[mst]

Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS. Heavily decentered at 200 mm.



*sigh*



-- Markus

[Klaus]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1298400727' post='6279']

Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS. Heavily decentered at 200 mm.



*sigh*



-- Markus

[/quote]



Same procedure as every year ...

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1298400727' post='6279']

Sigma 70-200/2.8 OS. Heavily decentered at 200 mm.

[/quote]

When just looking at Sigma lenses, have you experienced more decentering in zooms over primes or vice versa? And what about other brands?



GTW

[Klaus]

[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1298414110' post='6282']

When just looking at Sigma lenses, have you experienced more decentering in zooms over primes or vice versa? And what about other brands?



GTW

[/quote]



If I had to come up with a ranking (best to worst):

1. Olympus FT

2. Nikon

3. Canon

4. Olympus MFT

5. Sony

6. Panasonic

7. Tamron

8. Pentax

9. Sigma

10. Samsung

11. Tokina



This needs to be correlated to the service quality - locally it's roughly:

1. Olympus

2. Nikon

3. Pentax

4. Canon

5. Sigma

6. Tamron

7. Panasonic

8. Sony

9. Tokina

10. Samsung



Prime lenses are, of course, better centered than zooms. We've rarely seen issues with primes actually.

The biggest problem makers are ultra-wide zoom lenses (usually issues at the image sides) and high ratio zoom lenses (center centering -> contrast).

[youpii]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1298443463' post='6286']

Prime lenses are, of course, better centered than zooms. We've rarely seen issues with primes actually.

The biggest problem makers are ultra-wide zoom lenses (usually issues at the image sides) and high ratio zoom lenses (center centering -> contrast).

[/quote]



From your reviews, stabilized lenses seem to have more problems

[Klaus]

[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1298444314' post='6287']

From your reviews, stabilized lenses seem to have more problems

[/quote]



Yes, higher complexity is never a road without impacts.

[Guest]

This must be something that Sigma have factored into their business model. I find it shocking how many important websites publish negative reviews of Sigma lenses, but at the same time they are still selling plenty of products.

I guess it's like McDonalds. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[miro]

No wonder it is written in lens name

- OS - Out of Symmetry.



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='<_<' />

[Guest]

[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1298462090' post='6296']

This must be something that Sigma have factored into their business model. I find it shocking how many important websites publish negative reviews of Sigma lenses, but at the same time they are still selling plenty of products.

I guess it's like McDonalds. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

[/quote]

Or rather for people who like to gamble. I personally managed to get a decent copy of 17-70mm, then absolutely cr*ppy 100-300mm, then surprisingly brilliant 30mm f/1.4, and now I'm not really sure whether it's a pattern and I should buy another sigma or not <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':unsure:' />

[mst]

[quote name='Lomskij' timestamp='1298488830' post='6299']

now I'm not really sure whether it's a pattern

[/quote]



The gambling is the pattern <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



-- Markus