How plastic helps take out $1000 lenses

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2015 2:27 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2015 12:36 PM, PAS wrote:

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2015 11:03 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 5/5/2015 9:10 AM, PAS wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
RichA wrote:

Plastic is s---. It's garbage. It is the cause of more
camera
heartache than anything else.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/a...-than-plastic/




http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55650532

"Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other
brands"

All Sigma lenses have metal mounts.

They are not always machined to spec.

--
PeterN

I've not had the experience you had with any of my Sigma lenses
but it
does happen. It most likely happens with every lens maker, a
quick
search shows people having the same complaint with their Nikon
lenses.

It can happen to any manufacturer. But you were there when they
said
my Nikon was not made to spec. They seemed afraid to offer to try
a
different lens.

"They" was one guy and he no longer works for them, that kind of
comment
he made could be one of the reasons. Everyone I know who dealt
with him
had nothing good to say about their experience. You experienced
the
same. I never liked him either. Some people are in a state of
denial.
I was just corresponding with a lady who has a new Nikon P900.
She's
having problems with it freezing and so are other people, it's been
discussed on different sites. The Nikon rep she spoke with claimed
that
she is the only person to register a complaint about it with them.
It's
not very believable, just like the Sigma rep telling you that it
must be
your camera that was the problem. I had a problem with the
NAV/Stereo
unit on my car rebooting. It's also a known problem, there's even
a
video of it on YouTube showing it happening. The service rep at
the
dealership said I was the only one to complain about it. BTW, I
wound
up getting that lens for my Canon, it was fine but I found myself
rarely
ever using the really wide focal lengths.

Was that individual part of QC?
Two summers ago I tested a few of their zooms, together with Tamron
version. IIRC it was a 100-500. Neither handled well, both were soft
and slow on my D800.

That was the sales manager. He didn't last long. Sounds like you
were
testing either the 150-500mm or the 50-500mm zooms. I've got their
120-400mm zoom in Sigma mount and it's pretty sharp, the bokeh is a
bit
"nervous". I could work on my PP skills and fix the OOF area:

Yup. Don't forget i have the Nikon 80-400, which produces sharp, crisp
images; and my 70-200, which with a 1.7 extender gives me faster focus
lock.

I can't remember what I had for dinner last night but I certainly recall
that you have the 80-400mm and the 70-200mm.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/20140103_more%20birds%26%20test%20shots_3839.jpg


http://www.pete-the-greek.com/Photog...SDIM0992-L.jpg






I also have their 80-400mm in Canon mount and I'm quite happy with
it.

http://www.pete-the-greek.com/Nature...IMG_3143-L.jpg



--
PeterN

On Tue, 05 May 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg

Which lens was this one shot with, and how much PP was done on it? I
think the IQ is great. I'm asking because my photos rarely look like
yours, but at the same time, I rarely bothered with PP in the past. My
photos were just "taking pictures", not photography. Even though I've
been playing with good cameras for a while now, I'm really just now
trying to learn photography.

On 6/05/2015 3:13 a.m., nospam wrote:
In article , PAS
wrote:

"Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands"

All Sigma lenses have metal mounts.

with sticky tape holding some of them together. no joke.

There's usually a lot of sticky tape and glue holding together all kinds
of things inside electronic / photographic gear these days, regardless
of brand.

On 5/5/2015 3:56 PM, Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg

Which lens was this one shot with, and how much PP was done on it? I
think the IQ is great. I'm asking because my photos rarely look like
yours, but at the same time, I rarely bothered with PP in the past. My
photos were just "taking pictures", not photography. Even though I've
been playing with good cameras for a while now, I'm really just now
trying to learn photography.


Thank you. I try, but far from all my images are keepers.

I used my Nikon 80-400 @ f11, iSO 1600, spot metering.
I won't swear to this, but my usual pp includes.
In ACR I crop, then adjust
overerall exposure; contrast; highlights & shadows & vibrancy, each one
separately; I then make decrease luminosity and saturation of the
predominent background color; (in this image green.)
I then open in CC using prophoto RGB as my working space.
Make a copy of the base layer;
convert to LAB and sharpen the luminosity channel, and convert back to
RGB, where I do a layers adjustment, to remove color cast and attenuate
the image. Further adjustments depend on the image. e.g. that image was
run through Nik Vivesa, to add a touch more structure.
My PP workflow will vary, depending on what I I looking for, and the
image. i will do extensive cloning, masking, and layer adjustments.
I will also somtimes do selective sharpening, or selective blurring.

There are times I will use special effect filters, some plug ins, and
others, built in.







sharpening.




--
PeterN

On 6/05/2015 7:56 a.m., Bill W wrote:
On Tue, 05 May 2015 15:27:39 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/_Red%20Heron.jpg

Which lens was this one shot with, and how much PP was done on it? I
think the IQ is great. I'm asking because my photos rarely look like
yours, but at the same time, I rarely bothered with PP in the past. My
photos were just "taking pictures", not photography. Even though I've
been playing with good cameras for a while now, I'm really just now
trying to learn photography.

Not sure if this is of interest, and as I'm not a birder, apologies for
a seagull photo (and I don't own one - so can't post a cat photo).
This is 100% crop from D800E using a Tamron 150-600 VC (I bought used
for approx US$750) shot at 600mm f8, 1/640th hand-held.
http://i.imgur.com/1rT5xfV.jpg
Of course that's been sharpened - it needed some.
At 500mm, the lens performs much better than that (sharpness).
Autofocus performance is fast enough - not blistering (like a 70-200)
but definitely not sluggish. VC seems to allow hand-holding at that
focal length down to perhaps 1/100th with a 50:50 hit rate - if I'm
seated or leaning against something. I could have used lower ISO on
that shot.
The lens needs no AF fine tune on my D800E body. I'm pretty sure that
the body is well calibrated - as with all prime lenses I own, AF is
perfect. Fine tuning at 600mm presents some serious challenges, but it
seems good to me.
I was about to buy an 80-400G at 3-4x the price, but anyway would have
needed a 1.4TC for reach on top of that.

In article , Me
wrote:

"Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands"

All Sigma lenses have metal mounts.

with sticky tape holding some of them together. no joke.

There's usually a lot of sticky tape and glue holding together all kinds
of things inside electronic / photographic gear these days, regardless
of brand.

not in quality lenses, there isn't.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/006ZEt
Whereas the cheapest Canon lens is screwed together, even high-end
Sigmas are held together inside with tape. TAPE!

The glass is good, but the tape is the downfall of the lens. Humid
environs will exacerbate this design flaw. After having my reasonably
high-end Sigma (100-300 f/ 4) literally come untaped, luckily within
a month of buying it (I returned it to the retailer for a refund) I'm
done with Sigma. I got great photos, but the workmanship still leaves
something to be desired.

http://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Lots-of-Lenses--Help-1193/p-0
At the back of my cupboard is a Sigma 28-200mm. That's where it
stays. Quite dreadful. I haven't the gall to put it on Ebay.

On another Sigma lens I had, the front part came loose, and the lens
wouldn't focus. I discovered that it was attached not by screws, but
by some sort of double-sided tape!

nospam Wrote in message:
In article , Me
wrote:

"Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands"

All Sigma lenses have metal mounts.

with sticky tape holding some of them together. no joke.

There's usually a lot of sticky tape and glue holding together all kinds
of things inside electronic / photographic gear these days, regardless
of brand.

not in quality lenses, there isn't.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/006ZEt
Whereas the cheapest Canon lens is screwed together, even high-end
Sigmas are held together inside with tape. TAPE!

The glass is good, but the tape is the downfall of the lens. Humid
environs will exacerbate this design flaw. After having my reasonably
high-end Sigma (100-300 f/ 4) literally come untaped, luckily within
a month of buying it (I returned it to the retailer for a refund) I'm
done with Sigma. I got great photos, but the workmanship still leaves
something to be desired.

http://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Lots-of-Lenses--Help-1193/p-0
At the back of my cupboard is a Sigma 28-200mm. That's where it
stays. Quite dreadful. I haven't the gall to put it on Ebay.

On another Sigma lens I had, the front part came loose, and the lens
wouldn't focus. I discovered that it was attached not by screws, but
by some sort of double-sided tape!

Sigma thinks that you should buy a cradle so that you can upgrade
the lens firmware from your computer. Just in case there's a
change the camera ditto... :-p
--
Bats can't tell us apart!


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On Wed, 06 May 2015 02:39:26 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Me
wrote:

"Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands"

All Sigma lenses have metal mounts.

with sticky tape holding some of them together. no joke.

There's usually a lot of sticky tape and glue holding together all kinds
of things inside electronic / photographic gear these days, regardless
of brand.

not in quality lenses, there isn't.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/006ZEt
Whereas the cheapest Canon lens is screwed together, even high-end
Sigmas are held together inside with tape. TAPE!

The glass is good, but the tape is the downfall of the lens. Humid
environs will exacerbate this design flaw. After having my reasonably
high-end Sigma (100-300 f/ 4) literally come untaped, luckily within
a month of buying it (I returned it to the retailer for a refund) I'm
done with Sigma. I got great photos, but the workmanship still leaves
something to be desired.

http://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Lots-of-Lenses--Help-1193/p-0
At the back of my cupboard is a Sigma 28-200mm. That's where it
stays. Quite dreadful. I haven't the gall to put it on Ebay.

On another Sigma lens I had, the front part came loose, and the lens
wouldn't focus. I discovered that it was attached not by screws, but
by some sort of double-sided tape!

Well, 2003, and 2005? I'm going to assume that they have changed their
ways. Sigma lenses get great reviews these days, and there is a lot of
value for the money to most people. My only other choice is Pentax,
and their kit lenses have slow and noisy AF. If they want me to have
an interest in their lenses, they shouldn't put that crap on their
camera kits.

In article , android
wrote:

Sigma thinks that you should buy a cradle so that you can upgrade

that's because their firmware *needs* to be upgraded.

for instance, there have been a bunch of threads on dpreview recently
discussing sigma lens incompatibilities and the new nikon d7200.

unfortunately for those stuck with problematic lenses (with whatever
camera it happens to be), they either have to wait for a firmware fix
or send it back to sigma. either way, it could take a while.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

"Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands"

All Sigma lenses have metal mounts.

with sticky tape holding some of them together. no joke.

There's usually a lot of sticky tape and glue holding together all kinds
of things inside electronic / photographic gear these days, regardless
of brand.

not in quality lenses, there isn't.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/006ZEt
Whereas the cheapest Canon lens is screwed together, even high-end
Sigmas are held together inside with tape. TAPE!

The glass is good, but the tape is the downfall of the lens. Humid
environs will exacerbate this design flaw. After having my reasonably
high-end Sigma (100-300 f/ 4) literally come untaped, luckily within
a month of buying it (I returned it to the retailer for a refund) I'm
done with Sigma. I got great photos, but the workmanship still leaves
something to be desired.

http://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/Lots-of-Lenses--Help-1193/p-0
At the back of my cupboard is a Sigma 28-200mm. That's where it
stays. Quite dreadful. I haven't the gall to put it on Ebay.

On another Sigma lens I had, the front part came loose, and the lens
wouldn't focus. I discovered that it was attached not by screws, but
by some sort of double-sided tape!

Well, 2003, and 2005? I'm going to assume that they have changed their
ways. Sigma lenses get great reviews these days, and there is a lot of
value for the money to most people. My only other choice is Pentax,
and their kit lenses have slow and noisy AF. If they want me to have
an interest in their lenses, they shouldn't put that crap on their
camera kits.

kit lenses are rarely the best a company makes. doesn't pentax have
swm/usm motors in non-kit lenses?

anyway, as the saying goes:
fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
there are much better alternatives than sigma, and from companies that
are nowhere near as sleazy.