Canon's notorious kit lens, compared to the $100 Sigma 18-..

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <835ve1tu18ob5djbb7bo3is7hbascb5a68@4ax.com>, RichA
<none@none.com> wrote:

> I noticed Sigma has a cheap zoom with the same characteristics,
> it's inexpensive, it's plastic and has the same focal range.
> Has anyone compared it against the Canon? This could be one
> case where an aftermarket lens of equal value is superior.
> It's price would also indicate there is no "subsidy" happening
> with Canon's kit lens if bought with a Rebel XT since the Sigma
> is roughly the same price.

Sigma + "cheap" ... yeah, you got it.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <pa90f1ds76n1p362nfpe59146k7g7op197@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
wrote:

> Randall, you can save bandwidth and leave your name out of your posts.
> We know who you are, just by the content.

I'm not the only one in these newsgroups who is critical of Sigma
products.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <020820051935556460%rag@nospam.techline.com>,
Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <pa90f1ds76n1p362nfpe59146k7g7op197@4ax.com>, <JPS@no.komm>
>wrote:
>
>> Randall, you can save bandwidth and leave your name out of your posts.
>> We know who you are, just by the content.
>
>I'm not the only one in these newsgroups who is critical of Sigma
>products.

Sorry. "Content and style".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><