I think it is not fair to gerealise based on the single known Canon
compatibility problem. Sigma gives information about this on their web site, it
affects a known range of cameras and Sigma offers a free upgrade for all lenses
where this is technically feasible. Not bad for customer service.
On 10/7/05, E.R.N. Reed, discombobulated, unleashed:
I think the R is for Retractable and the T is for TTL. So says my PZ-1
brochure. (Then there's the invisible A in the abbreviation, since they
actually define RTF as Retractable TTL Auto Flash.)
IIRC it was about this time in Pentax's
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/07/11 Mon PM 01:07:53 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
- Original Message -
From: keller.schaefer
Subject: RE: About Sigma: beware ??
I think it is not fair to gerealise based
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
The problem seems to be that licensing does not occur, reverse engineering
does. And Canon changes the engineering unpredictably, causing heretofore
working lens series to become unfunctional
On 11/7/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
The problem seems to be that licensing does not occur, reverse
engineering does. And Canon changes the engineering unpredictably,
causing heretofore working lens series to become unfunctional. If that's
the scenario, who is providing the poor
Managing Director: Konichiwa, Yokohama-san. And what do you have
for me today?
Mr. Y: Yes sir, I have struggled long and hard, but I have come up with
a new method of auto-focus for our cameras. I present to you a prototype
digital SLR with laser distancing technology. This will allow
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/07/11 Mon PM 01:57:06 GMT
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
On 11/7/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
The problem seems to be that licensing does not occur, reverse
engineering does
On 11/7/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Indeed. When world domination is at stake, all bets are off.
Good point.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/07/11 Mon PM 02:18:37 GMT
To: pentax list pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
On 11/7/05, mike wilson, discombobulated, unleashed:
Indeed. When world domination is at stake, all bets are off.
Good point.
arthur
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/07/11 Mon PM 01:41:23 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
The problem seems to be that licensing does
On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:11 AM, mike wilson wrote:
Played with Daddy's new 350D over the weekend. It started making
BW pictures under program (sic) and we could not work out how to
make it stop. My nose kept changing things and I got really
cheesed off with it.
You should train that nose
On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:03 AM, mike wilson wrote:
The problem seems to be that licensing does not occur, reverse
engineering
does. And Canon changes the engineering unpredictably, causing
heretofore
working lens series to become unfunctional. If that's the
scenario, who
is providing the
Damn, I wish I'd said that.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 7:11 AM, mike wilson wrote:
Played with Daddy's new 350D over the weekend. It started making
BW pictures under program (sic) and we could not work out how to
make it stop. My nose kept changing things and I got
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Canon's changes were so unpredictable and so difficult to keep in
compliance with, how come the same Canon lens produced in 1985 works
flawlessly on the latest Canon EOS body, despite 20 years of
unpredictable body changes and no change to the
On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
If Canon's changes were so unpredictable and so difficult to keep in
compliance with, how come the same Canon lens produced in 1985 works
flawlessly on the latest Canon EOS body, despite 20 years of
unpredictable body changes and no change to
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:58 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
If Canon's changes were so unpredictable and so difficult to keep in
compliance with, how come the same Canon lens produced in 1985 works
flawlessly on the latest Canon EOS body, despite 20 years of
On Jul 11, 2005, at 11:15 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I'm talking software rather than hardware. In the Microsoftean
sense.
:)
It's well known that Microsoft has used its inside knowledge of its
operating system to make its own office applications like Word and
Excel
work better in Windows
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Played with Daddy's new 350D over the weekend. It started making
BW pictures under program (sic) and we could not work out how to
make it stop. My nose kept changing things and I got really
cheesed off with it.
You
On 11/7/05, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed:
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon and others would make changes in new
bodies to specifically undermine Sigma - why shouldn't they? Helps
them sell more lenses.
Yeah, I'll go along with that.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) |
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
They can't be changing that much, they aren't having compatability
problems
within their own system, that I have heard of.
Doesn't need much of a change to sofware to make a lens not work properly
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
If Canon's changes were so unpredictable and so difficult to keep in
compliance with, how come the same Canon lens produced in 1985 works
flawlessly on the latest Canon EOS body, despite 20 years
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 5:26 AM
Subject: About Sigma: beware ??
Sigma optics are usually compatible with bodies available at the time
the lens is out.
But older or newer bodies often have
On Jul 10, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Christian wrote:
From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigma optics are usually compatible with bodies available at the time
the lens is out.
But older or newer bodies often have problems.
I think this is more of a problem with Canon.
I find it very hard to
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jul 10, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Christian wrote:
I think this is more of a problem with Canon.
I find it very hard to direct the blame for Sigma malfunctions to Canon.
- All Canon brand EOS lenses work flawlessly on
- Original Message -
My Sigma 300/4 APO Macro was a great lens and I'd recommend it to anyone
with a k-mount camera. It worked on the MX/LX as well as *ist D.
Christian
I second that Christian. Most of the 200 odd shots at GFM were with
- Original Message -
From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased with it. Sure
I would prefer the equivalent Pentax but I'm happy
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:49 PM, John Coyle wrote:
I have the Sigma 18-35/3.5-4.5 ASP AF, and while it's drawing is
quite good it is very flare-susceptible. In addition, the tulip
lenshood blocks part of the light from the RTF on both my modern
Pentaxes, so I'll probably sell it for the new
the 15-30 is not very sharp and has lots of CA.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased
, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
On Jul 10, 2005, at 5:49 PM, John Coyle wrote:
I have the Sigma 18-35/3.5-4.5 ASP AF, and while it's drawing is quite
good it is very flare-susceptible. In addition, the tulip lenshood
blocks part of the light from the RTF on both my modern
heavy this
way too, but i sold it for different reasons.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2005 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: About Sigma: beware ??
That's good to hear. Do you use it as an AF lens most
Unfortunately and very frustratingly I have great problems
with the new
Sigma 18-125 DC f3.5-5.6 for Canon (20D).
Nate and I both have this lens and Nate uses his on the 20D without a
problem.
(That's the only
lens I could
afford when I finally got enough money to buy the digital
On Jul 10, 2005, at 6:39 PM, John Coyle wrote:
RTF = Retractable Flash
Strange, I don't find the 28-105 blocks the flash at all on the
istD or MZ-S. Is yours the PZ one?
ReTractable Flash ... hmm. == Built-in flash. or popup flash... Okey
dokey. ;-)
No, the FA28-105/3.2-4.5. On this
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Jul 10, 2005, at 6:39 PM, John Coyle wrote:
RTF = Retractable Flash
Strange, I don't find the 28-105 blocks the flash at all on the istD
or MZ-S. Is yours the PZ one?
ReTractable Flash ... hmm. == Built-in flash. or popup flash... Okey
dokey. ;-)
No, the
On Jul 10, 2005, at 9:18 PM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
I think the R is for Retractable and the T is for TTL. So says my
PZ-1 brochure. (Then there's the invisible A in the abbreviation,
since they actually define RTF as Retractable TTL Auto Flash.)
Ah, that makes more sense. Thanks. :-)
My usual retailer (who is a fine Pentax collector BTW) told he usually
tends not to sell Sigma lenses because of frequent incompatibilities
(dunno if it affects Pentax compatible lenses).
Sigma optics are usually compatible with bodies available at the time
the lens is out.
But older or newer
- Original Message -
From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sigma optics are usually compatible with bodies available at the
time
the lens is out.
But older or newer bodies often have problems.
It certainly confirms the quirks I see with my EX 70-200/2.8. Not a
big deal, though. It
My local dealer stopped carrying Sigma lenses several years back due
to the number of returns he was getting from them. Highly variable
quality control and inconsistent compatibility were my experiences
with the brand when I tried them ... I gave up after trying four
different lenses with
On 9 Jul 2005 at 8:38, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I expect that if you get a good one that works with your camera, they
are good, but I hate the notion that I might get one lens in ten
worth keeping.
Stigma lenses.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
Astigmatism lenses
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Rob Studdert
I expect that if you get a good one that works with your camera, they
are good, but I hate the notion that I might get one lens in ten
worth keeping.
Stigma lenses.
SIGnificant MAlfunctions
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 9 Jul 2005 at 8:38, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I expect that if you get a good one that works with your camera, they
are good, but I hate the notion that I might get one lens in ten
worth keeping.
Stigma lenses.
Rob Studdert
I expect that if you get a good one that works with your camera,
they are good, but I hate the notion that I might get one lens in
ten worth keeping.
Never had a problem with any of the ones I own/owned, optically or
mechanically. But I prefer Pentax lenses if I can find/afford them.
Sigma optics are usually compatible with bodies available at the
time the lens is out. But older or newer bodies often have problems.
--
From what I understand, this is a common problem with Sigma lenses. I
understand also that if you send them an older lens, they will put a new
I have the Sigma 50mm Macro EX and couldn't be more pleased with it. Sure
I would prefer the equivalent Pentax but I'm happy to have paid 1/3 the
price. Sigma has had poor, lower quality, non compatible lenses in the
past but do any of the newer Sigmas still have these problems? Most
reviews I
So has anyone had poor results with a late model Sigma lens?
I had the 28-135 consumer zoom for a while. Seemed as well built as
comparably-priced ($200.00) Tamrons such; quite sharp; suffered
from a little pincushion distortion at the long end.
I currently own the EX 300/2.8 APO.
What do you guys think - can I trust a Sigma EX 70-200 f.2.8 APO HSM DG
will do a good job, or will it let me down like the 18-125?
Lasse
--
I have the non-DG version of this, as do others. It is something of a
cult lens -- very, very good. The non-DG version does very nicely on my
45 matches
Mail list logo
