner doesn't mean every
: : ticket wins the main price.


: In other words, none. I thought as much.


: Looks like you try to invent facts.


The only fact I've "invented" is that you've never owned any Sigma lenses. If
I'm wrong about that, please set me straight.


Since for statistics any number of Sigma glass I might have owned
(not being a rental or sales place) will be insignificant, I'll
decline to comment on that number, except for pointing out that
you cannot know it.

: Since I suppose you'll ask, or assume, my wife and I own four of them. Are
: they the best lenses we own? No. But all have been a very good value for the
: money.


: Ok. You own *F*O*U*R* Sigma lenses. Probably bought over
: several years. How many percent of Sigma's lenses are they?


No answer is also an answer.


: Consider: their annual turnover is 36 billion yen (that's roughly
: 450 million USD).


: See the point why 4 so-so-but-real-cheap lenses just don't say much?


No answer is also an answer.


: We get many more 1 million EUR lottery winners per year ...
: from a single lottery.


I didn't say that my ownership of four Sigma lenses says anything.


No, you did imply that only personal ownership of a few Sigma
lenses made you able to talk about their QA quality.

I only
mentioned it so that when I pointed out that you don't own any, you couldn't
say that I don't either.


You, not I, are the one making claims about the poor quality of Sigma lenses.


Sigma can build good lenses ... but it's far to easy to get a bad
(i.e. not sharp etc.) copy. And some of their lenses are not
very rugged compared to other lenses.

And those claims are based on *no* first-hand experience. Right?


*Any* claims on deaths due to traffic accidents, drug use or heart
failure are also not first-hand experience. Are they therefore
in any way less real, less valid or less reliable than a personal
experience that's only shareable if you turn into a ghost and
haunt people?

Ah, fine that you agree that they are not.

Fine that you agree that first-hand experience is unable to say
much about nation-wide death numbers due to traffic accidents and
likewise unable to say much about Sigma's QA. The sample set is
way to small that way, be it 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 lenses.

Good, then we agree.

-Wolfgang
  #22  
Old June 29th 12, 12:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

Robert Coe wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:17:03 -0400, nospam wrote:


[insignificance of owning a few Sigma lenses]

Translation of the above: "Nospam", like Wolfgang, has never owned any Sigma
lenses.


Translation:
- Robert doesn't know **** about statistics
- Robert is strongly emotional attached to his 2 Sigma lenses
(the other two are his wifes' and thus don't count)
- Robert *must* defend his Sigma buying decision, or else!
- Robert invents facts to justify his not hearing the truth,
just saying 'well, they work OK for me/us' is not enough
- Robert probably needs to drink&drive, take crack and commit
genoicide to find out himself that these are substellar ideas,
and he won't listen to anyone who hasn't done that themselves.

-Wolfgang

PS: I still stand silent on the number of Sigma lenses I owned
or used.
  #23  
Old June 29th 12, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

four lenses is nothing.

lensrentals has *hundreds* of sigma lenses. dozens *each* of nearly
every model sigma lens made.

well they used to, until they found out that sigma lenses had horrific
failure rates, as high as 90% (really). many of them failed out of the
box, before they were even rented to anyone. worse, sigma gave the a
runaround to get them fixed, blaming lensrentals for breaking them.
there was a lengthy blog on their website about it.


Yeah, but those claims of hugely high failure rates ring false -- and
four lenses is getting to the point where "90% failure" should probably
show up.


if you bought four of the same lens it probably will show up.

on the other hand, if you bought four different lenses with different
failure rates (only 1 had a 90% failure rate) then you might not.

more likely, people didn't test the lenses the bought since they don't
realize they need to or they just don't care, or the failure has not
yet occurred, such as a motor failure.

lensrentals *has* to test the lenses, because shipping defective lenses
to customers is not a good business model. they also want to know if a
renter damaged it.

I strongly suspect people who rent lenses are much harder on them than I
am on lenses I'm using.


maybe so (remember, damage isn't covered so most people will be
careful), but what is significant is that many of the problems were
with lenses that were new out of the box and never rented to anyone.
sigma blamed lensrentals for damaging them, more of the usual bull****.
opening a box is not 'user damage.'
  #24  
Old June 29th 12, 10:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: : now they only carry sigma lenses if there's no alternative from another
: : manufacturer.
:
: So what's been your first-hand experience with Sigma lenses, "Nospam"?
:
: once again, personal experience for me or anyone else makes no
: difference in the grand scheme of things. sigma makes millions of
: lenses. buying a couple of lenses is *not* significant. it means
: nothing.
:
: what *is* significant are things such as lensrental's repair rates.
: also, sigma reusing lens id chips, which means that if you put a
: particular lens on your camera, the *wrong* lens id is written to the
: exif. or that nikon sued sigma for stealing nikon's intellectual
: property on image stabilization. they totally ripped off canon for
: their own sigma mount lenses. and if that's not enough, sigma used to
: make lenses that were held together with cellophane tape, which not
: surprisingly, failed and lens elements fell out.

Translation of the above: "Nospam", like Wolfgang, has never owned any Sigma
lenses.


wrong, but why let facts get in the way of your blind fanboism.

it's very simple: a company that buys zillions of lenses of all makes
is in the best position to say which ones fail the most. someone who
buys a few lenses does not have enough of a sample size to make any
conclusions, especially if they didn't do any formal testing.
  #25  
Old June 30th 12, 12:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:56:37 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:37:49 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 02:37:11 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: : : Robert Coe wrote:
: : : On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:27:56 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
:
: : : : Doesn't say much about problems with QC. You two 'lucked out'
: : : : and got a good copy. Noone says Sigma cannot build good lenses
: : : : --- only that they don't do that consistently enough for comfort.
:
: : : How many Sigma lenses have you ever owned, Wolfgang? How good
: : : were they?
:
: : : I shall refer you to lensrentals.com, who have owned *many* dozen.
:
: : : Another 1 or 3 or 10 lenses from me doesn't make a difference
: : : to statistics. Just as one lottery winner doesn't mean every
: : : ticket wins the main price.
:
: : In other words, none. I thought as much.
:
: : Looks like you try to invent facts.
:
: The only fact I've "invented" is that you've never owned any Sigma lenses. If
: I'm wrong about that, please set me straight.
:
: Since for statistics any number of Sigma glass I might have owned
: (not being a rental or sales place) will be insignificant, I'll
: decline to comment on that number, except for pointing out that
: you cannot know it.
:
: : Since I suppose you'll ask, or assume, my wife and I own four of them. Are
: : they the best lenses we own? No. But all have been a very good value for the
: : money.
:
: : Ok. You own *F*O*U*R* Sigma lenses. Probably bought over
: : several years. How many percent of Sigma's lenses are they?
:
: No answer is also an answer.
:
:
: : Consider: their annual turnover is 36 billion yen (that's roughly
: : 450 million USD).
:
: : See the point why 4 so-so-but-real-cheap lenses just don't say much?
:
: No answer is also an answer.
:
:
: : We get many more 1 million EUR lottery winners per year ...
: : from a single lottery.
:
: I didn't say that my ownership of four Sigma lenses says anything.
:
: No, you did imply that only personal ownership of a few Sigma
: lenses made you able to talk about their QA quality.

Unlike you, I talked only about the lenses that I've owned.

: I only
: mentioned it so that when I pointed out that you don't own any, you couldn't
: say that I don't either.
:
: You, not I, are the one making claims about the poor quality of Sigma lenses.
:
: Sigma can build good lenses ... but it's far to easy to get a bad
: (i.e. not sharp etc.) copy. And some of their lenses are not
: very rugged compared to other lenses.
:
: And those claims are based on *no* first-hand experience. Right?
:
: *Any* claims on deaths due to traffic accidents, drug use or heart
: failure are also not first-hand experience. Are they therefore
: in any way less real, less valid or less reliable than a personal
: experience that's only shareable if you turn into a ghost and
: haunt people?

Those are based on actual statistics gathered (in most cases) by relatively
unbiased observers. The only source you quote is a lens rental company that is
known to have been in a dispute with Sigma over warranty repairs.

: Ah, fine that you agree that they are not.

chuckle! This is getting silly. I think I've made my point.

: Fine that you agree that first-hand experience is unable to say
: much about nation-wide death numbers due to traffic accidents and
: likewise unable to say much about Sigma's QA. The sample set is
: way to small that way, be it 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 lenses.
:
: Good, then we agree.

If you say so. :^)

Bob
  #26  
Old June 30th 12, 12:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:13:34 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:17:03 -0400, nospam wrote:
:
: [insignificance of owning a few Sigma lenses]
:
: Translation of the above: "Nospam", like Wolfgang, has never owned any Sigma
: lenses.
:
: Translation:
: - Robert doesn't know **** about statistics
: - Robert is strongly emotional attached to his 2 Sigma lenses
: (the other two are his wifes' and thus don't count)

As it happens, three are mine and one is hers.

: - Robert *must* defend his Sigma buying decision, or else!
: - Robert invents facts to justify his not hearing the truth,
: just saying 'well, they work OK for me/us' is not enough
: - Robert probably needs to drink&drive, take crack and commit
: genoicide to find out himself that these are substellar ideas,
: and he won't listen to anyone who hasn't done that themselves.
:
: -Wolfgang

chuckle!

: PS: I still stand silent on the number of Sigma lenses I owned
: or used.

Sure you do. :^)

Bob
  #27  
Old June 30th 12, 01:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:51:44 -0700, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : : now they only carry sigma lenses if there's no alternative from another
: : : manufacturer.
: :
: : So what's been your first-hand experience with Sigma lenses, "Nospam"?
: :
: : once again, personal experience for me or anyone else makes no
: : difference in the grand scheme of things. sigma makes millions of
: : lenses. buying a couple of lenses is *not* significant. it means
: : nothing.
: :
: : what *is* significant are things such as lensrental's repair rates.
: : also, sigma reusing lens id chips, which means that if you put a
: : particular lens on your camera, the *wrong* lens id is written to the
: : exif. or that nikon sued sigma for stealing nikon's intellectual
: : property on image stabilization. they totally ripped off canon for
: : their own sigma mount lenses. and if that's not enough, sigma used to
: : make lenses that were held together with cellophane tape, which not
: : surprisingly, failed and lens elements fell out.
:
: Translation of the above: "Nospam", like Wolfgang, has never owned any Sigma
: lenses.
:
: wrong, but why let facts get in the way of your blind fanboism.
:
: it's very simple: a company that buys zillions of lenses of all makes
: is in the best position to say which ones fail the most.

"Zillions?" A couple of days ago it was only "thousands". I'd guess that
"hundreds" is a more accurate description, but who's really counting?

: someone who buys a few lenses does not have enough of a sample size to
: make any conclusions, especially if they didn't do any formal testing.

Exactly what I've been saying about you! Keep in mind that I don't contradict
your opinion of Sigma's QA. I just don't believe that you can back that
opinion up with facts.

So I'll ask you again: What has been your first-hand experience with Sigma
lenses?

If I'm wrong (that you've had none), provide the correct answer. We'll all
believe you. To your credit and Wolfgang's, you both seem unwilling to
actually lie about it.

I don't have any axe to grind for Sigma. I just think that the opinions you
and Wolfgang have been throwing out are based largely on hearsay of
questionable reliability. This is your chance to set me straight.

Bob
  #28  
Old June 30th 12, 11:56 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:56:37 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:

[...]
: : : Robert Coe wrote:


: : : How many Sigma lenses have you ever owned, Wolfgang? How good
: : : were they?


[...]

Unlike you, I talked only about the lenses that I've owned.


You only talked about how many lenses I have owned. Look above.
Your own lenses were just added because you feared one would say
"So ... what about your lenses?"

Do you see a difference there?

: And those claims are based on *no* first-hand experience. Right?


: *Any* claims on deaths due to traffic accidents, drug use or heart
: failure are also not first-hand experience. Are they therefore
: in any way less real, less valid or less reliable than a personal
: experience that's only shareable if you turn into a ghost and
: haunt people?


Those are based on actual statistics gathered (in most cases) by relatively
unbiased observers. The only source you quote is a lens rental company that is
known to have been in a dispute with Sigma over warranty repairs.


Do you have any better source? Yourself, perhaps? You are known
to love your Sigma lenses ...

Oh, and most people do *not* like deaths. Most people do *not*
like drugs. Yet you call them "relatively unbiased".

: Ah, fine that you agree that they are not.


chuckle! This is getting silly. I think I've made my point.


Your point being that only dairy farmers like yourself are able
to say anything about milk, and that the *huge* dairy farm complex
is lying.

-Wolfgang
  #29  
Old June 30th 12, 12:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

Robert Coe wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:51:44 -0700, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : : now they only carry sigma lenses if there's no alternative from another
: : : manufacturer.
: :
: : So what's been your first-hand experience with Sigma lenses, "Nospam"?
: :
: : once again, personal experience for me or anyone else makes no
: : difference in the grand scheme of things. sigma makes millions of
: : lenses. buying a couple of lenses is *not* significant. it means
: : nothing.
: :
: : what *is* significant are things such as lensrental's repair rates.
: : also, sigma reusing lens id chips, which means that if you put a
: : particular lens on your camera, the *wrong* lens id is written to the
: : exif. or that nikon sued sigma for stealing nikon's intellectual
: : property on image stabilization. they totally ripped off canon for
: : their own sigma mount lenses. and if that's not enough, sigma used to
: : make lenses that were held together with cellophane tape, which not
: : surprisingly, failed and lens elements fell out.
:
: Translation of the above: "Nospam", like Wolfgang, has never owned any Sigma
: lenses.
:
: wrong, but why let facts get in the way of your blind fanboism.
:
: it's very simple: a company that buys zillions of lenses of all makes
: is in the best position to say which ones fail the most.


"Zillions?" A couple of days ago it was only "thousands". I'd guess that
"hundreds" is a more accurate description, but who's really counting?


You, you count other people's lenses.


: someone who buys a few lenses does not have enough of a sample size to
: make any conclusions, especially if they didn't do any formal testing.


Exactly what I've been saying about you! Keep in mind that I don't contradict
your opinion of Sigma's QA. I just don't believe that you can back that
opinion up with facts.


So I'll ask you again: What has been your first-hand experience with Sigma
lenses?


Only first hand experience can back up opinion with facts? Well,
what do you have against every bone being broken in your body
*after* being given a pain-intensifying drug? Any first-hand
experience with that? No? Then you cannot back your opinion
up with facts. You really ought to try it. No, other people's
first hand experience and large studies don't count.


I don't have any axe to grind for Sigma.


Quite to the contrary, it seems. So you're a very biased observer.

I just think that the opinions you
and Wolfgang have been throwing out are based largely on hearsay of
questionable reliability. This is your chance to set me straight.


You probably wouldn't believe a word if the CEO of Sigma
directly agreed with me, so there's no way of 'setting you
straight' --- you're stuck in your rut.

-Wolfgang
  #30  
Old June 30th 12, 03:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Sigma highlights another problem with plastics, thermal change

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: I didn't say that my ownership of four Sigma lenses says anything.
:
: No, you did imply that only personal ownership of a few Sigma
: lenses made you able to talk about their QA quality.

Unlike you, I talked only about the lenses that I've owned.


nothing wrong with that. what you fail to understand is that it's
statistically insignificant.

: *Any* claims on deaths due to traffic accidents, drug use or heart
: failure are also not first-hand experience. Are they therefore
: in any way less real, less valid or less reliable than a personal
: experience that's only shareable if you turn into a ghost and
: haunt people?

Those are based on actual statistics gathered (in most cases) by relatively
unbiased observers. The only source you quote is a lens rental company that is
known to have been in a dispute with Sigma over warranty repairs.


that's because they had so many broken sigma lenses.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Black and white dynamic range problem - selective color change? Peabody Digital Photography 19 November 7th 09 12:23 AM
FA -eBay- 20th Century Plastics (Poly) Slide/Negative Pages Wade General Equipment For Sale 0 September 4th 06 08:37 PM
The horror of plastics Rich Digital SLR Cameras 112 January 12th 06 02:35 AM
sigma 18-35 lens problem? tbm Digital Photography 5 September 27th 04 02:13 PM
Change in Enlarger Head Height corresponds to Change in Exposure Time, but by how much? Gregory W Blank In The Darkroom 32 August 17th 04 12:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.