Sigma Stabilization Omission Excuse

dlkeller · Nov 23, 2013

On the NEX forum there have been two posts claiming that a Sigma executive state the reason in lens stabilization was left off some A mount lenses was because of A mount users complaining about it's presence. It has been my feeling that the opposite has been true.
I'm curious as to other A mount users opinions on this. Is this just a Sigma excuse (Tamron as well possibly) or simply an ill informed Sigma spokeman?

cosmonaut · Nov 23, 2013

A mount has in body IS and no reason for it to be on the lens.

RichV · Nov 23, 2013

cosmonaut said:
A mount has in body IS and no reason for it to be on the lens.

I'm sure that's what the third parties want people to think - they don't have to put it in the lens, then, but they don't seem to charge any less. I've used a Sigma zoom with stabilization and it seems to work better than Sony's IS.

cosmonaut · Nov 23, 2013

RichV said:
cosmonaut said:

A mount has in body IS and no reason for it to be on the lens.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that's what the third parties want people to think - they don't have to put it in the lens, then, but they don't seem to charge any less. I've used a Sigma zoom with stabilization and it seems to work better than Sony's IS.

--
Rich

Well I agree Steady Shot isn't the best IS system out there. Does not the lens and body need to communicate together for lens IS to work? I wasn't aware any A mount lenses had IS built in. I'll check though. You have me curious now.

--
www.gregmccary.com

jamesbware · Nov 23, 2013

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

I have this in A mount and you have to turn SSS off in camera and turn the OS on on the lens. It works very nicely and the reviews say better than just SSS

cosmonaut · Nov 23, 2013

jamesbware said:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/

I have this in A mount and you have to turn SSS off in camera and turn the OS on on the lens. It works very nicely and the reviews say better than just SSS

Thanks for posting. That's good to know.

EinsteinsGhost · Nov 23, 2013

dlkeller said:
On the NEX forum there have been two posts claiming that a Sigma executive state the reason in lens stabilization was left off some A mount lenses was because of A mount users complaining about it's presence. It has been my feeling that the opposite has been true.
I'm curious as to other A mount users opinions on this. Is this just a Sigma excuse (Tamron as well possibly) or simply an ill informed Sigma spokeman?

AarSee · Nov 23, 2013

dlkeller said:
On the NEX forum there have been two posts claiming that a Sigma executive state the reason in lens stabilization was left off some A mount lenses was because of A mount users complaining about it's presence. It has been my feeling that the opposite has been true.
I'm curious as to other A mount users opinions on this. Is this just a Sigma excuse (Tamron as well possibly) or simply an ill informed Sigma spokeman?

Setter Dog · Nov 23, 2013

The Sigma spokesman is just spinning a lot of BS, in my opinion.

I have the non stabilized Sigma 18-250mm on my a77 and the same lens, except stabilized, on my Canon SL1. I also have an older 70-300mm Sigma for my Sony, which is stabilized.

Anyone that doesn't prefer a stabilized long zoom lens to the Sony camera IS probably hasn't used one. Frankly, I see no difference in results, but I do enjoy the steady, stable view with the stabilized lens, instead of the somewhat shaky look when using Sony IS, especially at long zoom. Sigma put the screws to Sony users, period.

Jack

moimoi · Nov 23, 2013

It is of course full BS, and people who buy the argument are just suckers.

Financial reason. Same with Tamron. Unacceptable in my opinion.

alanlinde · Nov 23, 2013

A question on the non-stabilized Sigma etc lenses: is the optical design of the stabilized lens any different (i.e. any extra glass) than for the non-stabilized version? It seems to me that they could be the same (i.e. single optical design) so that what's then missing from the Sony versions is just the driving of the element used to counteract the lens shake. Not that I'm trying to excuse Sigma but I wonder what the actual situation is.

alan

EinsteinsGhost · Nov 23, 2013

alanlinde said:
A question on the non-stabilized Sigma etc lenses: is the optical design of the stabilized lens any different (i.e. any extra glass) than for the non-stabilized version? It seems to me that they could be the same (i.e. single optical design) so that what's then missing from the Sony versions is just the driving of the element used to counteract the lens shake. Not that I'm trying to excuse Sigma but I wonder what the actual situation is.

alan

Its being penny wise, and hoping nobody will notice. And if some do, then blame it on the buyers who apparently demanded they remove a feature... for free. And that wouldn't be just Sony, but also Pentax.

It is lame of him to pass down the blame to Sony users.

tbcass · Nov 23, 2013

dlkeller said:
On the NEX forum there have been two posts claiming that a Sigma executive state the reason in lens stabilization was left off some A mount lenses was because of A mount users complaining about it's presence. It has been my feeling that the opposite has been true.
I'm curious as to other A mount users opinions on this. Is this just a Sigma excuse (Tamron as well possibly) or simply an ill informed Sigma spokesman?

I can't imagine too many people if any complained to Sigma about it's presence so I suspect pure BS. I will say this though. There have been tests conducted between two otherwise identical lenses when one had IS and the other did not. The lens without IS had better IQ.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Miss use of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

dlkeller · Nov 23, 2013

I've heard that before and must say it is the most ridiculous excuse for screwing A mount owners I have ever heard.

Lucas_ · Nov 23, 2013

tbcass said:
dlkeller said:

On the NEX forum there have been two posts claiming that a Sigma executive state the reason in lens stabilization was left off some A mount lenses was because of A mount users complaining about it's presence. It has been my feeling that the opposite has been true.
I'm curious as to other A mount users opinions on this. Is this just a Sigma excuse (Tamron as well possibly) or simply an ill informed Sigma spokesman?

Click to expand...

I can't imagine too many people if any complained to Sigma about it's presence so I suspect pure BS. I will say this though. There have been tests conducted between two otherwise identical lenses when one had IS and the other did not. The lens without IS had better IQ.

Anyway, IMHO Sigma should either keep the OS for the Sony A mount or if not, sell it at a lower price. I'd prefer to be able to choose what type of stabilization I want, depending on the use conditions. What they're doing ( also Tamron for that matter ) is in the least non-ethical.

... Lucas

Always having fun with photography

http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/

dlkeller · Nov 23, 2013

and I posted similar feelings of the BS and ripping off of A-mount owners in response on the NEX forum. Just checking to see if my feelings were mainstream and also to pass on the type BS Sigma is using to justify their decision.

tbcass · Nov 23, 2013

Lucas_ said:
Anyway, IMHO Sigma should either keep the OS for the Sony A mount or if not, sell it at a lower price. I'd prefer to be able to choose what type of stabilization I want, depending on the use conditions. What they're doing ( also Tamron for that matter ) is in the least non-ethical.

They should sell an IS version and a non IS version and sell the non IS version cheaper. Choice is good.

Lucas_ · Nov 23, 2013

dlkeller said:
and I posted similar feelings of the BS and ripping off of A-mount owners in response on the NEX forum. Just checking to see if my feelings were mainstream and also to pass on the type BS Sigma is using to justify their decision.

AMOF Sigma should think again, now that the A7/7R ff ( no SSI ) cameras are a hit, A-mount lenses with OS may become a good choice for use with the LA-EA4 adapter...!

... Lucas

Always having fun with photography

http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/

EinsteinsGhost · Nov 23, 2013

Lucas_ said:
dlkeller said:

and I posted similar feelings of the BS and ripping off of A-mount owners in response on the NEX forum. Just checking to see if my feelings were mainstream and also to pass on the type BS Sigma is using to justify their decision.

Click to expand...

AMOF Sigma should think again, now that the A7/7R ff ( no SSI ) cameras are a hit, A-mount lenses with OS may become a good choice for use with the LA-EA4 adapter...!

... Lucas

Always having fun with photography
http://www.lucaspix.smugmug.com/

Well, let us hope Tamron sees an opportunity... unless that Sigma guy also wants to claim Sony and Pentax users requested them too to drop a feature... for free.

dlkeller · Nov 23, 2013

This is current on the NEX Forum. I have a real problem believing Sony uses requested the removal.

Unfortunately we are not going to support the new Sony FE mount, you would need to use our DG line of lenses with the proper Sony Adaptor. As Sony SLT and prior Alpha cameras have stabilization in the camera many Sony users requested the removal of the OS system from our lenses and we final obliged. It would have been much easier for us to make all the lenses with OS rather than redesign them for one specific mount.

Yours Truly,

Sigma Corporation of America--

--
Dave

Sigma Stabilization Omission Excuse

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts