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