Sigma Lenses.. any good?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Trey, Nov 1, 2004.

  1. Trey

    D.R. Guest

    D.R., Nov 2, 2004
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Trey

    Petros Guest

    Petros, Nov 2, 2004
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Trey

    Petros Guest

    Petros, Nov 2, 2004
    #63
  4. In Message-ID:<> posted on
    You forgot to mention the folk who buy expensive,
    so the brand name will imply expertise,
    in lieu of its actual existence. <g>
     
    Justín Käse, Nov 2, 2004
    #64
  5. Trey

    Petros Guest

    brian posted:
    I won't critique the actual photography unless invited to do so by
    Randall, but I do feel free to comment on technical matters to do with
    the site. (Note: I have retired the 21" IBM in favor of my 17" Elsa,
    which makes a huge difference in sharpness and color rendition. Why oh
    why did I ever think size was more important than quality ?!?) Aside
    from the perfectly blue background which really does wonders for the
    photos, I noticed strong staircasing in many of the shots, which
    surprised me. It's not an issue in the foggy zen rock shots or calendar
    waterfalls but is definitely visible in the landscapes and worst of all
    in Beach Sunset #1 where the leaning blade of grass looks like the
    proverbial "Stairway to Heaven." At first I thought that maybe the
    photos were really taken with one of those new Polaroid x530 cameras
    with the 1/2 sized Foveon sensor, but since the page says "Canon 10D" I
    have to think that maybe these images just suffer from resizing (vs.
    downsampling) like what you get in IrfanView if you don't choose one of
    the resampling algorithms. What's worse is how much they weigh! This
    one, for example: http://users.techline.com/randya/images/l13.jpg
    measures 640x426 pixels and is definitely in the midget sumo category
    weighing in at a hefty 309.07 kilos! It also looks blocky and has bad
    staircasing which makes it very difficult to focus on. All in all I
    give the site two thumbs down for technical reasons.
     
    Petros, Nov 2, 2004
    #65
  6. Trey

    Carl Guest

    LOL! another story for the clubhouse.
     
    Carl, Nov 2, 2004
    #66
  7. No, it's about a company whose cameras are even worse than their lenses.
    http://users.techline.com/randya
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Nov 3, 2004
    #67
  8. I own a Nikon F. I purchased it used many years ago with a small Nikor zoom,
    38 to 86 mm, if my memory serves me.

    I purchased a Viviatar 28 mm lens in Hong Kong, again many years ago. I use
    the lens once in a while. I purchased a Vivitar 83 to 206 mm zoom lens from
    the grab bag at the used camera store for $65.00. I use this lens once in a
    while and sometimes with a 3X multiplier.

    I am generally happy with the pictures I take, they please me, they are for
    me.

    Sure I do not own the most expensive equipment around and I am sure that the
    lenses I use are in the back seat when it comes to quality, after all, they
    were quite cheap.

    I suggest that if you like the price of the Sigma and it does the job you
    want, purchase it and be happy. You and I both know that there are much more
    expensive lenses out there, some cost thousands of dollars, but if you are
    not a professional photographer or a wanna-be, then it doesn't matter. You
    just need to take pictures to please yourself and those around you that you
    may share with.

    Some people with a perpetual chip on their shoulder, and full of themselves
    have a different opinion, but they don't matter. They are doing this
    photography thing as a business and because they are caught up in the rat
    race, do not have the time to successfully evaluate alternative options to
    work with their equipment so they spend a premium dollar hoping that they
    are getting value for their money. Sometimes this is true, but with most
    high tech stuff, this is no longer true. A CD-ROM drive used to cost $400.00
    a few years ago, today, for $15.00, you get the same or better quality.

    In the photography world there is very stiff competition amongst the OEM's
    and the third party manyfacturers and it just stands to reason that some of
    the product produced by third party suppliers is as good as or even better
    than an OEM.

    Don't forget, if you purchase an inexpensive lens and you are not happy,
    you're not out much, but if you purchase a pricey OEM lens and you're not
    happy, then you'll be out f pocket for a lot more and so much more
    unhappier. With a cheap lens, you can afford to go out and buy another.

    rtt
     
    Richard Tomkins, Nov 3, 2004
    #68
  9. They were all cut down to either 800x600 or 1024x768 (can't remember)
    on a Macintosh. Couldn't see the point to posting 6MB JPGs.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Nov 3, 2004
    #69
  10. I've said it time and time again...Sigma makes mediocre products. I
    don't know which is worse, their cameras or their lenses.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Nov 3, 2004
    #70
  11. Trey

    D.R. Guest

    The Sigma AF 4.0 100-300mm EX (HSM) and Sigma AF 2.8 120-300mm EX (HSM) are top
    in their fields. Beats Canon and Nikon for optical quality. Can't argue with
    that....
    http://photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm
     
    D.R., Nov 3, 2004
    #71
  12. Trey

    Petros Guest

    Randall Ainsworth posted:
    I think you might want to check the files, then. None of the images
    coming up are even close to 800x600 and measure rather 640x426. Try a
    control+mouse and check properties. I don't use my mac for this kind of
    stuff, so I can't give you any advice on how to do it, but I'm sure
    that someone will be able to help out.
     
    Petros, Nov 3, 2004
    #72
  13. Trey

    brian Guest

    Or perhaps you should have gone to specsavers?

    Brian.....................
     
    brian, Nov 3, 2004
    #73
  14. Trey

    brian Guest



    Please feel free to Highlight these mediocrities, after all that's what we
    want, a VALID answer as to WHY, in your learned opinion, Sigma products are
    crap?, simply saying they are crap does nothing, suggests nothing, answers
    nothing and backs up nothing.

    Brian............................
     
    brian, Nov 3, 2004
    #74
  15. Trey

    brian Guest

    I bet Randall can, let me guess...................."sigma are crap cos I
    said so , so there, yah boo sucks"?


    Brian..............
     
    brian, Nov 3, 2004
    #75
  16. Trey

    brian Guest

    Lets face it, for the price of some OEM lenses, you could buy a shit load of
    spurious lenses and still get change to buy a few rolls of film.

    Brian............................
     
    brian, Nov 3, 2004
    #76
  17. Trey

    D.R. Guest

    I have posted similar infos before, and he never replies. Obviously, he's got
    nothing to say and the info blows his argument.
     
    D.R., Nov 3, 2004
    #77
  18. Trey

    brian Guest

    Sounds about right.

    Brian................
     
    brian, Nov 4, 2004
    #78
  19. Maybe if the question were phrased in English rather than Ebonics I
    could formulate an answer.
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Nov 4, 2004
    #79
  20. You can go buy stock in the company for all I care. But when you get
    crappy pictures and the thing falls apart in your hands, I'll be there
    to say I TOLD YOU SO!
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Nov 4, 2004
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.