> > Chip Louie wrote: > > > > At the risk of tweaking some people, IMO third party lenses are > simply not > > as good overall and to offset this they must offer lower prices > to create a > > place in the market. > > I'm not sure this is the whole truth. I suspect it's just the other way > round: They must offer (similar speced) lenses at lower prices to create > a place in the market and THEREFOR they have to compromise somewhere, > be it build quality or optical quality or quality control. > > With Sigma, it has been build quality and/or quality control in the past. > Their last offerings, especially the EX line of lenses, looks promising in > this respect IMHO. And they have HSM (their USM equivalent), too. > > Thomas Bantel
Hi Thomas, The distinction you make is one of perspective, one from the market/buyer's view, the other from the marketing/manufacture's view. The specs of just about anything only tell us of the most obvious, course characteristics and can be very deceiving. This is often why the specs created to describe a competing product are the same as the market leader. For example, all F1 race cars have four tires, an engine and winged chassis that meet the "specs" of the formula and to the casual observer they are all the same. But there are many variations on the specs, many are very subtle differences and the most important differences are not in the cars themselves and are not visible in the specs. In reality there are only two teams actually have the potential to win the championship and it takes a keen observer will see this. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
