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 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?
:
: 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?
: 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. 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.
And those claims are based on *no* first-hand experience. Right?

Bob