01-06-2015, 07:55 AM
I forgot that one:
Well, talking about "stealing" is talking about Japanese (and lately Chinese and Korean) manufacturers who stole a lot knowledge from German manufacturers and after that protected and improved their copy work.
In Sigma's case: They improved Nikon's VR quite a bit. I can't judge if they improved also the focus drives but I know they do reverse design - how else could they come to equal AF qualities, at least in terms of accuracy? Sigma's lenses are not worse than Nikon's (I'm talking about the Art series, can't say much about Contemporary or Sports). And the end-result is better than what Nikon has to offer at a remarkably lower price. Of course, development and design does cost a lot of money and just copying it appears to be unfair.
I'm just saying Sigma's not only copying, I see improvements in lots of aspects and after all, coming so close to an Otus at ¼ of the price plus implementing an (as Zeiss tries to make it look impossible because of the lack of accuray) AF is a performance of it's own.
The adjustment via dock is unique - Sigma didn't copy that bit!
The mount changing service is unique - every other lenses you have to buy again when changing your system
The lens testing with Foveon sensors is unique and each lens is tested (however, I read quite a bit about lenses to be changed and have no good explanation for that)
The lenses are made in Japan - Nikon goes to China and Thailand and is still more expensive than Sigma.
I wouldn't have become a Sigma owner, if Nikon did as good as Sigma on their designs of the 35 and 50 mm. Also, Nikon has nothing to contribute in fast wide angle zoom (18-35/1.8). But optically, the Nikkors 35 and 58 are weaker wide open and still more expensive. And since Nikon does neither guarantee weather resistance nor defines against which kind of weather their sealing should resist - where's the point in paying so much more? Same goes for the 24-120/4 vs. 24-105/4 from Sigma: It's worse and more expensive. So I welcome Sigma giving Nikon a good reason to improve. Unfortunately this takes time and I see Nikon still behaving a bit too arrogant...
Quote:That said as well, I must admit I have a bit of a personal bias or reservation against sigma due to years of scummy tactics in the way of design theft. I haven't misrepresented the performance of their lens - but they stole their image stabilizer design from nikon, they stole their autofocus motor design from canon, and they stole their design method for the 35mm and 50mm "A" lenses from Zeiss.
Well, talking about "stealing" is talking about Japanese (and lately Chinese and Korean) manufacturers who stole a lot knowledge from German manufacturers and after that protected and improved their copy work.
In Sigma's case: They improved Nikon's VR quite a bit. I can't judge if they improved also the focus drives but I know they do reverse design - how else could they come to equal AF qualities, at least in terms of accuracy? Sigma's lenses are not worse than Nikon's (I'm talking about the Art series, can't say much about Contemporary or Sports). And the end-result is better than what Nikon has to offer at a remarkably lower price. Of course, development and design does cost a lot of money and just copying it appears to be unfair.
I'm just saying Sigma's not only copying, I see improvements in lots of aspects and after all, coming so close to an Otus at ¼ of the price plus implementing an (as Zeiss tries to make it look impossible because of the lack of accuray) AF is a performance of it's own.
The adjustment via dock is unique - Sigma didn't copy that bit!
The mount changing service is unique - every other lenses you have to buy again when changing your system
The lens testing with Foveon sensors is unique and each lens is tested (however, I read quite a bit about lenses to be changed and have no good explanation for that)
The lenses are made in Japan - Nikon goes to China and Thailand and is still more expensive than Sigma.
I wouldn't have become a Sigma owner, if Nikon did as good as Sigma on their designs of the 35 and 50 mm. Also, Nikon has nothing to contribute in fast wide angle zoom (18-35/1.8). But optically, the Nikkors 35 and 58 are weaker wide open and still more expensive. And since Nikon does neither guarantee weather resistance nor defines against which kind of weather their sealing should resist - where's the point in paying so much more? Same goes for the 24-120/4 vs. 24-105/4 from Sigma: It's worse and more expensive. So I welcome Sigma giving Nikon a good reason to improve. Unfortunately this takes time and I see Nikon still behaving a bit too arrogant...