How plastic helps take out $1000 lenses

nospam Wrote in message:
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.

That was that that I implied and meant! Thank you for making that
clear for them clueless! Further mo
I also meant to implie that reverse eninering might not be Sigmas
strongsuit. One might also wonder for how long them ?upgrades?
might be upgraded as new firmware and cameras arrives....

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.

--
Bats can't tell us apart!


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

On Wed, 06 May 2015 04:09:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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?

They do now, but I'm not sure how long they've had them. They're still
much more expensive than Sigma, and the optics generally aren't
better, at least in the lens types I've bought.

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.

Tamron would be the usual alternative, but it appears they've stopped
offering Pentax mounts. Some of the Samyang lenses are great, but they
don't offer anything I've needed. I do zero portrait stuff, and I
don't have use for their MF primes that get the great reviews.

In article , Bill W
wrote:

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

They do now, but I'm not sure how long they've had them.

it's relatively recent. wasn't it the pentax k-series that added swm
support? i don't think the *ist series (what an awful name) had it.

They're still
much more expensive than Sigma, and the optics generally aren't
better, at least in the lens types I've bought.

many pentax lenses were (and still are) legendary, especially the older
stuff.

unfortunately, a lot of their recent lenses are not quite as good.

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.

Tamron would be the usual alternative, but it appears they've stopped
offering Pentax mounts. Some of the Samyang lenses are great, but they
don't offer anything I've needed. I do zero portrait stuff, and I
don't have use for their MF primes that get the great reviews.

nikon/canon are the two major players, so that's where the third party
lens makers put their efforts.

unfortunately, pentax doesn't have the user base anymore to justify
making yet another mount for every lens. even sony doesn't always get
third party lens support.

also keep in mind that many tokina and pentax lenses are the same.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , Bill W
wrote:

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

They do now, but I'm not sure how long they've had them.

it's relatively recent. wasn't it the pentax k-series that added swm
support? i don't think the *ist series (what an awful name) had it.

They're still
much more expensive than Sigma, and the optics generally aren't
better, at least in the lens types I've bought.

many pentax lenses were (and still are) legendary, especially the older
stuff.

unfortunately, a lot of their recent lenses are not quite as good.

Most Pentax lenses are rebranded Tokinas, I think:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokina

The most common problem with Pentax glass usually is that they sharp in
center but softer on the side. Most amateurs compose with their
important stuff dead center! And would thus not notice the soft corners.
AND THUS BE VERY HAPPY CAMPERS!!!

That said I'm very happy with my Takumar (old Pentax) experiences...

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.

Tamron would be the usual alternative, but it appears they've stopped
offering Pentax mounts. Some of the Samyang lenses are great, but they
don't offer anything I've needed. I do zero portrait stuff, and I
don't have use for their MF primes that get the great reviews.

nikon/canon are the two major players, so that's where the third party
lens makers put their efforts.

unfortunately, pentax doesn't have the user base anymore to justify
making yet another mount for every lens. even sony doesn't always get
third party lens support.

also keep in mind that many tokina and pentax lenses are the same.
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

The most common problem with Pentax glass usually is that they sharp in
center but softer on the side.

all lenses are softer in the corners.

the better lenses have very little softness in the corners while the
not so good lenses have a lot.

using a full frame lens on a dx camera uses the center portion so
corner softness is minimal to not an issue.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

The most common problem with Pentax glass usually is that they sharp in
center but softer on the side.

all lenses are softer in the corners.

Stating common knowledge again...

the better lenses have very little softness in the corners while the
not so good lenses have a lot.

And again....

using a full frame lens on a dx camera uses the center portion so
corner softness is minimal to not an issue.

Half frame sensors have half the area for the lens to resolve on and the
files does therefore contain merely half of the information that's
passed thru the lens... Not that that was the issue at hand though.
Troll!
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

using a full frame lens on a dx camera uses the center portion so
corner softness is minimal to not an issue.

Half frame sensors have half the area for the lens to resolve on and the
files does therefore contain merely half of the information that's
passed thru the lens...

nope

Not that that was the issue at hand though.
Troll!

yep.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

using a full frame lens on a dx camera uses the center portion so
corner softness is minimal to not an issue.

Half frame sensors have half the area for the lens to resolve on and the
files does therefore contain merely half of the information that's
passed thru the lens...

nope

Do care to expand on that?

Not that that was the issue at hand though.
Troll!

yep.

There should be a 12 step program for self admitted trolls out there!
--
teleportation kills

In article , android
wrote:

using a full frame lens on a dx camera uses the center portion so
corner softness is minimal to not an issue.

Half frame sensors have half the area for the lens to resolve on and the
files does therefore contain merely half of the information that's
passed thru the lens...

nope

Do care to expand on that?

what's to expand? it's nonsense.

Not that that was the issue at hand though.
Troll!

yep.

There should be a 12 step program for self admitted trolls out there!

even that won't help you.

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

using a full frame lens on a dx camera uses the center portion so
corner softness is minimal to not an issue.

Half frame sensors have half the area for the lens to resolve on and
the
files does therefore contain merely half of the information that's
passed thru the lens...

nope

Do care to expand on that?

what's to expand? it's nonsense.

Oki...

Not that that was the issue at hand though.
Troll!

yep.

There should be a 12 step program for self admitted trolls out there!

even that won't help you.

You've found one! Take it!! Take it now!!!
--
teleportation kills