Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2008, 7:11 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Great - Please knock down the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 some more...
I have this lens, and it's my favorite on the Canon's but have found that its price has significantly increased since I bought it: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=150405

I wished they'll discount it now (or someone get rid of it used) with all the bad publicity so I can get another copy for my Nikon since I dearly missed the lens 300 f/2.8 bokeh and its 600 f/5.6 capability (with a 2x):
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=11
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2008, 8:08 AM   #12
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

NHL,

You and I both have good copies of that lens as well as good copies of the 70-200 2.8 (I've since sold my copy). BUT, here's my thought. Our copies of those lenses are older versions - non-DG etc. I know Mark1616 had a newer copy of the 70-200 2.8 that didn't perform as well. I'm honestly wondering that if, in addition to raising their prices by about 40%, Sigma hasn't also cut back on quality control - or possibly QC is more of an issue because they've increased the volumes of their production.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2008, 8:52 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

This sounds more like QA than QC, and QA is harder to fix.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2008, 8:54 AM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
This sounds more like QA than QC, and QA is harder to fix.
Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control.

In your opinion, what is the difference between the two?
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 2, 2008, 7:10 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
... I'm honestly wondering that if, in addition to raising their prices by about 40%, Sigma hasn't also cut back on quality control - or possibly QC is more of an issue because they've increased the volumes of their production.
Anything is a possibility; However, I believe it's pretty gutsy for a Co. to guarantee their EX series 4 years if they can't control their QA/QC wouldn't you think?

Firstly which financially makes more sense? Get your QA/QC under control or managing the much more labor intensive process of returns and costly reworks (for four years), especially now with the higher demands for theses products? It behooves everyone to get the product right the 1st time out correct?
Secondly if this is such a major problem, this lens should be all over Ebay and their prices shouldn't be increasing (or I'll be the 1st in-line to get one :-))

IMO there's a more logical explanation that us users do not see vs what's reported @ Lensrentals, and I'll keep the experiences of the renters out, but I do believe that Mark1616, JohnG and I use our Sigma lenses pretty extensively:
What's not taken into account is for every rental a lens take two trips and who know how theses things are handled in the mail? What I do know is my 120-300 f/2.8 zoom is much more complex in construction than a prime, and their heavy moveable zoom elements will not handle shocks as well as fix optical blocks in my 500L for example.
It doesn't help Sigma either that they are the ones with the most unique zooms extending to 500 (read heavy)

-> What's fairer to compare is the performance of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with comparable weight and construction to the Canon's which sadly they do not have the data for... :shock:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2008, 1:10 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
This sounds more like QA than QC, and QA is harder to fix.
Quality Assurance vs. Quality Control.

In your opinion, what is the difference between the two?
Briefly:

Quality Control is making sure the products are assembled properly.

Quality Assurance is making sure the products are designed properly.

Quality Control is making sure the product works.

Quality Assurance is making sure the product can and will work.

If the engine falls out of your car because the engine mounts were installed improperly, that's a Quality Control problem.

If the engine falls out of your car because the engine mounts broke, that's a Quality Assurance problem.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2008, 11:00 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
-> What's fairer to compare is the performance of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with comparable weight and construction to the Canon's which sadly they do not have the data for... :shock:
Actually, they do. In the later post at LensRentals, they include data on the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS as an example of a lens that is more reliable than they expect. What they don't include is the data on the Sigma 70-200/2.8, presumably because it isn't one of the lenses they've had alot of trouble with.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 PM.