Comments on: Official: Sigma to raise prices on February 1st

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:32:10 +0000

I have owned a good number of Pentax, Nikon and Sigma lenses, I have had one bad Sigma when I started out it was a kit with a Pentax and was replaced immediately.. Now for Nikon, which I have owned less lenses of so far I have had a faulty 80-200/2.8 which was a nightmare to get a refund/repair on and a horrible 55-200mm vr kit.. so for me so far about 1/4 of the Nikon lenses I have purchased new have been faulty…

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:26:57 +0000

I agree the Sigma 50/1.4 trumps the Nikon versions, esp in bokeh… I have both the Sigma 150mm and Nikon 105vr, the Nikon is shorter, more expensive, just as heavy, softer wide open (when used for tele) and much flatter colour/contrast most of the time (reminds me of the plastic Canon look) and is going to be sold…

But don’t bother trying to convince fanboys, if it doesn’t say Nikon/Canon/Pentax whatever on it, then it isn’t worth considering, whether they actually have experience with it or not..

By: John

John — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:21:50 +0000

I think the 150mm macro from Sigma is an excellent lens, but whatever… you like CA and PF then buy Nikon only…

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:48:04 +0000

That is an amazingly sharp lens – great for those tiny-flower-on-blurred-background shots. I’ve heard rave reviews for the 120-300mm/f2.8 as well.

It’s not all about money, though – the 18-55 cheapie is a great lens for IR work.

By: MB

MB — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:48:18 +0000

Those are all great pictures, really fantastic and I do like them very much.
I am not saying Sigma lenses are poorly designed, on a contrary they are great alternative to more expensive brands. I personally use Sigma products and I am very happy with the ones I have. It seams that some of us are not talking from experience but as a fans of one brand or another.
The problem with Sigma, in my experience at least, is that they have too high percentage of faulty copies. One out of every 3 to 5, deepening on model, are no good and returned or replaced by the customers, and that is something Sigma should improve on really.

By: Poblav

Poblav — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:42:38 +0000

Why would you buy an Accord? – an automotive Sigma lens.

By: ronin

ronin — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:45:23 +0000

Kiki nailed it. Unless the raw materials, components, labor, and assembly are all done in Japan, they benefit from a depreciation in non-Yen currencies.

Of course, Japan is in a terrible recession
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=aQboi41NmpiE&refer=home
with exports plunging. A sure way to shore up exports and increase trade is to raise prices.

Sigma is not alone, and I’m not talking about Nikon. Even Honda just raised prices again on their Accord a few weeks ago, despite plummeting sales, and despite Accords being manufactured in the US.

They are wishing and hoping they have pricing power. They do not.

By: Kiki

Kiki — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 06:28:30 +0000

Is Sigma HQ based in Japan or where?

If they are Japan-based, that makes no sense if they purchase their raw materials in Yen that that would have to raise prices. Their stronger Yen should be able to purchase more materials, that is, especially if the raw materials are from countries with devalued currencies.

Where does Sigma make their lenses? Japan? China? Taiwan?

By: DNHJR

DNHJR — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:04:23 +0000

To the Sigma sucks guy.

Your right Sigma does sucks. Look at these pic’s from the Sigma 800mm lens, http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=209018

Man they are awful.

By: DNHJR

DNHJR — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:37:48 +0000

I don’t think we really care what you think. You keep posting the same BS under other names.

I think the post needs to be closed.

By: DNHJR

DNHJR — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:35:18 +0000

I for one have never had a problem with the Sigma lenses I have bought. All have worked fine. Even the 30mm f/1.4 I had was fine. Hell I have had more problems with Nikon lenses then Sigma. My 18-200mm vr had it’s SWM replaced as did my 300mm f/4 and now my 17-35mm f/2.8 is starting to make the death squeak.

So, things happen and life goes on.

By: DNHJR

DNHJR — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:27:44 +0000

Well I don’t know about this goof ball sigma hater. If you don’t like it thats fine. It’s really easy, don’t buy sigma then.

AlI I know is I have the 150mm Micro lens from SIGMA and it’s one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:06:16 +0000

LOL!

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:05:47 +0000

as I mentioned bellow – Sigma is of interest because it fills the gaps in Nikon’s product line

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:55:56 +0000

The reason why people go for Sigma is to fill the gaps in Nikon’s lens availability. If Nikon releases the lenses we are all waiting for, Sigma will probably be out of business.

By: U R So Wrong!

U R So Wrong! — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:44:10 +0000

Not polarized. The company is crap and makes crap products. Anyone who buys them should go to prison and anyone who uses them should stop and just draw the image they see – it’ll be better.

There is no Sigma product worth your money… save a little longer, get the Nikon product and have so much more fun and pleasure when you have it.

By: U R So Wrong!

U R So Wrong! — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:42:23 +0000

YES… YES… YES!!!! At last… someone who thinks the correct thoughts.

By: U R So Wrong!

U R So Wrong! — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:41:37 +0000

Posted as a reply to W Blake but it is not showing up. It is very important that everyone knows what to think so I shall repost.

Yes, exactly… its not, so why bother with Sigma? No the 50 – 500mm does not compare favourably with the 80-400 (which is about to be updated again anyway so will be even farther ahead – like Nikon really worries about Sigma! Jeez!)

Can you justify any of your opinions?

Can you justify having AN opinion?

Sorry, tested the 30mm Sigma – hated it, felt cheap, very poor focussing, bad mount, very soft for a prime lens! Infact, now I think about it, it truly is an appalling lens – more suited to be a door stop or book-end.

Oh, so there is a reason for the company? Oh yes, to extract cash from amateurs who don’t really know what they are buying.

“Affordable” is never a good reason to buy anything. A Ford is affordable, I wouldn’t trade in my M3 for one though.

By: U R So Wrong!

U R So Wrong! — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:39:45 +0000

Can you justify any of your opinions?

Can you justify having AN opinion?

Oh, so there is a reason for the company? Oh yes, to extract cash from amateurs who don’t really know what they are buying.

“Affordable” is never a good reason to buy anything. A Ford is affordable, I wouldn’t trade in my M3 for one though.

By: MB

MB — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:36:32 +0000

In my experience Sigma quality is getting lower and lower, especially in last two years.
It seams that their quality control is near zero.
I was wondering if we could organize a survey. How many of you guys actually bought Sigma lenses in last two years, and how many of them were faulty?