#21  
Old 24-07-2009, 06:55 PM
matt's Avatar
matt
6000 post club member

matt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mount Annan, Australia
Posts: 6,568
Anyway.... enough of that.

let's focus on helping Chris out (as best as possible), with his problem.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 24-07-2009, 06:56 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re lens

Thank you all for your comments,i did not mean to upset anyone,but,yes

it was my fault for purchasing equipment that was'nt to the level of

what i am used too.I should have known better,and just bought top

Japanese equipment.

As a foot note,i was able to exchange lens,and my stress levels are heading back to normal.

I have tried to post some pics,but having difficulty with attachments.i will continue to try.

Some have said i havent stated exact problem,here it is

1,when i looked through viewfinder and was about to take pic,the button

half way down the image in view finder would jump wildly and erratically.

when OS (optical stabilizer) was on.After using canon and nikon etc,

i was not used to this been "normal",some might not have a problem with

this,but i was not going to have a jumpy horse in my stable.

thanks for your helpfull comments again

Last edited by hotspur; 24-07-2009 at 06:57 PM. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24-07-2009, 09:26 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotspur View Post
I should have known better,and just bought top Japanese equipment.
Sigma are made in Japan in the delightful Aizu-Wakamatsu City, Fukushima, where there is a rather good university and is also the old-world laquer centre of Japan.

(I have no say in the lenses - I've never bought one and I'm a Nikkor user... )
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 28-07-2009, 05:54 PM
multiweb's Avatar
multiweb (Marc)
ze frogginator

multiweb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hinchinbrook
Posts: 18,223
Careful - IMHO I don't think you can risk posting comments like this about brands. Taking it with the supplier is fine but you might get in trouble (your a** sued) as this is a public forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotspur View Post
Those contemplating buying

any sigma lens,think carefully!,if you own a Nikon,canon,pentax etc and used

it manufatureres lenses,stick to them,dont try and save money on

a "cheaper"lens, otherwise you will end up disappointed,and out of

pocket.

regards Chris
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 28-07-2009, 10:28 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Well, I highly doubt that Sigma would have a case to stand on. Judges look at if your content was factual. If you have evidence to back your case, you're quite entitled to state it. If a manufacturer doesn't like it, tough luck. When manufacturers try and sue for things like this, it makes a mockery of the legal system, since the legal system is NOT equal. Those with more money (i.e. the rich and powerful) are automatically given preferential treatment by the legal process. Many people choose to settle, rather than risk paying for expensive legal support. Supporting yourself legally is risky, and in some jurisdictions, judges heavily frown upon it. I find manufacturers who take legal action against people who speak their mind nothing more than bullyism taken to extremes. A point in example of this:

http://thomashawk.com/2009/02/canon-...fall-blog.html

And the best thing, Canon *lost*. Hooray for the little man.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 29-07-2009, 04:23 AM
citivolus's Avatar
citivolus (Ric)
Refracted

citivolus is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Carindale
Posts: 1,178
I've had the good and the bad from Sigma, and I learned that you get what you pay for. Back when I bought my first Canon SLR, I had a Sigma 135-400. I thought a lot of that lens in my blissful ignorance, until I bought some decent lenses and realised just how soft it was. Well, what did I expect from a lens with that kind of focal range? It wasn't really any worse than the 28-135mm Canon, but then, they were both bottom of the range as far as optical quality, but considering the price, well...

Later on I bought a used Sigma 300mm f/2.8 which I would still have had it been compatible with DSLRs (exceptional lens for the period), as well as a 15-30mm aspheric. The 15-30 is a great lens for the money, and I still have it. Not blazing fast at auto focus, not the quietest lens, but it does a good job at what it was designed for.

Anyway, what am I trying to say? Just like Canon or any other major camera manufacturer, Sigma has products that target different tiers in the market. I am now very careful about checking consumer reviews and actual performance specs before buying any lens, and if a lens with a good reputation under-performs after all this, you can bet the manufacturer and dealer will be hearing from me with an "opportunity" for them to put things right.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 29-07-2009, 07:28 PM
KenGee's Avatar
KenGee
Registered User

KenGee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Whyalla
Posts: 589
Sigma are very helpful they put a nice ring around their lens. Have a look at the colour, all lens are made to a price point. As for the notanikonorcanon people it's amazing how much a lens can be improved by the brand badge that is stuck on it in the factory.
Got a friend who works in a bakery they lable their white sliced bread with 16 different brands.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 29-07-2009, 08:57 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
If you're saying Sigma makes Canon or Nikon lenses you are wrong Ken. They do not come out of the same factory, not even the cheap lenses. AFAIK, Canon has never outsourced its lenses, not even the cheap ones. Up until very recently, all Canon lenses were made in Japan. Now the cheap ones are made outside of Japan, but the L series units are still made in Japan.

Sigma makes some very good lenses - I use a Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX APO Macro lens and it takes wonderful images, every bit as good as the Canon 180mm f3.5 L imho. AF is generally within 95% of Canon's AF performance too. The advent of HSM means that they also compete with Canon & Nikon on USM grounds (silent ultrasonic wave drives).

AFAIK, Canon is the only lens manufacturer to make lenses with flourite elements. Others tried, and gave up on the process. Canon's long L series lenses are very very good, and Sigma comes close, but does not entirely match them peformance wise (the same with Tokina and Tamron). Still, Sigma (and others) lenses are cheaper than what Canon/Nikon offer.

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 29-07-2009, 10:28 PM
dugnsuz's Avatar
dugnsuz (Doug)
to baldly go...

dugnsuz is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hahndorf, South Australia
Posts: 4,200
Each brand has some jewels and some turds!

Check out a number of reviews, expert and anecdotal (get a consensus) and/or "try before you buy".

Simple...No!?

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 31-07-2009, 02:50 PM
Omaroo's Avatar
Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)
Let there be night...

Omaroo is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney/Cooma
Posts: 7,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpastern View Post
AFAIK, Canon is the only lens manufacturer to make lenses with flourite elements. Others tried, and gave up on the process.
As long as this wasn't meant to read: "Others tried, failed, and gave up on the process."

As far as I know, Nikon developed ED glass early on because they were of the opinion that CaFl was just too fragile for a pro lens that'd be subjected to the knocks and poor treatment they inevitably get in the field. Visiting them often, I sit down in the foyer of News Ltd or Fairfax in Sydney or Melbourne for half an hour on any day of the week, and watch the photo boys and gals walk through the turnstiles with two or three complete cameras slung around their necks - and see them clunking together as they stride. It's rather obvious that the company pays for them. LOL!
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 31-07-2009, 03:15 PM
DavidU's Avatar
DavidU (Dave)
Like to learn

DavidU is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: melbourne
Posts: 4,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaroo View Post
and watch the photo boys and gals walk through the turnstiles with two or three complete cameras slung around their necks - and see them clunking together as they stride. It's rather obvious that the company pays for them. LOL!
Shudder
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 31-07-2009, 09:09 PM
AlexN's Avatar
AlexN
Tunnel Vision

AlexN is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 6,708
I once saw a reporter lay a Canon 1Dmk3 with a 600mm F/4L lens with its mono-pod in the dirt, then pick up his second 1dmk3 + 300 F/2.8L from out of the dirt beside him to get a wider field of view at the V8's... I nearly lost my lunch... Pro gear definitely gets a beating...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-08-2009, 03:40 PM
Paul Haese's Avatar
Paul Haese
Registered User

Paul Haese is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 9,428
I have had a fairly good read through this thread although not totally comprehensive.

Just a few observation that might have slipped past the radar.

When buying lens, anything that has f4.5-5.6 is going to be slow at focus. I have a 80-400 f5.6 Nikon and it can be a dog when I want fast focus. That is even when using it with my D3.

For future use you should look at lenses that are f2.8 if you want fast focus and response. These lenses of course cost a lot of money. The f5.6 lens cost a lot less. A slow focusing lenses is not crap, it is just more budget related.

Sigma like Nikon, Canon and Tameron make fast and slow lenses. If you buy a zoom you are assured that they are not a master of any focal length and are in fact a compromise. There are fast zooms but again they cost a lot of money. To be honest only spending a K or so is never going to assure you of getting a fast lens. Your only mistake was to buy without seeing how fast the lens was. Many photographic retailers will let you mount the lens on your camera and try it before buying.

Added to this is that you have a prosumer body. Pro bodies make slower lenses faster in response, but virtue of the features the pro body has. They don't make them into a silk purse but they seem better than owning a sows ear. Prosumer bodies are like slow f ratio lenses. They are budget related to allow the average punter the ability to enter the market.

Sigma is not at fault here. You made the mistake without finding out first. I am sure the lens is fine, you might have to assess what you are going to use it for now. Good work can be done with slower lens, just try to find its strengths. This has always worked for me. Take a look at my Earth section in website in my sig. Many of the shots are taken with slow lenses.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-08-2009, 06:04 PM
dpastern (Dave Pastern)
PI cult member

dpastern is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,874
Just to come to Chris' defence - the problem was not so much AF, but that when he focused, the whole OS/IS (whatever you want to call it) function would make the entire image shudder in the viewfinder. That is NOT normal behaviour. Whether it's a cheap or expensive lens, the OS/IS doing that isn't right.

You've made good points Chris, although the slowness of the lens/AF speed was mentioned (by myself and others earlier on in the thread).

Dave
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-08-2009, 06:22 PM
hotspur's Avatar
hotspur (Chris)
Registered User

hotspur is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: south east QLD,Australia
Posts: 2,851
re sigma lens

yes,the main issues the lens had was that the image would jump

around violently in view finder,when the button was half pressed down,

it would move irratically,Some people mind find this acceptable,i dont,

and didnt and sent the lens back,i have since swaped the lens for

a canon 70 to 300mm,(see pics in terestrial subjects,tittled "birds with

new lens" by hotspur.NOW i could not get images any where near those

with that sigma thing,i could get some resonable images when in manual

focus with no IS or OS as sigma call it.the images i got in sports mode

were a joke,i paid well over a K,and was not happy.the lens had a number of other issues too.

I am becoming a bit tiresome of this thread,and have moved on,and

am currently happy with the above canon lens,and will be purchasing

a canon 70 to 200mm non IS F2.8 soon,I really just wanted people

to be aware that sigma lens may not be what they hope.

THE END
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-08-2009, 05:29 PM
Peter Ward's Avatar
Peter Ward
Galaxy hitchhiking guide

Peter Ward is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Shire
Posts: 6,660
Humm...I've found Sigma lenses vary quite a bit in quality, but its often a case of doing a little homework before you buy (there are plenty of lens reviews on the internet).

For example, Sigma's 300mm F2.8 is really very good when you drop a UV/IR filter in its filter bay.

http://www.atscope.com.au/widefield/m16m17hXp.jpg

Their 70-200 F2.8 zoom is also excellent and rivals Canon's L series glass in the same FL.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 09:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement